Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is pretty clear what has been occurring is very few amendments have had the opportunity to get a real debate. This is an important amendment. It deals with whether local law enforcement can actually participate in any meaningful way in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. I will tell you what the facts are, with the help from my fine staff chief counsel, Cindy Hayden. We wrote a law review article for Stanford University Law School that dealt with this issue, and it is a very important issue. It is one well-understood by the legal professionals who have been behind the scenes crafting this legislation. The ninth circuit has held that visa overstays, which make up 40, maybe 45 percent, and in the future, if this bill becomes law, maybe more than 50 percent of the people illegally in the country, would be visa overstays. Those persons, if involved in some traffic accident, like many of the terrorists were before 9/11--they were stopped for traffic violations by local police officers, but because that is not a normal criminal violation, as is the case for people who have come across the border, they are not detainable under the ninth circuit ruling by local police officers. So it is a weird thing. Several other circuits seem to have held differently. But the ninth circuit case was most on point. Lawyers for police departments all over America are telling their police departments: You may not have authority to hold anybody, so even if you apprehend someone you are concerned about who could even be a terrorist, like those people involved in 9/11, or like John Malvo, who was involved in those murders, was stopped for traffic violations, we do not have a system in place to even allow local police to detain them for even a short period of time until they are turned over to the Federal authorities. That is the way the system ought to work. There are 600,000 to 800,000 State and local law enforcement officers in America. We are not trying to mandate that they do anything. But in the course of their business, their normal duties, if they come upon people in violation of the law, they ought to be able to hold them and turn them over to the Federal authorities. I am disappointed we are not getting to move forward on that amendment, very disappointed. We had this matter sort of fixed in Judiciary Committee last year. Then an amendment came up--somebody figured out the significance of it, and that amendment took it out. Ever since, any effort to get that to be made a part of this fix has been undermined and blocked. I say to my colleagues, I do not believe anybody can say they have a commitment to having an enforceable immigration system if they throw roadblocks up that undermine the ability of State and local law enforcement to participate in their normal course of their duties by detaining people they come upon who are here illegally. You would think that would be an easy thing to get done. I have said before, it seems when it comes to immigration, many things can be accepted, many things people approve of. But if you come up with something that actually is very effective, that is what gets objected to. This is something that is critical. It is a testament and a test of our will and our seriousness as a body. If we are not prepared to pass legislation like the Norwood amendment, named after former House Member Charlie Norwood from Georgia, who died recently, if we are not prepared to do that, we are not serious about this. I will say one more thing. Time and time and time again, I have heard Members of this body say: Oh, we cannot vote for this amendment, or you must vote against that amendment. Why? Because we have an agreement. A compromise. It violates our compromise. Well, who was in on that compromise? I am frankly getting tired of that. That is not satisfactory to me. The question really should be, is this amendment good or not good for the legitimate interests of the Nation? No one small group of people have a right to meet in secret with special interest groups and write an immigration bill and ram it down the throat of this Senate. I oppose it. It is not right. You can agree or disagree on these amendments, but do so on the merits, whether or not it actually makes sense, not on some deal made by some advocacy group or some business interest. That is not what this Senate is all about. I hope today the people will begin to see that a small group of Senators who meet in secret and plot out a bill, that if printed in actual bill language would be 1,000 pages, don't have the power to say we can't have amendments and we can't change it, and if you do get an amendment up, we are all going to stick together and vote it down because it doesn't comply with our little compromise. The masters of the universe are playing a tough game here. I have called them that affectionately. I respect the Members who have attempted to do what maybe they thought was right. But when you look at the bill, it is a product of a political compromise. A group of politicians met in secret and wrote a bill that is exceedingly technical, exceedingly important. Let me tell you who was not there in this meeting. The American people were not there. Who was advocating for the American people? I will tell you another group who was not there. That is the law enforcement agencies that are charged with enforcing our laws at the border. They weren't there. As a matter of fact, they had a press conference a couple of days ago. They were at the national press club and made a presentation. These are senior retired officials who had many decades of experience in enforcing our laws at the border. They uniformly condemn this legislation, as do the Border Patrol Agents Association. They condemn it roundly. Hugh Brien, himself an immigrant, became chief of the Border Patrol from 1986 to 1989. I started making notes on C-SPAN the night before last. I just happened to turn it on. He said this bill is a ``sell out, a complete betrayal of the nation, a slap in the face to millions coming here legally.'' He referred to the people in 1986 who passed the 1986 act and promised it would do things as our masters and our mandarins, who said the bill was going to work and it never worked. He said: Based on my experience, it's a disaster. Kurt Lundgren, national chairman of the Association of Former Border Patrol Agents said this: There are no meaningful criminal or terrorist checks in the bill. He said: Screening will not happen. He said: Congress is lying about it. With regard to the proposal that record checks would be performed within 24 hours, he said: There's no way records can be done in 24 hours. As to the proposal that Senator Cornyn tried to fix that allows gang members, MS-13 international gang organization groups to get amnesty by simply saying they renounce their allegiance to the gang, he said: What planet are they from? Jim Dorcy, an agent for 30 years and inspector general with the Department of Justice that handled investigations into all these areas involving the Border Patrol, internal investigations, he said: The 24-hour check is a recipe for disaster. Referring to the bill, Mr. Dorcy, 30 years with the Border Patrol said: I call it the al-Qaida dream bill. Roger Brandemuehl, chief of the Border Patrol from 1980 to 1986, second one I am calling on here that was chief of it, said: We have fallen into a quagmire. He said: The so-called comprehensive reform is neither comprehensive nor reform. He said: It's flawed. He set forth some principles that he thought would actually work. When asked had he been consulted by the masters of the universe who cobbled this bill together, a bunch of politicians who have never arrested anybody in their lives, they joked about it. They never have been consulted. Nobody wanted to know what they knew or cared about. I will just wrap up and say I am not comfortable with the way this bill is going. I think we have been slow-walked in the way the majority leader and the group that is trying to move this bill forward is doing this. They are objecting to having amendments pending. So when cloture is filed, if an amendment is not pending, it fails. It can't be voted on postcloture. So this way they have been able to maintain control over the amendment process and will be able to maintain it, even if cloture is obtained tomorrow. I don't know what will happen tomorrow, but I know this: There are a lot of good amendments. I have seen some of the amendments Senator Cornyn has that are important. I know some of the amendments I have are important to having a good, lawful immigration system. There remain major flaws in this legislation. We should not pass it in its present form. In rebuttal to the constant refrain that somehow this bill is going to end the lawlessness and create a lawful system, I point out that the Congressional Budget Office, just 2 years ago, issued their analysis of the bill and concluded there would only be a 25-percent reduction in the number of people coming into our country illegally. We have gone through all this, and we are only going to get a 25-percent reduction in the number of people who come here illegally, when we arrested last year over a million people. What kind of system is this? I wish the principles and goals contained in the talking points that were bandied about early on in this process could have been achieved. I had hoped they would and said some good things about it because I thought some of the principles involved in this year's process were a bit better than last year, but the truth is, when you read the fine print, very little progress was made in those directions, and the major flaws continue. I just wish it weren't so. But that is my opinion of it. I don't think we are on the road to improving the bill. I don't think we are proceeding effectively to allow full debate and amendment. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1311, as Modified, to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have offered amendments on a number of occasions and had asked those amendments be made pending, and set aside the pending business to make certain amendments pending. I have had objection. At this time I once again ask that amendment No. 1323, which we referred to as the Charlie Norwood amendment, that deals with empowering State and local law enforcement officers to participate through the normal process, if they choose, be in order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1194

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the earned-income tax credit was designed and has been in effect as a support for American workers. That is what it is. Four million people who do not have children receive it. This amendment says those people who are here illegally today who are made legal under this bill through the Z visa or the probationary status who have not yet obtained legal permanent residence would not get this benefit. The people are supposed to pay a fine, $1,000. They only have to pay $200. They pay that $200 fine, sign up, and they get a $2,000 earned-income tax credit, which is basically a check from the United States Government. The people who are here illegally would be, under this bill, made legal, be allowed to work. They are not receiving earned-income tax credit today. There is no moral, legal, or principled reason to give them that in the future until they become a legal permanent resident.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Last year's bill added new terrorism bars to the good moral character requirement and required that an alien prove they have good moral character. Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the INA, an illegal alien must have good moral character to receive most of the immigration benefits, such as cancellation of removal from being here illegally. But according to the current law, the law in effect today, an alien cannot have good moral character if they are habitual drunkards, get the majority of their income from illegal gambling, have given false testimony for immigration purposes, have been in jail for 180 days, have been convicted of an aggravated felony, or have engaged in genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings. Those are some of the things that bar you from good moral character. This year's bill, however, is completely missing these new terrorism bars, and the bill no longer requires good moral character as a prerequisite to amnesty. I wonder what this tells us about the mindset of the people who are actually putting the pencil to paper and drafting this legislation. Surely our Senators didn't fully understand it. But I have to say I am particularly troubled, because the Bush administration, as much as they have wanted a bill that would be exceedingly generous to immigrants, wanted this language strengthened, and the committee, the group that wrote the bill, rejected their request, which is hard for me to believe. Additionally, during the course of the negotiations, the Bush administration requested that language be added to the bill to make sure that terrorism bars kept aliens from being granted asylum, cancellation, and the withholding of removal. Those requests should have been included and they were not. So one of the amendments I want to see voted on would be to restore the bars--the same or similar language we had in last year's bill that they took out over the objection of the administration. Another example of a weakness in our provisions is some aggravated felons who have sexually abused a minor will be eligible for amnesty under this bill. A child molester who committed the crime of molestation before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document fails to state the age of the victim. The bill, after someone raised this problem, corrected this problem, but it was only for future child molesters and did not close the loophole for current or past child molesters. In some States, the sexual abuse of a minor can result in a misdemeanor conviction. Those convictions are not always considered an aggravated felony for immigration or deportation purposes. This is not an uncommon problem. There have been lawsuits and appeals over this very issue. This is not uncommon. One study, according to these Border Patrol experts at their press conference yesterday, indicated a report out of Atlanta found that 250,000 of the 12 million illegal aliens here may have been involved in the sexual abuse of a minor. That is a lot of people. Why should we give amnesty and citizenship to those who may have been involved in those kinds of criminal violations? Citizenship in the United States requires good moral character. We don't have to accept everybody who wants to be a citizen. We don't have to allow anyone who broke into our country to ever become a citizen. If they have broken into our country and are here illegally and they ask for amnesty, we have every right to say you don't get it if you are a child molester or have terrorist connections. Look at loophole No. 8. This one is a bit amazing, I think, for anyone, and I find it difficult to believe. I am not making this up. This is in the bill on page 289. 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. It has a question there: Are you a member of a gang? If you said yes, the next question is: Do you renounce your membership? And if you say yes, I renounce my membership, you get to stay and become a citizen. Under this bill, it will not prevent amnesty. On page 289, the bill requires that you list gang memberships. Why do we allow this? If an illegal alien will be a member of a violent international gang, such as the Mara Salvatrucha 13, the famous MS-13, a violent international gang involved in murders, drugs, and all kinds of crimes, why don't we say that blocks him from being eligible for amnesty under the bill? Now, if they are a citizen, OK, they get to stay in the country. They can be a gang member. But if they are not a citizen and they are here illegally and are petitioning to be given amnesty, I would say they shouldn't be given it. They should be prohibited. Obviously, the loyalty to these illegal criminal gangs is such that it is contrary to the ideals of American citizenship in which your loyalty is to the United States of America. As Kris Kobach, a former top attorney at the Department of Justice, stated in a Heritage Foundation Web memo, posted after the new substitute bill was introduced, titled ``Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law'': More than 30,000 illegal alien gang members operate in 33 States--30,000 illegal alien gang members operate in 33 States--trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. It is one of the top priorities of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement organization. That is what they do. The Senate bill would end that. I am quoting Mr. Kobach. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a renunciation. I ask again, what kind of mindset is at work here? Is our goal to please every illegal alien, to make sure every illegal alien gets to stay in the country regardless or is it to serve our legitimate national interests? I suggest any immigration bill we pass should serve our national interest. There is nothing wrong with that. Our responsibility is to America, to the people in America. Somehow we have gotten that confused. There are good people in this body who are more concerned about how not to exclude anybody, to make sure everybody who is here gets to stay. And somehow, some way, through a maneuver or signing a document saying you renounce your gang membership, you will get to stay. It raises serious questions in my mind about how this bill was written. Let me mention we may have a vote on this, I think tomorrow. This is amazing to me. Aliens who have already had their day in court, those who have been given and received a final order of removal, who have signed a voluntary departure order, or had reinstatement of their final orders of removal--that is they got a delay on their final order of removal and they got a stay--they are eligible for amnesty under the bill. The same is true for aliens who have made a false claim to citizenship, for those who have engaged in document fraud. More than 636,000 alien fugitives could be covered by this one loophole--page 285 of the bill waives the following inadmissibility grounds. It waives these grounds that would normally be a basis for inadmissability. No. 1, ``Failure to attend a removal proceeding.'' You have been released on bail. They said: You are believed to be here illegally. The court hearing is going to be 3 weeks from today. We will release you on your own recognizance. You just sign a document or post a small bail and you show up at the court hearing 3 weeks from today, 2 weeks from today, 2 months from today. What if they don't show up? What if they didn't show up, they were apprehended, ordered to show up in court and didn't show up--amnesty-- OK, that is excluded. Another category, ``Final orders of removal for alien smugglers.'' If you have been apprehended, you have been ordered removed because you were proven to be involved in alien smuggling, smuggling of other people into our country--coyotes: You are OK. That is OK. You get to stay, too. ``Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations or deportation orders.'' You have been caught for previous violations. You have been ordered deported. You are back again. You are excluded and you get to stay. And aliens who have previously been removed--we spend a lot of money. We fly people back to Brazil and Honduras and Indonesia and China. What if they come again? Do they get amnesty, too? Yes, they do. This language appears to be in conflict with another statute that suggests otherwise. But when you read it, my legal team and I agree that the court would clearly rule that this specific language would be such that those individuals would get to stay in the country. The list goes on. Loophole No. 10. The talking points we were provided with that indicated this to be a good bill and that we should be supportive of it emphasize that the new bill we have would promote greater assimilation of those who come here to our country and greater English proficiency--both of which I think are good ideas and we need to work on and should be a part of any immigration legislation that is passed. I believe that. However, the bill doesn't do it. Illegal aliens are not required to demonstrate any proficiency in English for more than a decade after they have been granted amnesty. You have heard people say we are requiring English. We are not requiring it for 10 years. Learning English is not required for illegal aliens to receive the probationary benefits or the first 4-year Z visa or the second 4-year Z visa. The first Z visa renewal, beginning on the second 4-year visa, requires only that the alien demonstrate an ``attempt'' to learn English by being ``on a waiting list for English classes.'' Passing a basic English test is required only for a second renewal, the third 4- year Z visa, and then the alien only has to pass the test ``prior to the expiration of the second extension of Z status,'' 12 years down the road. The bill's sponsors claim they have to learn English before being granted amnesty. That is not true. Nothing in the bill requires the illegal alien to have any English skills before receiving probationary status, before receiving the first Z visa that lasts for 4 years. Only upon filing for renewal of the Z visa up to 6\1/2\ years down the road does the illegal alien have to meet any language requirement. At that time, the requirement is fulfilled with the most minimal effort: ``Demonstrating enrollment in'' or being on a ``waiting list for English classes.'' Second, when the alien applies for a second Z visa renewal, which would be 8 to 10 years from now, is there any real English requirement. At that time, the alien must ``pass the naturalization test.'' It is common knowledge that the test is not a real English proficiency test-- it is not. So there is not an emphasis on English. Even then, it is not clear that passing the test would be required before the second extension of Z visa status is granted. As a matter of fact, on page 295 the bill states that: . . . the alien may make up to three attempts . . . but must satisfy the requirement prior to the expiration of the second extension of Z visa status. As the bill is written, there is no real English requirement until 12 to 14 years down the road, and it is not as strong. I don't know why we are so concerned about that. Is it a pandering? Is it some attempt to please people who are here illegally? Good policy, I submit, the right policy--both for the United States and for those here receiving amnesty--would be to encourage them to learn English sooner rather than later. How long does it take? Twelve years is too long, and I think that is a mistake in the bill. Mr. President, I see my colleague, Senator Kyl here. I will be pleased to yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the role of the majority leader. I have great affection for the majority leader. He is an effective leader for his agenda. But with regard to what is happening now, we need to fully understand that by utilizing the ability he has as a leader and as other members of his party--they have objected to calling up amendments and making them pending. When you object to making an amendment pending, all you have is a filed amendment. And when you file cloture, amendments that are not pending are not entitled to be voted on. So, in effect, we are at the mercy of the majority leader. He has not allowed a full and vigorous offering of amendments and votes on those amendments. I know people can sometimes ask for too many votes and abuse the process, but we really are dealing with a monstrous bill that is very complex and has a loophole here and a loophole there that can place the bill in such a situation that it really is not enforceable and will not work, and there are a host of problems, a host of loopholes in the bill. This bill has been moving forward to passage under the railroad system we have here. Let me remind everybody how it happened. First, 2 weeks before we had our recess, the old bill, last year's bill that the House refused to even take up, was brought up without committee hearings this year and brought up by the majority leader under rule XIV for consideration and debate. So about a week goes by, and then come last Tuesday before our recess, Tuesday morning, he plops down on this floor an amendment but really a complete substitute. If put in proper bill language, it would probably be nearly a thousand pages. It is a substitute, a bill never seen before, a bill--except maybe a few days by people who got their hands on it--a bill that has never gone through committee was put down, and the majority leader indicated he wanted to vote on it that week and we were going to have a vote on Friday, and there is was a lot of push back. He agreed to put it off. We only had a few votes last week. We didn't vote last Friday. We didn't have the bill up even on Monday. So for only 3 days the week before the recess, we were engaged with actual amendments on this legislation. Then we come back, and on Monday of this week, we had a few Senators show up, no votes, and a few of us talked a little bit, and that was it. So nothing was done Monday. I recall I did offer to bring up amendments and asked to bring up amendments and make pending amendments last Thursday, last Friday, and Monday of this week. I just want to say that we are not moving in a legitimate way. This was a completely new bill which was offered as a substitute to last year's bill. Senator Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who supports this legislation, said in retrospect we should have gone to committee with it. I say that would have helped to have had a little bit of sunshine on it. But as we examine the bill in more depth, as we look at it more closely, what we see is that as sunlight falls on the mackerel, it begins to smell more and more, I have to tell you. As it was promoted to me by the White House talking points and by Senators who thought it was a good piece of legislation, I had some belief that it could be progress over last year. Indeed, I thought there was a real potential to make a bill this year that I could support and with which we could make progress. But as we have examined it, it fails to meet the promises that were contained in those principles set forth as they were writing up the bill. It just does not. It does not have good enforcement. It does not. The trigger mechanism that guarantees enforcement before amnesty is weak and ineffectual. The shift to merit-based, skill-based immigration is ineffectual, and it puts off for 8 years, and we have people offering amendments to weaken that even further. So those were good principles that were stated but did not become reality. I saw part of the debate on the TV in the cloakroom a few minutes ago and people were saying this is going to make the country safe, and we need to pass it because it is going to make us safe. Well, let us talk about some of the loopholes that are in this legislation still. I have listed 20. I think we probably have a lot more than that which we could have listed, but I will share some of the weaknesses. This is as a result of the fact that individuals in the U.S. Border Patrol were not consulted in how to write the bill. If they had been consulted, some of these weaknesses wouldn't have been here. It is interesting, however, that some of these weaknesses were pointed out and complained of, but the drafters refused to listen. Why not? For example, loophole No. 5: Legal status must be granted to illegal aliens 24 hours after they file an application--must be granted legal status--even if the alien has not yet passed all appropriate background checks. Last year, the bill called for 90 days to complete the background checks. Yes, some aspects can be completed within a few minutes or a few hours, but a lot of things cannot. What if the person is named John Smith? There are a hundred John Smiths. How are you going to check those? A thousand John Smiths. I think this is a weakness. In fact, the Border Patrol experts who called a press conference yesterday raised that particular point in a number of ways. Kent Lundgren, the national chairman of the Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, was contemptuous of the bill and said there are ``no meaningful criminal or terrorist checks'' in the bill. He said, ``There is no way records can be done in 24 hours.'' Jim Dorcy, an agent with 30 years experience, and who has also moved up to inspector general of the Department of Justice, said: ``24-hour check is a recipe for disaster.'' Then he went on to say, ``I call it the al Qaeda Dream Bill.'' That was from a TV program I happened to catch last night on C-SPAN, a National Press Club presentation by a group of former Border Patrol officers, and I am going to quote from them a little more in a minute. Look at loophole No. 7. They say this bill will make us safer, but under the bill that is before us today, illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien with terrorist connections is not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits normally would have to show ``good moral character.'' For all its flaws, last year's bill specifically barred aliens with terrorism connections from being able to meet the definition of ``good moral character.'' How simple is that? And from being eligible for amnesty. But this year's bill does neither. This is another example of a provision in this year's bill that make it weaker than last year's bill, and I am finding this more and more. We were told this bill was much better than last year's bill. I even told people that I think this is going to be a better bill than last year's. I am interested in what is contained in it. But repeatedly I am finding provisions like this one that indicate this bill is weaker than last year's. Additionally, the bill's drafters ignored the Bush administration's request that changes be made in the asylum, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. Last year's section 204 of the bill added the new terrorism bars to good moral character.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 20 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for clarification, two amendments are basically the same amendment. We would only vote on one pending that I offered last week. In addition, last week, I filed two more amendments, and an objection was made to making them pending. So I renew my offer to at least make those two amendments pending. I filed them this morning.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, with regard to that, I have amendments I offered last Thursday and Friday and Monday that were not accepted. I was going to ask if those amendments could be made pending in addition to the nine amendments which were filed this week which I would like to make pending so we can have votes on them.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I take that as an objection to my request.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am sorry, I did not hear the majority leader.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there are two problems with the legislation, as detailed in a 5- or 6-page memorandum from the Department of Justice, Richard Hertling, the principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General who opposes this legislation. First, it falsely asserts in the findings matters that slander America incorrectly. It finds that thousands of individuals were subjected to devastating violations of civil rights through arrest, internment, property confiscation, deportation, and detrimental effects still being experienced; whereas, the Department of Justice asked the senior historian at the U.S. Holocaust Museum about this language and he found that language was outrageously exaggerated and was inaccurate. That is in the legislation. When asked would Senator Feingold accept an amendment that prohibited reparations--and reparations have been done in some of these cases--that language was not accepted.

Mr. SESSIONS. Would the majority----

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as I understand the procedure the leader has been exercising, it is only one or two amendments are allowed to be placed in the pending category, and if one attempts to bring up an amendment, leadership objects. I tried to bring up an amendment Friday, and there was an objection to make it pending. I tried to bring up an amendment Monday. There was an objection on a very--we are sort of being slow walked. I would ask the leader, would he allow us to bring up a substantial number of amendments and get them pending, so if he files for cloture and got it, you would have a chance to get those amendments voted on? If they are not pending, we will not get to vote on them.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, a number of things continue to be revealed as we analyze this monumental piece of legislation which purports to comprehensively reform immigration law in America and, indeed, any comprehensive reform bill would be extensive because it is an incredibly complex subject with many moving parts, many legal niceties and complexities, all of which, if we are going to have a system that works, need to come into place. It has been stated repeatedly by those who have proposed and promoted the legislation which is before us today that this legislation will secure the border and we will have a lawful system of immigration in the future. Those claims have been made repeatedly. The proponents have said they are going to have additional Border Patrol agents, and so forth. Indeed, the PowerPoint that the White House used to make their presentations early on promised to ``secure U.S. borders'' and ``not to repeat the 1986 failure.'' Others are saying the same thing. One of the Senators who is involved in the process said, ``I am delighted we are going to secure the border.'' Another Senator said, ``This legislation will finally accomplish the extraordinary goal of securing our borders.'' Another said, ``The agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we have to secure our borders. In this legislation we are doubling the border patrol; we are increasing detention space.'' Another Senator said, ``This will restore the rule of law. Without the legislation, we will have anarchy.'' Another one said, ``We started out with 18,000 additional border patrol officers. We will increase the detention capacity.'' And so on and so forth. Even our former Governor Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and said, ``It will make sure our borders become secure.'' ``We have had broke borders in this country for 20 years.'' That is the truth. ``It is time we get them fixed.'' That is the truth. Then they add, ``And this bill will do just that.'' Okay. There are many more I could quote along that line. But I hope, therefore, that every member of our body who understands the Congressional Budget Office and the work that organization does, how it is designed to analyze statutory language in our legislation to give us a budget score and other analysis of what that legislation is all about, they made a tremendously significant announcement yesterday, one that is quite frightening and all of us should pay attention to. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new Senate bill will only reduce net annual illegal immigration by 25 percent. It will add 550,000 visa overstays to the illegal population by 2017, and up to 1 million visa overstays by 2027. In the section titled ``Effects on the United States Population,'' the CBO states, and I quote their article, their report: CBO estimates that implementing those requirements [enforcement and verification requirements] would reduce the net annual flow of illegal immigrants by one-quarter. Twenty-five percent. Then they go on to note the problem with visa overstays, in addition, saying this: Other aspects of the legislation are likely to increase the number of illegal immigrants, in particular, through people overstaying their visas from the guest worker and H-1B programs. CBO estimates that another 1.1 million people would be added by 2017 as a result of the guest worker program, about half of them authorized workers and dependents, the remainder the result of unauthorized overstays. That figure would grow to 2 million by 2027. What I want to say to my colleagues is--and those people who have worked hard on the bill to try to create a piece of legislation that politically they think can be passed, and they worked together with special interest groups and everybody but the U.S. Border Patrol, and everybody but the American people who had an interest in immigration, they all plotted on how to write this thing up so they can eliminate political problems and split babies in half--all of that is supposed to create a system that first and foremost would create a lawful system of immigration, would eliminate the illegality and create border security. Now we have the Congressional Budget Office telling us that at best it is only going reduce illegal immigration 25 percent. As a price for that, we are supposed to grant amnesty to 12 million people who are here, provide options for chain migration to continue for 8 years, denying during that time highly competitive people from all over the world who want to come here an opportunity to come here, and delay some of the things in the bill that I think are positive and ought to become law. I want to tell my colleagues once more, think about this as you consider whether you can justify supporting the legislation. Because if it is going to reduce the illegal flow into this country by 25 percent, and actually through the guest worker program is going to allow more people to overstay, then we have got a problem. You see, visa overstays are already nearly 40 percent of the illegal population. Those are people who come into the country legally, they stay here through their allotted time; they just do not leave when the time is up. They stay, they overstay. Under the plan we have here that has a temporary guest worker program, that would have after the first year some 400,000 temporary workers here at a given time, their parents could come to visit them, their spouses could come to visit them. Even spouses could come to visit if the spouse does not certify they intend to return and stay in their home country; a real tipoff that they intend to stay illegally in the United States if they are not entitled to stay; they want to stay illegally. So I think those are matters that are important to us. I also note there is a glaring omission in the trigger language of the legislation, and that omission is the U.S. exit visa, the U.S. visa exit portion. In other words, when you come into the country with a biometric card, you are approved to work as a temporary worker at some place, and you do your duty, you are supposed to stay 1 year, a season, you are supposed to stay 2 years, and then return. What happens when you return or do not return? Ten years ago we required that by 2005, we have a recording system that records your exit from the country, like you may have when you go to work and you record your time clock out when you leave work. Therefore, we know if the person who came left when they were supposed to leave, and you know if they did not. That is not in the bill. That is not required as a part of the requirement before the amnesty takes place. I wanted to share that with my colleagues. I think it should cause a great deal of uneasiness for all of us. It makes you wonder how committed the drafters of this legislation--and frankly, a lot of lawyers and people with experience in immigration and some of them not even Senators, were deeply involved in all of this in writing the legislation. I am not sure everybody caught all of these things. We are just now hearing what is in the bill, frankly. So however they drafted it, whoever wrote this in, time and again you see provisions in the bill--and I have listed 20; we will soon have 25 loopholes of this kind and nature that I think indicate the drafters were not as committed to enforcement as they have suggested. Oftentimes, as I noted, drafters are not the Senators who did not do all of the fine-printing themselves. I want to note one thing in the CBO report. It has been stated more than once. Mr. President, I see the majority leader here. I can delay other activity. I wanted to raise this issue. I would be glad to yield to him. I will wrap up and say one more thing. It was repeatedly noted that the score by the Congressional Budget Office indicated the bill had minimal cost to the taxpayer over the first 10 years. Now we knew without dispute that in the second 10 and even in the decades that go beyond that, the cost surges. But even in the first 10, they said there would be little, if any, cost. But if you read their latest report in detail, you will note that is only true if you consider Social Security taxes paid by those people who are legalized under this bill. But, you see, that should not be counted and will not be counted in a budget situation, because the money paid to Social Security is set aside for that person's retirement. If they pay into Social Security now, they are going to draw it in retirement later. That is an off- budget matter. That is a Social Security matter. That income should not be counted. When you eliminate that money for Social Security, you come out with a $33 billion cost in the first 10 years of this legislation, according to our own Congressional Budget Office. Those numbers will surge in the decades to come. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez.) The majority leader.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Kyl for his good remarks. I thought perhaps tomorrow I would have the ability to focus on our loss, but I will attempt tonight to say a few words about our colleague, Craig Thomas. I loved Craig Thomas. He was a person who came from the West. He understood where he came from. He understood the values with which he was raised, and he reflected those daily in his work in the Senate without ever bragging about it or talking about it. People just knew it. He was a man of character and integrity, a man who, as Senator Kyl indicated, never allowed personal ego to interfere with his commitment to serve his constituents and his Nation. We had a visit to Iraq together not too long ago. Things had not been going well. He would ask penetrating questions. He would ask: When are the Iraqis stepping up and how much are they doing so? How long do we continue to put our troops at risk if they are not carrying their load? He did it in a way that was sincere and raised fundamental questions of great importance. Craig liked issues. He believed in a series of principles that made America great. He cared about those principles. For a time, he volunteered to come to the floor and be a part of a message team for the Republican Senate Members and spent a good bit of time at it--over a year or two. During that time he would articulate the basic premises and values that I think are foundational for the Republican Party and for most Americans. I would say to our wonderful friend Susan, our prayers and our sympathies are with you. We can only imagine the loss you have sustained. We have watched in these past months the courage that Craig had displayed as he suffered from the terrible disease that he had. We saw the strength that he had, his refusal to stay at home but his determination to be at work. I had several examples of it in which I talked to him, and I said it is not necessary for you, you need to rest up. He knew he was susceptible to infection. But he was determined to fulfill his responsibilities as a Senator and he did so in a way that all could be proud. He ran the race and he fought the fight. He served his country with great skill and ability. Our respect and love is extended to the family and our prayers are with him and the family. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the leadership Senator Kyl has given to this Senate in so many different areas. I am normally one of his righthand guys, but on this deal, I can't be with him. I don't agree that a small group of Senators can meet in closed meetings and reach a compromise nobody can amend. In fact, Senator Bingaman noted earlier today that he offered an amendment to change the temporary guest worker program. They said that amendment would be a deal breaker. But it passed with 74 votes. So we obviously ought to be able to amend this thing, and hopefully we will. I will speak briefly, because my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, is here, and I will yield to him in a moment, but I will add a couple of things. I do believe we need effective, comprehensive immigration reform legislation, and I support that. I was hopeful the legislation that was being discussed was based on the principles contained in the talking points utilized by members of the President's Cabinet and those Senators who were meeting to discuss the bill. Those principles struck me as being far preferable to last year's legislation, and I said publicly I was most intrigued by it. I must say, however, that on reading the fine print in this legislation, I have concluded the legislation does not effectuate the promises and principles announced beforehand. For example, they said this year we would have an effective trigger; trigger being proof that enforcement measures were in place before any amnesty would occur. That was defeated last year. The people this year assured us it would be in there. But reading the language on the trigger, it has very little teeth in it. It is trigger locked. It is not an effective trigger, and I have demonstrated that in earlier speeches. They promised we would end chain migration and move to a merit system of immigration. However, for the next 8 years, the number of people entering under the chain-migration, nonskill-based status will increase dramatically, almost three times the current rate. Indeed, only after 8 years will the merit-based system have the kind of teeth I had hoped it would have immediately. But I would note that Senator Obama has indicated he is filing an amendment to sunset the merit system and eliminate even that. The temporary worker program gives me great concern because I am afraid it will not work. I also note it allows spouses and parents to visit. A spouse can visit a worker even if that spouse indicates they do not intend to stay in the country they are living in--the foreign country. So I am worried about how that will work. Who is going to apprehend those who don't return? People who came into our country in the last 5 months, who got past the National Guard that President Bush called out, who got into our country December 31 of last year, will be given permanent status in this country. Those who are members of MS-13, an international gang, if they say they are a member of that gang but that they renounce the principles of that gang, will be able to stay and be given citizenship in the United States. They said the bill would have greater emphasis on assimilation, because we all agree we need to do a better job of assimilating those who come to our country. I believe it is only mentioned once in the bill, and that is at page 300-something of the bill--almost the last page of the bill. They said we would emphasize English much more. But under the bill, those who would be given amnesty won't have to produce any proof of English skills for 12 years. They said there would not be a benefit of welfare. But the earned income tax credit will be given to people immediately upon their being given lawful status in the country; not a Z visa, even, but the probationary status. An average recipient of the earned income tax credit gets about $1,800 a year, and that is not chickenfeed. It was designed to encourage work by working Americans, not to provide an incentive for people to come to our country illegally. The document that is required to enable you to prove you were here before January 1 of this year is simply an affidavit by someone. I submit that the Department of Homeland Security is not going to be able to check on those affidavits and we are going to have massive fraud. Indeed, most people, probably, who are working here today carry false documents of some kind or another. It certainly would not be difficult at all to obtain a false affidavit in that regard. I have listed 20 loopholes or objections I have identified with the bill--actually, 25, and Senator Bingaman pointed out another one earlier today that we did not include in our list. There are many discrete, specific defects in the legislation. But the problem is that the defects and mindset behind the legislation indicate a lack of commitment to creating a lawfully enforceable system of immigration and indicate a lack of commitment to moving to a more skill-based system like Canada's--which system, I note to my colleagues, the Canadian system, was favorably reviewed in a USA Today editorial yesterday. That absolutely should be a part of this legislation. I salute my colleagues for working to move to a more merit-based system and for taking some steps that would be better from the enforcement side, but I have to say I believe it is not sufficient. I wish it were. It is not. We need immigration in America. We are a nation of immigrants. I do not oppose immigration. I just think we ought to create a system that serves our national interest, that allows talented people from around the world to apply and come here, those persons most likely to flourish in our system. It should serve our national interests and should be effective. I am afraid this bill is not. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I wondered if the Senator was going to continue and how long he might speak.

Mr. SESSIONS. I have no objection, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would just say to my friend, Senator Reid, the able Democratic majority leader in the Senate, that I hope we don't continue in a debate about the Iraq situation in ways that are destructive to our Nation but that we can conduct the debate in a positive way. For example, I know there has been an intelligence report that has been produced, but it also had within it projections of things of a positive nature, some of which occurred and some of which didn't. It had within it projections of things of a negative nature that did not occur. Even with regard to its prediction of violence and persistent violence and sectarian strife that could occur that report predicted it would be phasing down after 3 or 4 years. So predictions are predictions. I don't think those possibilities were not discussed in the debate leading up to our giving authorization to the President to conduct this war. To suggest that this intelligence report was some sort of smoking gun that raised issues nobody had even discussed, and that somehow the President misled the public, is wrong and it hurts the President of the United States, whoever he or she may be; and who, right now, we assume will be traveling the world and meeting with leaders of foreign nations. To make those kind of accusations is not healthy, in my view, and not responsible. Now, we had a vote week before last, fortunately, to provide funding through the emergency supplemental for our soldiers, sailor, airmen and marines in Iraq. That was too long in my view, but we did it. And we voted to send General Petraeus to execute the surge that the President has called for, and that was the funding that we approved week before last to fund that surge. He is to give us a report in September on how the situation is in Iraq, and we are all watching with a great deal of anxiety because we are concerned about what is happening in Iraq. We know the United States has only limited ability to affect what we would like to occur there. We have done a great deal to help that nation establish itself, and we want to continue to utilize our resources wisely, but this was a surge and we need to evaluate the situation in September. What I would urge my colleagues on the other side to do, even though they may be concerned about it, in the debate on the Defense authorization bill, and perhaps the Defense appropriations bill that will occur later on this summer, we ought not to utilize rhetoric and language that undermines what our soldiers are doing right now, what we directed them to do, and what we have funded them to do, and that is to help create stability and more security for the people of Iraq. We ought not to debate in such a way that it makes it harder for them to succeed. Don't we all want that to occur? Don't we all want to see a stable, decent Iraq occur? They have had elections, but they are having a very difficult time bringing that country together in a stable fashion, as we all know. So I would encourage my colleagues, in the course of the debate, that we conduct ourselves in such a way that we don't place at greater risk our soldiers and that we don't make our foreign policy that we have in a bipartisan way authorized more difficult to achieve and provide any ability for the enemy to think that they are able to prevail by lack of resolve on our part. I want to spend a few minutes talking about the immigration bill that is before us. I think it is a critically important piece of legislation. The American people are concerned about it. They are following it quite closely. They know we have a difficult time in Iraq, and they do not expect an easy solution there. They know we have difficulties with energy prices and other difficulties, and they want us to do what we can in that regard. With regard to immigration, they are rightly of the view that we can do something about it. We can create a lawful system of immigration that serves our national interest if we desire to do so. If we, as a Congress and the executive branch, want this to happen, we can make it happen. Don't let anybody suggest otherwise. It is not impossible. It is absolutely possible, and we ought to be working on that. That is what they have asked us to do, and I hope we will. Let me just mention the debate so far has been sporadic and desultory. Members have not had a chance to be very engaged in the matter. We were off last week for Memorial Day, but the week before that we were in debate on the bill. The week before that, the old bill, last year's failed bill, was introduced and sat on the calendar until Tuesday morning of the week before the recess. They then plopped down a complete substitute, a completely new bill last Tuesday. On Monday, we talked about immigration. I talked about it at some length, but there were no Senators here, really. The only vote we had was on the motion to proceed to the new bill. We had a mere six roll call votes last week, and we didn't do anything Friday even though we were in session. A few hardy souls, myself included, came down and spoke, but nobody was here to really listen. There were no votes, and most Senators had already gone home for the recess. Here we are again, now on the Monday after recess, with very few Senators here and no votes scheduled for today. All of these days though, even though we did not do anything, are going to be counted, you see, as time we spend analyzing and amending the immigration bill that is before us. I suggest that at this painfully slow pace of amendments, the bill can't be done this week, that we need a great deal more time on this bill before final passage. The way the bill was brought up was that our colleague, Senator Reid, under rule XIV, just introduced it and immediately brought it up. It did not go to committee. It was brought straight to the floor. It really had only been written over the weekend, and, bam, here it was on the floor. Senator Reid really wanted to pass it the first week it was on the floor, but there was a lot of push-back on that, and now we are into this week of debate. I see from his comments today that the majority leader seems to think the bill can pass this week. I suggest it cannot. There is no way it can be done in a week. I think 100 amendments have been filed. To get one brought up, though, is not easy. You have to basically get the consent of the majority leader to get an amendment brought up and made pending. So there are not nearly so many pending as there are problems that need to be fixed. There are flaws in the legislation. I am going to talk about those at some length. I will be talking about at least 20 serious flaws in this legislation, but I do not want that to suggest that flaws alone are the only problems with the legislation. In this bill, we do not have a principled approach to the future flow of immigrants into America, that is not a loophole, that is a major flaw. We have not thought through philosophically what we want to do about immigration. We have not made the real commitment I had hoped we would to a more merit-based, skill- based immigration system. I am concerned about all of that. I think the American people are too. The administration and Senator Kennedy and the others who promoted the legislation talked about some principles as a part of talking points they handed out as the foundation for immigration legislation they would be offering. I first say to my colleagues, the bill does not meet the promises contained in those talking points and those principles. It just simply does not. If it did, we would be in much better shape than we are today, because many of those principles were sound. It contains, as I will note, a host of fundamental, serious defects and flaws that make the legislation not one that ought to be passed now. Finally, I still do not believe the White House and the Congress have heard the American people. They still think we can pass a piece of legislation here on the floor of the Congress, and we can push it through and get it off our plate, and it will be some years before the American people find out this will not work either, anymore than it did in 1986, and it will be up to the next President, or the next President, and they will be the ones who will have to answer for it, but we will not pay a price. That is just the way they think it is going to be. Although I believe the American people deeply and strongly and intelligently are committed to a lawful immigration system that is compassionate and will work, I am not sure the leadership in the Congress is, or the White House. Indeed, we have not had a President committed to enforcement of immigration laws in the last 40 years. Those are the fundamental questions I have. Let me talk about some of the loopholes. With regard to the trigger, in 1986, amnesty was given. No one disputed it. They said it would be the last amnesty we ever had and that enforcement would occur. Promises were made about enforcement. Those promises for enforcement in the future were never kept. That was the problem. We had 3 million people claim amnesty in 1986; today we have, they say, 12 million prepared to claim amnesty in the United States today. What happened? The promised enforcement did not occur, so more people came illegally. Some will say you cannot really enforce immigration law. Of course you can enforce immigration law; we just have not been willing to do the things necessary to do that. I reject that concept. But this time bill supporters are saying if we give amnesty, we are going to try to ensure the enforcement does occur and we are going to do that by having a trigger mechanism. This enforcement mechanism will say if you do not comply with the requirements of Border Patrol agents and fencing and other matters, if you do not comply with those, Mr. President, the amnesty does not occur. That idea made some sense. People believed that was a good idea. I think I originally suggested it in committee last year. Senator Isakson offered a full amendment on the floor in the last year's debate--that amendment was defeated, so last year's bill did not include a guarantee to have any enforcement first. Why would the trigger fail last year? Why would it fail? Does that suggest some people are not serious about enforcement? I think it does. But look at this trigger this year. The guys who were promoting the bill last year opposed a trigger, no trigger they said--but this year they say we will accept one, they are telling the American people not to worry we are going to have a trigger this bill. I want to briefly mention some things about it. The amnesty benefits simply do not wait, under this trigger, for the enforcement to occur. After the filing of an application by a person here illegally, under this legislation, and waiting for only 24 hours, illegal aliens will immediately receive probationary benefits. They will be lawfully in the United States, complete with the ability to legally live and work in the United States, to travel outside the United States and to return, and to have their own Social Security card. That is what happens within 24 hours. Astonishingly, if the trigger requirements are never met--that is these requirements that are supposed to be met first--and green card applications or permanent residents' applications are never approved by the Department of Homeland Security, the probationary benefits granted to the illegal alien population never expire, the cards issued to the population are never revoked, and they will be able to stay in the country indefinitely, forever maybe. After this bill passes, the Department of Homeland Security has 180 days to begin accepting Z visa amnesty applications. They will accept them for 1 year and can extend to accept them for another year and so forth.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. I say to my colleague Senator Bingaman, there is not 30 minutes but an hour equally divided. I will be pleased to yield to the Senator at this time and thank him for his amendment to contain the guest worker--the temporary worker program that was in the bill as introduced earlier, before we recessed. His amendment, as he knows-- although I am not sure a lot of people know--brought the new temporary guest worker program from 400,000 a year to 200,000 a year. Some think that is all it is. But if you read the bill carefully, you knew it was 400,000 for the first year and they got to stay for 2 years; another 400,000 for the second year with an accelerator clause in it, and for both years a certain number got to bring in family members, so in 2 years there would have been almost a million people in the country under that new temporary worker program--far more than it appeared on the surface. I am glad the amendment of Senator Bingaman was agreed to. I think it brought the numbers more in line. I am pleased to yield the floor at this time.