Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I think most of us knew that discussions were going on of that nature. We knew the deal. The deal is what all of you have agreed to. If you reach an accord, you are committed to vote for the deal on the floor, even if you agree with the amendment that is brought up. I was not prepared to tie my hands in that fashion. I submitted ideas because some Members were concerned about it. I don't say everything was blocked totally, but the final print analysis was not available to those not participating and who didn't agree to sign on to whatever was produced between you, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Menendez, and the others who participated in the agreement.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I have been here since 1 o'clock and, all of a sudden, I start speaking and they want me to look at an agreement. How many minutes do I have left?

Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to.

Mr. SESSIONS. Let me wrap up and then I will look at it. I am concerned that there is a desire to move this bill through quickly. That is the goal, just to pass something. I am worried if we pass something that is not right, it will not get any better, especially after going through conference committee, where the Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House will appoint the conference committee majority and they will decide what changes get made in conference. I am worried about the legislation. Let me tell you one thing that is causing some of us to get our backs up a little bit about this. The group that met to decide how to write this bill and put it together--that group made a pact with one another. What they said is this represents the final, real agreement between us. When the bill hits the floor, if anybody offers an amendment that disagrees with anything significant you and I have agreed to, we will all get together and oppose it. You have heard them say it publicly on the floor repeatedly. This goes against the agreement. This goes against the grand bargain. This is a killer amendment because we all got to stick together. ``We'' who? We have to stick together and cannot accept any change. Let me tell you, this is the Senate. The group that met was not the full Senate. I have had members of that grand bargain tell me: Jeff, that is a good amendment, but I cannot vote for it because it is not in our agreement. I agree with you, Jeff, but I cannot vote for that because it wasn't part of our agreement. What kind of legislation is that? So we have that factor going here. I am getting tired of it. I wasn't in on the grand compromise; neither were the American people. They weren't in on that deal.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the legislation before us deals with one of the most important subjects any nation should concern itself with, which is immigration. The American people care about it. Many people are watching it extremely closely. They are cynical about Congress. In 1986, Congress passed a major bill that was supposed to fix so many problems, all of those things they are aware of, and the problem has only gotten worse. They have also discovered that our leadership in Washington, the executive branch and the Congress, really is not committed to creating a lawful system. Some people think it can't be done. Some people think Congress just doesn't want to do it. Some people think it would interrupt the flow of labor. For whatever reason, the American people have concluded this Congress is not to be trusted with this bill. We have had for decades--in the full decade I have been in the Senate and before--Members asserting they are going to fix these problems at the border, and nothing gets fixed. We arrested a million persons last year--a million who were illegally entering the United States. What kind of broken system is that? So people are not going to go for--they are not going to bite a promise in a poke. They are not going to take a pig in a poke. They are not going to buy into a bill that is not going to work. They expect us this time to do something that works. I really believe we can. This is not impossible. The more I have studied it, the more confident I am that we can make progress and create a bill that would actually end the unlawfulness and create a flow of workers to meet our real needs, without having so many workers that the wages of Americans are reduced; that we tilt, as Canada and Australia and other nations have, to a system that focuses more on high-skilled workers. So those are the things that are important. Well, how did we get in this fix with this bill that, I suggest, is losing steam? Like that mackerel put out in the sunshine, as the days go by, it begins to have an odor. Well, it started in an unusual way. Normally, a bill is introduced--especially a big piece of legislation--and it is assigned to a committee. The committee brings in expert witnesses and hears testimony. Depending on the complexity of the bill, it could be the subject of many weeks of testimony and hearings. For example, on the asbestos bill in Judiciary Committee, I bet we had 25 hearings. We had all kinds of meetings outside. We brought in experts and we talked to them about how to solve this very complex and important issue of asbestos in America. I think if the American people were to rate asbestos compared to immigration, they put it on a scale of 2 or 3 and immigration on a scale of 9 out of 10. What happened? A group of Senators met, along with special interest groups and activist groups that want everybody to come to America, and business groups who want cheap labor. They all met and talked to a bunch of politicians. They didn't have a Border Patrol professional there. Mr. Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, was in and out of the room. They were not involved in the kind of public fact-finding they should have been. They skipped the committee entirely. Last year's bill--the one the House refused to even consider--that passed this Senate, a bill that was fatally flawed and would never have accomplished what it promised to accomplish, should never have become law. That bill was introduced on the floor of the Senate. For about a week, that was the bill. It sort of sat there, but everybody knew there were secret meetings going on among good Senators, good people, who were trying to figure out what kind of bill they were going to write. So Senator Reid pushed them and pushed them and made it come out before they were ready. They plopped it down in the Senate the Tuesday before Memorial Day recess week. They said it was 300 pages. But it was written in small print, and not the legislative format in which legislation is supposed to be introduced. Had it been printed in the proper form, it would have been nearly a thousand pages. It is over 300 as it is. They plopped this bill down, and nobody knew what was in it except those who had been in the room. It is obvious when they announced it, they didn't even know everything that was in it. This is a big matter. It is very important. Now we want to rush this through. We had Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday--Tuesday being the day the bill or the substitute hit the floor, the week before Memorial Day. We did nothing on Friday, except a few of us came down to the floor and talked. The next Monday--Monday of this week--all we did was talk. This week, we have been on the bill for a couple of days so far, and a few amendments have been heard. Mr. President, I had 15 minutes. I see the majority leader here. I know he is busy and his time is short. I respect him. If he needs to make an announcement, I will be glad to yield to him for that purpose.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am sorry.

Mr. SESSIONS. Please give me a few moments to review this because I have some concerns. Amendment 1313

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was looking for whoever had it. They disappeared. And also Senator Grassley has to look at it.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am saying that I am not going to be able to support a lot of amendments that are rushed up here to receive votes when Senators have very little time to review them. I think this is important. If we are going through a process just to say we have a bunch of votes, that is one thing, but I think we need an intelligent discussion about these amendments.

Mr. SESSIONS. Good. I think the only disagreement we have is perhaps time, and I can make a suggestion on that. Is there someone authorized to talk to me about it? I am looking for Mr. Schiappa.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to say a few words. I heard colleagues who have spoken. I have listened at length to some very eloquent remarks evoking sincere feelings and emotions. I certainly respect that. We all in this body are great advocates. We disagree sometimes. I suggest that we had a couple of problems with the bill, and that is why the bill failed. There are a lot of problems with the legislation itself, and there are a lot of problems that the American people had with it. The bottom line is, the American people did not have confidence that we were moving legislation that would effectively accomplish what all these great remarks we heard earlier promised it would do. I don't think there is any other person in this body who has personally prosecuted an immigration case. But this Senator has. I did that years ago. I am familiar with the process. I am familiar with the system and the difficulties, including how overwhelmed it has been and why it is not working. The American people were expecting us to fix it. In my opinion, after studying the bill at great length, analyzing it in detail, I don't believe it would have worked any better than the bill in 1986. So I made up my mind last year and I made up my mind this year that I was not going to support legislation that is not going to work. I was not going to support the 1986 bill. I was not going to vote for a bill that promises amnesty today and law enforcement in the future, and the amnesty occurs but the law enforcement does not. That is the fundamental thing. Today, somebody handed me some polling data that sheds a little light on this weeks events. The article, posted on the Rasmussen Reports website is titled ``Support for an immigration bill falls.'' A poll conducted Monday and Tuesday night found that 23 percent of voters now support the bill, while 50 percent are opposed. Two-to-one opposed to the bill. We have heard people say we need to do something, even if it is the wrong something or even if it will not work. We have heard the claim that the American people just want us to do something over and over again. That sounds good, I will admit. We certainly do have serious problems with our immigration system. The Rasmussen Report says, however, that ``in the face of public opposition, some supporters of the legislation have argued that the compromise may not be perfect, but doing something is better than nothing. Voters have a different view--a solid plurality believes it would be better for the country to pass no bill at this time rather than letting the Senate compromise become law.'' And that is why people's phones have been ringing off the hook, because we are given a responsibility to deal with an important issue. I love my colleagues. I tease them a lot. I call the group of them that wrote this bill the masters of the universe. They all met in some secret room somewhere, and they started plotting, working, and trying to do the right thing. They met and met and worked and worked, and they decided that they were going to tell America what we needed. They were going to figure it all out, and just explain to us what the real facts were and how this thing ought to be handled. But, they are a bunch of politicians--good people but still they are politicians. They didn't invite anybody from the Border Patrol into their meetings to give them advice as to what is actually working on the borders. They didn't invite interior agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to tell them how to fix the interior immigration problems. They did have, of course, direct and regular contact with big business. They had direct and regular contact with special advocacy groups, who had their list of demands. They were actively seeking out ways to gain the political support of this group and that group because that is what they think legislation is sometimes. But they forgot about the American people. I just want to say that on this bill, the American people watched this process closely. On this bill, the American people kept up with it. On this bill, the American people were expecting this Congress to pass legislation that would significantly and dramatically improve the colossally broken system we have. They didn't expect them to pass a bill that would double illegal immigration. They didn't expect them to be offering to pass a bill that would, according to the Congressional Budget Office just a few days ago, only reduce illegal immigration by 25 percent. After all of the things they were asking us to accept in this bill, we were only going to get a 25-percent reduction in illegal immigration? The American people didn't expect that the deal makers would offer a bill up that would say that after President Bush put the National Guard on the border, somebody who came across the border and ran past the National Guard and got into our country before January 1 of this year would be given amnesty and put on a path to citizenship in this country. That is not principled. How can we ever assert the rule of law in America if we make a statement to the world that the border is closed, we call out the National Guard, and then anybody who runs by there and gets in, we say: OK, home free, home free, now you are on a path to citizenship. That is not good. Last year, the bill said that anybody who got in after January 7, 2004, was not eligible for amnesty. This year, they moved the qualifying date to January 1, 2007. Why? I guess it was a political deal. I guess they didn't ask the American people what they thought was moral and just and fair and responsible and compassionate. The deal makers decided that on a political basis it made sense, I suppose. I am told that this is what it was--give here and give there and before you know it you have a bill. I suggested last year that we have a legitimate guest worker program, and I was so happy to hear that promises were made this year that we would have one that could actually work. I was excited about that. But as I began to examine it I didn't believe it would be a practical solution the way it was written. I emphasized last year that people in a temporary worker program should not come for 3 years, as last year's bill did, with their family, and be able to extend again and again and then be expected to leave the country sometime in the future. So this bill was better in that regard, but it still allowed families to come with the person--20 percent--and others to come and visit, creating all kinds of possibilities for overstays in that regard. That is why the Congressional Budget Office projected a very large increase in visa overstays as a result of the way this bill was written in that regard. I was very intrigued and excited that my suggestion last year--that we model our legislation on the Canadian system--was being considered. The administration said they liked this merit-based system. They liked the point system. They thought we ought to go more in that direction. Canada admits 60 percent of its people through immigration under a competitive, skill-based system because the Canadians have learned and have proven, if you talk to them, as I have, that persons who come in with any college, with a skill, and with a good work history--and if they speak English or French, they give extra points for that--very seldom go on welfare, very seldom take benefits from the government, and become properly productive citizens who pay taxes and become good citizens for Canada. We have, at this time, only a mere 13 percent of our people coming in on the basis of their skills. Today, the overwhelming majority come in based on chain migration and family connections. I thought we were going to make a real move toward the Canadian system with this bill. I know Senator Kyl worked his heart out to try to do that, but when the final compromise was reached, he couldn't get a better deal than this, that this merit system would really not take effect for 8 years, and during the interim period, there would be a surge of chain migration numbers for 8 years, perhaps triple the current rate. To me, that was a political compromise too great. That is something I couldn't support. Let me just speak briefly about how we came to the final vote tonight. I think the majority leader, Harry Reid, maybe wanted to get rid of this bill from the start. He has now begun to say it is President Bush's bill, but it was the Senate's bill. He called it up without a committee hearing. It is Senator Reid's bill, if you want to know the truth. He brought it up under rule XIV. It didn't even go to committee. The majority leader has that power. He called it up directly to the floor. Yes, it had bipartisan support, but he was the one who enabled that to occur. The new bill was introduced after they called up the old bill. Then Reid tried to substitute a completely new bill, and then we debated that with not a great deal of time. For example, I had 20, 30 amendments filed. I got one amendment up for a vote. I tried to bring up a number of other amendments, and every time I have tried to bring one up, it was objected to. Senator Cornyn, one of the finest, most capable lawyers in the Senate, a former attorney general of Texas and justice on the Texas Supreme Court, got one amendment up for a vote. Senator Elizabeth Dole, from North Carolina, had an amendment dealing with drunk drivers--an important amendment. She tried to bring hers up, and it was objected to. This afternoon, there was only one amendment pending that actually had been called up and had been introduced, filed, and made pending. So we had this discussion about having some votes this afternoon, and then we were told that we were going to re-vote on cloture tonight. What I want to say to my colleagues and anybody who is listening is that if cloture had been obtained tonight, after a half dozen more votes, no other amendments would have been pending. So we simply had a little disagreement this afternoon. We said that we wanted to have other amendments pending so that if cloture were invoked, we would have amendments that could be voted on post cloture. In fact, we were working to pare down over 200 amendments that had been filed, to bring in those amendments to under 20 amendments, maybe even lower. That is when the majority leader decided to call another cloture vote, and that is the vote that failed, I would note, on a bipartisan basis. While 7 Republicans voted for cloture, 12 Democrats voted against the majority leader and against cloture. We had not had sufficient time to debate this bill. We had not had sufficient time to have amendments. It will be almost a thousand pages when put in bill language. That is not a bill that can be passed in a couple of weeks. It needs more debate than that, and it was never taken to committee. The committee did not hear it, and no amendments were offered there. It was brought directly to the floor. So I would just say that I think we do have a responsibility to treat people who come to our country, even those who come illegally, compassionately, fairly, justly, and according to good principles. We have a responsibility to create a legal system that works in America. I am afraid this bill didn't do it. That is my problem with the bill. I think that the American people agreed. If we come back again, the bill needs to be a vastly improved product. I would be glad to suggest some ways to make it better. In fact, I have before, and I will again. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to remember the life of Mark C. Smith, who was one of the most resourceful and brilliant entrepreneurs in the history of the State of Alabama. His departing this life on March 27, 2007, leaves an irreplaceable loss for his family, his home town of Huntsville, the State of Alabama, and the Nation. Few men in the history of America's free enterprise system have attained such lofty heights in business as Mark Smith. Starting with very little and coming from humble family beginnings, Smith invented, designed, and managed companies under his ownership and tutelage to heights that draw the envy of the corporate world. Mark was raised in Birmingham, graduating in 1958 from Woodlawn High School. He was the son of parents who were both teachers. During high school, Smith became a ham radio buff and developed an interest in science. Upon winning first place in a science fair at Woodlawn, Smith's prize was a handshake from Dr. Von Braun. The young high school graduate saw this as a grand opportunity and boldly asked Dr. Von Braun for a summer job. Smith went on to attend the Georgia Institute of Technology, and over the next three summers he worked at NASA in Huntsville and Cape Canaveral. During the summer preceding his last year of college, he was employed with SCI Systems, Inc., and upon earning an electrical engineering degree from Georgia Tech in 1962, he began full-time employment with SCI as an engineering manager. In 1969 his entrepreneurial spirit took hold, and he left SCI to cofound Universal Data Systems, UDS--out of his home garage and with $30,000 in savings. UDS, the first data communications company in Alabama, was quite successful and in 1979, with annual revenues of about $20 million, was sold to Motorola. At that time, Smith became president of the UDS-Motorola Division. In 1985, the proven visionary was ready to take on yet another challenge; he left UDS and cofounded ADTRAN, Inc. As CEO and chairman, Smith led the startup company of seven employees to become a publicly traded company in 1994, the same year ADTRAN announced a $50 million expansion of its facility. Today, with more than 1,600 employees and annual revenues approaching $500 million, the company is a worldwide leader in providing high-speed network access products to the telecommunications equipment industry. Mark did not live to see the ultimate heights that the electronic communication industry will attain in the future. Entrepreneurs and engineers will someday produce faster and better equipment, but when they do they will use as a pattern some of Mark Smith's ideas, inventions, and procedures.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his courtesy, and I would just like to make some general comments about the earned-income tax credit and why I think this is important. I ask that I be notified in 20 minutes if I have gone that far. The earned-income tax credit is one of the major--the major, in fact--transfer programs in the Federal Government. It is a payment of monies, in reality. It doesn't work the way it was intended, but in reality, it provides a substantial check every year to persons who are low-wage workers. It is for people who are trying to do well but are not making much money, so they give them a check to encourage work. I have felt for some time--and maybe I will talk with Senator Kennedy one day about it, and we might reach an agreement on this--I think it would be much better if tax credit were paid along with your paycheck. It is designed to increase--it is allowed, under the EITC, but we don't do it that way. You file a return, and the next year, after you have completed your year's work, they send you a large check. On average, the recipient receives a benefit of almost $1,800 a year; that is, the people who qualify receive that amount. Again, the people who qualify are individuals who are working in lower wage jobs, which, in fact, are the types of jobs most of the 12 million illegal aliens are doing. They are working at low-wage jobs. Therefore, we can expect there will be a disproportionate number of persons who will qualify for this tax credit. Now, the tax credit was designed to encourage Americans to work-- American citizens. When it started in the 1970s under President Nixon, they thought there had to be some incentive so that you would get more money by working than by drawing welfare, or else you would just stay home and draw welfare. There still is a problem with that, in reality. But this bill was supposed to incentivize work, and that is why it was drafted the way it was and has continued to grow and become quite substantial. But, again, it was designed to take care of American citizens, our own people. Now, we are into an immigration reform bill where we have 12 million people here who came into our country illegally. They are being considered for amnesty. They are going to be allowed to stay in this country and be given that right. Maybe some didn't want it or didn't expect it, but they will be given the right to stay here. But under present law, because they are not legally here, they are certainly not entitled to the earned-income tax credit. Unless they file fraudulent documents and receive it fraudulently, they don't get an earned-income tax credit. So we say we are going to have a $1,000 fine that people must pay as part of a punishment for being in the country illegally, and it is not really amnesty because they pay a fine, but in reality, the fine can be paid on the installment plan, and only $200 has to be paid the first year when you apply for the Z visa. So under the bill, as I understand it--I think there is little dispute about it--as soon as this bill passes, everybody can come in and get a probationary legal status in America, and then before long, they are entitled to apply for and receive a Z visa that is good for 4 years. It can be renewed indefinitely. At some point, they can apply, if they so choose, for legal permanent residency. What I want to tell my colleagues is that not only will we be providing amnesty to the persons who came into our country illegally for a $200 payment, we will be giving them--even for the temporary probationary status and the Z visa, prior to legal permanent residency, the earned-income tax credit. I think that is quite a step. Indeed, you pay $200 for your fine, and you file your tax return next year and get a $1,800 check from Uncle Sam. Don't be mistaken, the earned-income tax credit is for people who don't pay income tax. It is a gift from Uncle Sam. It is meant to encourage Americans to get out and work, not to encourage people to come into our country illegally to gain this benefit. So I just would say to my colleagues, this is an important principle. According to the Congressional Budget Office--and they run the numbers on this--it is the largest single benefit program and cost of this bill in the first 10 years--not in the outyears; there are some big costs that aren't being calculated. But in the first 10 years, this is the largest direct single benefit. Over the 2008 to 2017 period-- Ten years-- the Joint Tax Committee estimates that S.A. 1150 would increase outlays for refundable tax credits by about $13 billion, the largest direct spending effect of the legislation. Enacting 1150 would increase the amount of refundable tax credits mainly by increasing the number of resident aliens for income tax purposes. In other words, it would increase the number of people eligible. Resident aliens are taxed in the same manner as U.S. citizens and thus could qualify for the refundable tax credit. They are taxed, but they are not going to be paying high taxes because many of them are lower income people, but they will get the tax credit. So my amendment would reduce the bill's direct spending cost, the cost to the American taxpayer. Who pays the big check they get every year? Who pays the check they get every year? They are not paying it. It is the taxpayers, the American taxpayers. It is an additional reward on top of the amnesty that is provided. So my amendment would reduce the estimated cost of this legislation by nearly half, No. 1, and it is right, and it is fair. Now, last year, my amendment--which I believed was justified, but this Congress didn't agree--said you would not receive the earned- income tax credit until you became a citizen. Why not? How is an illegal alien able to come here, not expecting the earned-income tax credit, and then be rewarded with it by our government? That never made sense to me. But in this legislation--because I think it is important, and we can make a big difference here--in this legislation I have offered, it would simply say that during the time you have a probationary visa or a Z visa up until the time you become a legal permanent resident, you wouldn't get the earned-income tax credit. How much simpler is it than that? I hope my colleagues will see that this is a perfectly logical amendment, and I would suggest it reflects on our mindset, our approach to this entire process, if we are not able to draw this kind of line as we go through passing--or attempting to pass--this historic piece of legislation. I really think we should give thought to that and ask ourselves what right does somebody who came into our country illegally, who has been here maybe for a number of years, expect to receive this benefit, where we say: OK, we are just going to give up; we are not going to make you go home; we will let you stay; you can have amnesty. By the way, you start receiving the earned-income tax credit of $2,000. How much sense does that make? I don't think that is good public policy. It raises questions about how serious we are about defining our immigration system in a way that works, that has bright lines, and carries out a logical policy. But I understand that people are determined to see that this goes forward. Now, Senator Reid has offered an amendment that is going to be a side-by-side. This amendment is very short, and basically all the amendment says is--I don't have it before me. Our majority leader, our Democratic majority leader, is offering an amendment that says: Well, we will comply with all the current laws of the IRS, and you don't get the earned-income tax credit if you are illegal. Well, of course. That means zero--nothing. I have to tell my colleagues, I am amazed at that amendment, unless I have missed something entirely, because that is what it is all about. They won't be illegal when they are given the probationary status or the Z visa status. They become legal and would get it. I was going to meet with some of the White House people to discuss this issue. I don't think they understood it that way, and I am not sure the President understood that this was actually going to happen under the legislation. But if this bill becomes law, they would get it. So you say: Well, maybe they wouldn't get it. Well, if they don't get it, why wouldn't you vote for my amendment, which quite plainly assures that they don't get it? Follow me? So I don't understand this cover amendment. It is not even a fig leaf, I say to my colleagues. I don't think you are going to be able to hide behind the Reid amendment because it is not going to do anything but guarantee that persons who are here and are given this amnesty will pay $200 and then they will get to draw nearly $2,000 a year under the earned-income tax credit. The amendment being offered by Senator Reid makes no sense to me. Maybe I missed something, but I don't think so. I would be delighted to hear what is in play. It is what you call a cover amendment. So what I say to my colleagues is, let's get realistic about what we are doing. Let's understand the cost this legislation is going to have. The Congressional Budget Office has found in their report--although it was written so that it is a little hard to find, but it is perfectly plain--the bill, over 10 years, will cost the American taxpayers $32 billion. A substantial chunk of that amount is the earned-income tax credit. They say the earned-income tax credit is for children. It is not for children, it is for American workers. You may get more if you have children, but it is not for children, it is for American workers. I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time on this issue.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is not a cover vote. It is not a cover vote at all. It leaves the bill exactly as it was. The problem with the legislation is that those people who are today illegal and would be made legal through the probationary status visa or the Z visa would be entitled to receive the earned-income tax credit, which is, on average, nearly $1,800 per recipient. That earned-income tax credit is a direct payment from the taxpayers of America. This amendment--unlike the vote you cast last year when I raised it-- would allow the earned-income tax credit when you get a green card but not when you are on a Z visa or probationary visa. So this is less far- reaching than the amendment I offered last year. I urge that this amendment not be accepted.

Mr. SESSIONS. So they would receive that earned-income tax credit, which would be, on average, almost $2,000, and they would pay only $200. Now, that is a pretty good deal, if you can get it, it seems to me. It is not necessary. It is not necessary as a matter of law, and it is not necessary as a matter of morality. It is certainly contrary to sound principles of Government. We should not do that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is an amendment that would impact our Treasury by perhaps, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $10 billion in the next 10 years--$10 billion. So it is quite a sizable chunk. Madam President, I see my friend, Senator Lieberman is here. I yield the remainder of the time I have left to him. How much time remains?

Mr. SESSIONS. So what I would say to my colleagues is, this is going to cost a lot of money. You do not have to be trained in economics to understand that money comes from somebody. Who does the money come from? It comes from American workers and taxpayers, many of whom are having their wages depressed as a result of this huge flow of illegal labor. They are being asked to pay an earned-income tax credit check of $1,800, on average, to individuals who were illegal a few months before and possibly still have not completed the full background check. They still may not have completed the process to go to even a Z visa. Then they may be in a Z visa status for some time. I know it is said it is not amnesty because they have to pay a fine. How much is the fine? $1,000. They pay a $1,000 fine. Well, they do not actually pay a $1,000 fine. When they get this probationary status visa, they only pay $200. They pay the rest of it on an installment. Nobody has stated and set out how they are going to pay it. Presumably, they can pay it for 8 years or more. So a person here illegally under the legislation that is now before us, that person would obtain legal status in the country, be able to work, and would then be entitled to receive an earned-income tax credit.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we have quite a number of other amendments. That is what we are going to hear when we offer any of them because we now have a cloture motion filed. If cloture is obtained and you don't have an amendment pending, you can't get a vote on it. We know what the game is, and it is not a free, open debate on one of the most important bills in the time that I have been in the Senate that we are considering today. I would like to share a few more thoughts. Maybe I will have a few minutes left for Senator Lieberman. I know he wants more time than he has gotten so far. Senator Kennedy is maneuvering for me to give him some of my time and maybe I will be able to do that. The earned-income tax credit will not be taken away from people who are illegally in the country today if my amendment is passed. The earned-income tax credit is a credit given to working individuals who have lower incomes to encourage people to work. That is what it is all about. It is for Americans and people legally here. So what I propose is that we do not provide this, on average, almost $2,000-per-year paycheck from the U.S. Government, to people who came into the country illegally and were given this probationary card status through their Z card status. I am not offering an amendment to take the earned-income tax credit away after they become legal permanent residents. So if they become a legal permanent resident, they would be entitled to have the earned- income tax credit. Last year I offered an amendment that said that you would not get the earned-income tax credit until you became an actual citizen. That was voted down. Why? I still am not sure. I still don't think that was a good vote. But at least we ought not to give this credit to someone who was here illegally a few days ago, and now we give them some sort of probationary status and they immediately start getting paychecks from the Federal Government. I don't think that is what this system is about. People would be given a great thing. They would be given amnesty, they would be able to stay in the country legally, continue to work, and any family gets to stay with them. All of this is in this piece of legislation. A lot of people think that is too generous, but that is what this legislation does. The next question is: What else do they obtain by virtue of having this legal status bestowed on them when they were illegal? They are not receiving the earned-income tax credit now. It is not something that is being taken away from them. It is a question of when are we going to bestow that additional benefit on people who were in our country illegally and how much of an incentive does this payment to them create for other people who want to come into our country illegally? That is some of the confusion we have. In my view, the first thing you do to reduce the flow of illegal immigration into the country is to quit rewarding it by Federal largesse. That is the first thing. If you cannot go out and arrest everybody--and that is not practical--and we are not going to do these other things, at least don't give people extra financial benefits as a reward to coming into our country illegally. I am very concerned about that. I think that it is not a little bitty matter because the--Madam President, I would ask that I be notified when there is 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Dole for her insight, sharing that important information, and for offering an amendment and demonstrating once again that good amendments dealing with very important issues are not being allowed to be considered. This is not a free and open debate. This is not a free opportunity to amend. The majority leader is controlling his machinery, the train is moving down the track, and very few amendments are being approved. I have offered and filed quite a number. I have only gotten two amendments, and I said at the beginning that only one would be voted on. We are having the first vote on one I have offered. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--I see my colleague, Senator Kennedy, here--I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 1253.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to yield to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. SESSIONS. Is there any other time left?

Mr. SESSIONS. My question, I guess, Mr. President, would be something like this: Perhaps it could be true that the large number of job applications received by Wal-Mart facilities is because even though Wal-Mart does not pay great wages, they do have health care benefits and job security, as opposed to construction work. Would the Senator agree that if businesses raised wages at the construction sites, if they had jobs that had a more permanent status to them, and actually offered a retirement plan and health care benefits, they might get more people willing to work at the construction sites?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. I think I am ready, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair and support the Cornyn amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator's comments about American law and principles. As a former U.S. attorney and attorney general, I share the general view. He mentions the historic privileges we have in America. But let me tell you, no one has a right to enter the United States of America. We decide who comes in and who does not. That is a core principle of sovereignty. Every Nation in the world makes those decisions, if they are a functioning state, and you then allow people to enter on your terms, on whatever conditions they may be. The condition may be, you can enter as long as you are enrolled in a college, you can enter for a certain period of time, you can enter on a tourist visa to do a certain number of things. But those conditions are not such that if you say someone cannot come here you violated the laws of America. If you say you can come to America but not if you have a history of being a sexual predator, what right does that violate? What principle of American law does that violate? I suggest none. We have every right to insist and ensure the immigration system of the United States serves the national interest. The national interest means you do not allow people to continue to stay in our country or to come to our country who have repeat DUIs or who sell drugs or who are associated with terrorists. How basic is that? Nobody has a constitutional legal right to demand entry into the United States of America. How much more basic can it be than that? So that is where we are confused. It amazes me the lack of understanding and comprehension of what it is all about. We set the standards. We have the most generous immigration laws of almost any country in the world. It has been a big part of our heritage. We are not going to end immigration. Nobody wants to do that, or to act irrationally, and so forth. But to set reasonable standards, as Senator Cornyn is attempting to do with his amendment, only makes common sense. For example, I have mentioned some of the loopholes. He fixes them. I give him every bit of credit for this: for standing firm, for insisting on this vote, after he has been objected to and objected to and blocked from getting his vote. But he stood firm on this issue. He is going to fix a number of the problems I wish to briefly mention. Some aggravated felons who have sexually abused a minor are eligible for amnesty under this bill. They have no entitlement to amnesty. Nobody has entitlement to amnesty, whether they are perfectly wonderful citizens and all that. They are not entitled to that. This is a gift we give. So why would you want to give that to somebody who sexually abused a minor? Well, the child molester who committed the crime, before this bill is enacted, is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document omitted the age of the victim. If the conviction document did not put the age down, then they are to be admitted under this bill. After there was some objection to it, they fixed that language for the future but did not fix it for the past or current convictions. So I think Senator Cornyn is correct. I support that portion of his amendment very strongly. Another provision is that aliens with terrorism connections under this legislation are not barred from getting amnesty. They do not have a right to stay here. If we have any suggestion that someone in this country, now here, or someone who wants to come here is connected to terrorists, they do not have to be admitted. What kind of right do they have to demand to be admitted? If our State Department, in some country around the world, has information that a person is connected to terrorism, they do not have any right to demand to come here. They come at our pleasure, our sufferance. So one of the things this bill, as written, does is it says an illegal alien seeking most of the immigration benefits must show good character. But last year's bill--let me say this on the terrorism question--specifically barred aliens with terrorism connections from having the required good moral character to enter the United States. That is one of the things we say. You cannot come here unless you have good moral character. You cannot come here if you are a felon, a thief, a drug dealer or a child molester. Surely, that would make sense. So this bill eliminated that. Another example, surprisingly, of this bill being weaker even than last year's fatally flawed bill: The bill's drafters have ignored the Bush administration's request that changes be made to the asylum, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. The bill drafters were told about this by the Bush administration and were urged to put different language in, and they refused to do so, for reasons I cannot fathom. But it begins to show a certain mindset. I think that mindset is we are somehow here to represent people who want to come into our country and stay in our country instead of representing the American people and the interests of the United States. Last year, we had good moral character as a requirement. Good moral character involved not being connected to terrorists. But according to current law, an alien cannot have good moral character if they are a habitual drunkard, a majority of their income comes from illegal gambling, giving false testimony for immigration benefit purposes, they have been in jail for 180 days, they have been convicted of an aggravated felony or they have engaged in genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings. That is current law we have. But this year's bill is completely missing these new terrorism bars that were in last year's bill, and the bill no longer requires good moral character. That is a matter that leaves us at greater risk than we need to be. It concerns me. Another example. Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs, such as MS-13, are deported, the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they renounce their gang membership on their application. That is the current law. Under the bill, being in a violent gang is not going to prevent you from qualifying for amnesty. The bill requires amnesty applicants to list--to list--you are required to list that gang membership on your application. Then you get a blank that says ``renunciation of gang affiliation.'' So if you check that blank and say you renounce it, then you get to stay in, perhaps. So why don't we allow this: If an illegal alien has been a member of a violent international gang, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13, MS-13, why don't we say that blocks him or her from being eligible for the amnesty in the bill? Loyalty to the United States should be the requirement, not loyalty to some outside gang that is violent. The night before last, I happened to turn on C-SPAN and catch a National Press Club conference by a series of law enforcement officers involved in the Border Patrol, the former chairman of the Border Patrol. They were ferocious in their criticism of this bill. I was surprised how strongly they felt about it. Hugh Brien, himself an immigrant, was Chief of the Border Patrol from 1986 to 1989. He called the bill a sellout, a complete betrayal of the Nation, a slap in the face to millions of Americans who have come here legally like he had done. In 1986, he recalled: ``Our masters, our mandarins promised it would work.'' Of course, the 1986 bill did not. He also said, based on his experience in many years with the Border Patrol: ``It's a disaster.'' Kent Lundgren, the national chairman of the Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said this: ``There are no meaningful criminal or terrorist checks'' in the legislation. He noted that the ``screening will not happen.'' He added Congress is lying about it.