Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, and I believe he is telling us correctly that the way we were taught in school is that Senators ought to have an opportunity to understand what is before them before they vote. We are dealing with an extremely complex piece of legislation, and the more you get into it, the more I have been involved in it as a member of the Judiciary Committee and in the floor debate last year, the more I see you have to be realistic and practical and thoughtful and principled if you want to make this system work, and we are a long way from that. I think what Senator Bunning said earlier about the cost of this bill is important for us to consider. I understand some work is being done on a CBO score. I don't know if that is true, but I have heard that the Congressional Budget Office is attempting to score this, but it is difficult, I assume. They can't give a real score because we don't even have the bill in final form yet. It is still referred to as a draft and hasn't even been introduced. So until something is actually introduced, there is no way we can get a score. But I can tell you a little bit about the way this thing was handled last year. Those of us who were concerned about it last year asked for a score on the bill from the Congressional Budget Office to find out how much it would actually cost. We got a troubling number, and we used that number a day before we had a final vote, and then a month or so later, we got a more complete score from the Congressional Budget Office. I think that bill was probably less complicated than the one we are dealing with today, and they scored the bill, over 10 years, to be $127 billion in cost. Now, they excluded from that the money we spent on enforcement. I didn't count that. This was based on lost tax revenue, it was based on the welfare and other direct benefits to people who would be legalized under that bill and how much more they would draw from the Treasury than they would pay into the Treasury, and they came up with a cost of $127 billion over 10 years. Similar to last year's bill, this bill puts things off for 10 years. That is what the Budget Office scores normally on, a 10-year cycle. They score it on that basis, and that is how they came up with $127 billion. When we asked them--I believe at a public hearing--what about the next 10 years, they said: Well, it would definitely escalate. It will definitely be higher. Okay. Why? Well, because the lineup and the movement of people to green cards and citizenship was delayed by the bill. They were legalized in our country and they could stay, but they didn't get a permanent resident status, which gives you many welfare benefits and other benefits and citizenship, until the second 10 years. Do you understand that? That is when the big money is out there. That is what Robert Rector told us today at this press conference. That is what his study at the Heritage Foundation points out. He convinced us all last year. One thing you don't hear as much as you used to--oh, we need this immigration flow, these hard-working, low-skilled immigrants; they do a good job for us, and that is going to help us with Social Security and Medicare because we are an aging population, and we need those people coming into the country. They are going to help us with Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Rector demolished that argument. It is completely bogus. It is off the table. I hope nobody will suggest that anymore. Those were the people I called the masters of the universe up on Wall Street somewhere thinking they know: ``Oh, well, we don't want to be like Europe, we will just bring in this immigration and that will solve our debt problems for the future.'' Isn't that wonderful. But it doesn't work that way. Mr. Rector explained it last year and today with tremendous passion at a press conference. Half of the 12 million people here--at least half, maybe more, maybe 60 percent, there are different estimates--do not have a high school degree. Some of them are illiterate even in their own language. Mr. Rector studied the numbers on that. He used a framework of the National Academy of Sciences study in 1990. That study tried to analyze the economic impact of immigration. He took this disproportionate number of low-skilled and uneducated workers and he demonstrated, as Senator Bunning told us, that it is not this year and not next year the crisis will hit us, but in the outyears. Do you know what Mr. Rector said? He said they will begin to draw the biggest amount of money about the time the baby boomers are drawing the biggest amount of money out of the Treasury, and Medicare and Social Security will be damaged tremendously by this program. It is hard to talk about that. It is painful to talk about it in those terms, I have to tell you. We hate to do that. But a nation like Canada has had to deal with it. They wrestled with it and they decided it makes sense for them, since they cannot accept everybody who wishes to come to Canada--it would overflow the country, and more people want to come than they can accept--that they would accept people who have the job skills, the education, and the language skills that will be successful in Canada and therefore they will pay more in taxes than they will take out in benefits. Mr. Rector calculated what happens when you take the workers, the low-skilled workers who will be provided permanent legal status--call it amnesty or not--in this country, who will all be able to stay. He factored out a mortality rate. He was very complex and detailed in the analysis, following the principles of the National Academy of Sciences. He concludes it would cost the U.S. Treasury, over the lifetime of the people who will be provided amnesty, $2.3 trillion. A trillion is 1,000 billion. I got into an argument down here about attorneys' fees and I talked about attorneys getting $50 million and $100 million. One attorney in Mississippi got a $100 million check and no bank in Mississippi could cash the check. I was winning the argument. Then we started finding out they got billion dollar fees. The Baltimore Orioles guy got $2 billion in legal fees. We started talking about billions and I lost everybody. Nobody understood what we were talking about. It was too big; nobody could comprehend it and the steam went out of the debate. But I am telling you, $2.3 trillion is a lot of money; $2,300 billion is what that is. Pretty soon you are talking about real money. We have to think about this. I hope we will--very much. I will raise it as a moral issue. Remember, we have a certain zero sum game. We will put an ultimate level on the number of people who can enter our country. The question is, who will enter our country? We know, as I noted earlier, in the year 2000, 11 million applied for the 50,000 lottery slots. Think about that, 11 million want to come to America and they applied for those lottery slots. Only 50,000 names were drawn out of that 11 million. We can't accept everybody, and we should focus on what we can do for the people who will most likely flourish here, will pay more in taxes than they will take out in revenues, and who have proven themselves acceptable. Since we can't take everybody, let's raise this question. Under the current law, here is the choice for the immigration official. You have a person who dropped out of high school, has not done very well, has no English skills, but has a brother in the United States who is a citizen. Compare that to another young man in Honduras, say, who finished at the top of his class, and was the valedictorian. He took English classes because he wanted to take English. People all over the world learn English today. It is an international language. Millions of people know English all over the world. So he knows English. He took the technical and college courses he could get there. He had a couple of years in college. They both apply to be citizens. Who gets in? The answer is crystal clear: The brother with no education, no skills, is going to get in, and the other one will have zero chance to get in. We need family reunification. Everybody who becomes a citizen needs to be able to bring their parents. Why? Church groups are asking that. I ask, Why? If somebody leaves their family, goes to the United States of America, decides to be an American citizen and now feels they have a constitutional right to bring their aging parents in to be taken care of by the American health care system, why is that? If that parent is brought in, it denies that young person in Honduras, who has worked hard, studied hard, learned English, and dreams of being an American and dreams of the opportunity of coming to this country--because we have a limit to how many people can come. See? If we can't accept everybody, what basis do we use to decide who gets to come? I think that is an important concept. I urged and was very pleased when the White House and members of this group who are negotiating this bill said they were going to move to the Canadian point system, a merit-based system. That is the right thing for us to do. It only makes common sense. It is what Australia, New Zealand, as well as Canada, are doing. I understand the Brits are moving in that direction. I think they are moving towards it in The Netherlands and other advanced countries. We ought to be moving in that direction. I am disappointed the move was so small, and such an incremental step. I am not even sure that is going to be acceptable because prominent Democratic Senators have said--and Senator Reid earlier today used this phrase, which made me nervous,--``this is a good start.'' What does a ``good start'' mean? It means, well, it may change on the floor of the Senate. Then it could go to Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives, and they may take out the merit-based point system. Or it could go to conference where the conference committee will be formed to work out differences between the House bill and the Senate bill, and who will dominate the conference? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. She will appoint a majority of the House Members and Harry Reid will appoint a majority of the Senate Members, and the bill then comes right out. What they say is going to be in it. Senator Reid a while ago indicated his concern about a move away from family migration. I don't know; I am nervous about this legislation. Here we go, are we going to get together and hit the bait? They throw out a point system, a merit-based system like Canada, and this is going to be a big deal and we all bite it and it is not there. We get hooked. What we do know is it is a very small step. It may be an important step, but a small step. According to Senator Kennedy in his press conference and his statements through his staff, they calculate this will move the merit-based system in the United States from the 22 percent we have today to 30 percent. About 8 or 10 percent is all it is going to increase merit-based immigration into America. That is what he said. He said it to the leftist groups that have all been hollering about this and objecting. He says, Don't worry, there is nothing to it, it is not a point system at all. His staff, I believe his press secretary, said flat out, ``This is a family-based immigration system.'' You tell me what it is. Canada got to 60 percent, Australia 62 percent, on merit based. They are very happy with that. I have met with the director of the Canadian system. I met with an individual from Australia who is involved with it. I asked him how it was working, are they happy? Yes, they are. They considered things such as if you are willing to go to a more rural province that needs workers, you get more points. Because that serves the Canadian or Australian interest. A lot of things such as that can be made part of a thoughtful bill, which we do not have here, I am afraid. Why is it important we go to the merit-based system? There are 2.3 trillion reasons why. Look at immigration. Rector explained it to us last year. He is a senior fellow at Heritage. You get sort of a skewed picture. If you take the smaller number who come to America with any college, he said-- 2 years of college or above--they tend to do fabulously well. They tend to be very successful. They and their children almost never go on welfare. They pay their medical bills. They do well and they prosper. Many of them are providing scientific expertise that may be the cure for cancer and other diseases and have other capabilities, so that has tremendous benefits to us. When you add it all up and average them out, it makes the fundamental system look better than it is. But if you take the lower skilled workers, their productivity is not as great. I do not believe we ought to create a system that denies people, those who come in initially on a lower skilled workforce basis, the right to apply and compete on a merit basis. So if you choose to come as a low-skilled worker, you work as a bricklayer or something of the kind, you take advantage of junior college courses and you learn English and you get a few hours or some years of credit in college, and then you apply. They should be very competitive. They will know English probably by that time. We are not creating an underclass that gives them no chance to apply. But the system should apply, I suggest, in such a way that temporary workers can apply for permanent resident status and compete against anybody else. I believe that will work. We have very little increase in the bill as we see it in the high- skilled workers. We have not made a lot of progress toward dealing with those, many of the highly educated people who graduate from our best universities. They come here, advance to the top of their class at a university, and we often send them straight home. I think we have a strong feeling that we should fix that. But, so far, our evaluation of the bill indicates that it is not fixed very well at all. Congress needs to seize the moment. We need to pass legislation that will improve our immigration policy, a policy that serves our national interests, our legitimate, just national interests, and that will secure our border and create a lawful system. These goals will not be accomplished by last year's bill. That is what we will be voting on in a few minutes, cloture on last year's bill, which I have a great deal of concern with and could delineate a host of reasons it is a total disaster. And they won't be accomplished with a new bill that we are forcing through today. So that is a concern for us. I do believe the principles set forth in the PowerPoint presentation attracted my attention, got my interest up because I thought it would move from a framework that last year's bill had, which was a failed framework, to a framework that could actually be effective to accomplish what we want. I am disappointed, almost heartbroken, because we made some progress toward getting to this new framework, but the political wheeling and dealing and compromising and splitting the baby has resulted in a circumstance that--we just did not get far enough. I wish we could do better. We have got to do better. This is a historic opportunity. If we do not grab the bull by the horns now, we are going to be sorry. I would suggest that my colleagues say now is the time to pass a bill. I agree. But what I would say in addition is, let's pass a good bill. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Nelson. I believe he wanted to share some remarks. I would be glad to yield to him in a moment and just say that I appreciate his service to the country on the Armed Services Committee. I was a member of his delegation. We got back a few weeks ago from Iraq. Senator Nelson, thank you for your leadership of that delegation. It was a meaningful visit to Fallujah and other places. Thank you for your principled and effective leadership on immigration. I yield to you at this time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I had time set aside. Has that time expired? How much time is left?

Mr. SESSIONS. Regarding the damage this would do to the financial well-being of our country.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Members of the Senate--at least a certain limited number--are intensely involved in an attempt to draft an immigration bill that will serve the national interest. I say ``serve the national interest'' because there are quite a number of special interests. There are the interests of poor people all over the world who would like to come here, interests of all kinds. But at one of our hearings, we had several professors and experts on immigration and the economy. They said we ought to ask what is in the national interest and do that. That can also cause us to develop a thought process that could lead to legislation of which we can be proud. One thing that is not in our national interest is to continue the current policy of immigration. It is not working. It has comprehensively failed us. We all know that. We have been at this for some time. We know this system is not working effectively. It has not made us proud. Congress deserves a lot of blame. Often unmentioned is that very considerable blame should fall on Presidents over the last 20 years because I am not aware of a single time any of them have come to Congress with a comprehensive request for action that would actually fix this broken system. So both Congress and the President deserve criticism. These discussions are ongoing. I admire the Senators who are participating. I am aware these discussions are going on. People ask me: Senator, does that offend you? I say: No, you need some people to gather to try to hammer something out and sometimes to make a blocked system begin to work. There are some excellent Senators participating in that activity. But I have to tell my colleagues, I have some concerns. My predictions last week seem to be coming true today; that is, a process has been ongoing that could lead to us having an entirely new bill plopped on the floor of the Senate, that nobody has had a chance to read on one of the most important issues facing our country. Some say: Oh, it is not so important. We have to get the bill off the floor. The public is going to be mad, so the sooner we can just bring this thing up and vote it out and get it away from here, the less blame is going on fall on us. That kind of thinking is afoot here, I am afraid. But it is not good thinking. I believe the American people know this is an important issue. They believe we should get it right. They want us to get it right. They know there are going to have to be some tough choices. I know there are people talking, calling in on the radio and fussing and saying unkind things sometimes that they shouldn't say. We have people calling in with Pollyanna-ish ideas that are not worth two cents. People sort of judge the debate by maybe what they hear in those circumstances. We need to work up a bill that can be effective, that would actually work. It cannot be done quickly. Fortunately, the efforts have been abandoned on the bill that we passed last year, amazingly. It was an absolutely fatally flawed piece of legislation that should never have become law. I think Members of the Senate, many of them who voted for it, had they believed it would become law, probably wouldn't have voted for it. They also didn't know what was in it. It was over 800 pages. They knew the House wasn't going to pass it. That is not responsible leadership. This year, we have a new framework. When you have a new framework, you are not able to analyze portions of last year's bill and see how the new framework is going to work. So we are told that they are coming close to reaching agreement. People who I affectionately called ``the masters of the universe,'' those who are out there plotting all this comprehensive immigration reform and putting it together, they are meeting. What will they produce? I don't know. So we are now going to have a cloture vote on Monday. The Democratic leader insisted on that. He moved it off at least until Monday to give this small group a few more days to discuss it, this small group who are on the inside. As a result, we will have a cloture vote on Monday on the old bill, last year's bill. Presumably Tuesday or sometime, this new bill will be plopped down. What is going to be in it? We don't know. We were told we may get the language tomorrow or we are going to try to have the language for you tomorrow, Senators, so you can at least begin to read it. We think this year's bill is going to be a thousand pages. That is not a little bitty matter, a thousand pages. As a former Federal prosecutor for 15 years, I know that if you don't get every single aspect of the bill right, it can't be made enforceable. If you make errors in the language and the drafting and the appellate process and the enforcement ideas, the whole thing can be a joke and not effective. It takes time to do write a bill this size correctly. We are going to have this comprehensive immigration reform bill bouncing back up next week. They are going to want to vote on it by Friday of next week. I submit that Senators will not be given enough time to really analyze it, much less the American people. If we are to avoid cynicism, we ought to make sure the American people are engaged in the process. Those are large concerns of mine. As I said, they say we may have the language tomorrow. But the best we can ascertain is, it is probably not going to be bill language, language we would actually vote on and amend. This is serious. It is some sort of outline or word statement of what the bill provisions are going to be, not having had it written out so we can examine it carefully before we vote on it. A group of Senators--I was one of them--has written a letter to the Republican leader and to the majority leader, I believe, to say that with an issue as important and complex as immigration reform, it is critical that the process for floor consideration be open to full and informed debate and amendment. Who could dispute that? It goes on to say: There are reports that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed will be held on Monday. We would ask you to seek the following assurances from Senator Reid. This would be the letter to Senator McConnell asking him to approach the majority leader, Senator Reid, and ask for these assurances: that a new, compromise proposal should be brought to the floor of the Senate as a separate, clean bill, not as an amendment to S. 1348, last year's bill. Therefore, we can proceed in a clean fashion to amend it and act on it in the appropriate fashion. No. 2, it was asked that full and final bill text must be available online in a searchable format by midnight tonight. They have been talking about having that available in this fashion, but will we get it? I doubt it. All germane Republican amendments must be allowed to be called up and voted on. That is germane amendments, amendments that go right to the bill, not amendments unrelated to the bill. We need a CBO score, that is the Congressional Budget Office score. We had the CBO finally come through with a score on last year's bill that found that not counting the enforcement expenditures, the cost of that bill, as written, would be $127 billion. I thank my excellent staff member for her assistance. Real money, I submit, it would cost, because the people who would be legalized and given permanent status and put on the road to citizenship in last year's bill would have been available for huge amounts of money from the Government in terms of earned-income tax credit and other welfare programs. So we don't have a score on it. Before we pass a bill, we should look at the CBO score. The CBO has made clear that the real surge in cost to the U.S. Treasury will be in the next 10 years, not in the first 10 years. In fact, the Heritage Foundation's Mr. Robert Rector, who was one of the architect of welfare reform a number of years ago, has done immense calculations on the cost of the bill. He estimates that a substantial percentage of the people who would be legalized under this legislation will have less than a high school education and that on average would cost the U.S. Treasury $30,000 a year or as much as $1 million over a lifetime per household headed by a person without a high school education. He carefully worked those numbers up. Are they accurate? I don't know. But he spent a lot of time working on that. The point Mr. Rector and the Heritage Foundation have made with crystal clarity is that those wise people in the big suites in Manhattan who think we are going to solve our financial difficulties with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security by adding large amounts of low-skilled immigration are in a dream world because it is going to cost us, not help us, financially. He called it a fiscal disaster. We haven't even seen the language of the new comprehensive immigration reform bill, so we don't know what the CBO score and the cost to the U.S. taxpayers would be. Those are some fairly minimal issues that I believe should be dealt with before we rush into legislation. Let me mention a few quick questions that I have about the new bill. The bill purports to have an enforcement guarantee. That is important. The enforcement provisions contained in Title I and Title II of the new bill will be meaningless unless they are funded, meaning that we actually put the money up for enforcement, and unless the enforcement measures are required to be implemented before other parts of the bill kick in. That was the ``trigger'' debate we had last year. Senator Isakson from Georgia offered a commonsensical approach that we should not give benefits to individuals until we are sure that the immigration system is not continuing to be broken and not working. It would simply require the borders to be secured before the new immigration programs are implemented. But it was rejected on the floor after debate last year 40 to 55 because the leaders who so-called put together that bill last year agreed they would vote against any amendments that had any significant impact on the legislation. So they all got together and voted against a commonsensical trigger. We need such a trigger in this year's legislation. Without an enforcement trigger, we are unable to assure the American people that immigration reform in 2007 will be any different from 1986, when the promises of future enforcement, made in exchange for the amnesty given in 1986, never materialized. That is what happened. In 1986, they said there were about 2 million people here illegally. We set up a system to grant them amnesty. We changed some laws to supposedly make the immigration system more lawful in the future. When amnesty was handed out, turned out to be 3 million people were here illegally. We had a big percentage of those who claimed amnesty, and who got it--got it on fraudulent claims--when they really were not entitled to it. That is the history of immigration reform in 1986--20 years ago. So we need to make sure, this time, when legislation passes, it will actually work. Isn't that what the American people want of us? Another question we need to ask: How much will this bill increase legal immigration? Last year, the bill would have increased the number of green cards--that is, permanent resident status--the United States would issue over the next 20 years to 53 million. That would be 34 million more than the current 18.9 million scheduled to be issued under current law. That was last year's bill. It was just about three times the current rate of immigration. Now, I have to tell you, Professor Borjas, at Harvard, has written a book, ``Heaven's Door.'' He is at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, himself a Cuban inmigrant as a young man. Professor Borjas has indicated he thinks that 500,000 per year would be the right number for America, economically and otherwise. That would be 10 million over 20 years, not 53 million over 20 years. When it came out of committee, it was even worse. It would have increased the immigration levels by elevenfold--up to 217 million over 20 years. It actually could have gone that high under the bill as written. My staff--Cindy Hayden and her team--ran these numbers, and they were later confirmed by the Heritage Foundation. We had amendments that brought it down to 53 million. So we do not know what the green card increases will be in the bill being talked about now. It is a critical question. So we need time to study that issue and make sure the numbers of people coming into our country are assimilatable, and also do not plummet the wages of American workers, particularly middle-class and lower middle-class workers. I am telling you, the numbers indicate that low-skilled workers in the industries where there are large amounts of illegal immigration have not shown wage increases. In fact, in many instances, adjusted for inflation, wages have gone down. We had expert testimony on that. From 2000 to 2005, wages in categories of workers, where immigration is heavy, showed a net decrease in income. So that only makes sense. If you bring in large amounts of low- skilled labor, you can expect the value of low-skilled labor in the United States to go down. I do not think the average American believes and expects that immigration reform will result in a large increase in immigration. I am pretty sure they think we are working on a comprehensive plan to create a legal system that works, and they probably expect immigration will be reduced, not tripled. So we have to look at that question. Another question would be: Will the temporary program be temporary? Last year's bill contained a ``temporary'' worker program that was, in reality, a low-skilled permanent migration program for 200,000 workers, plus their families, annually. This is the bill that is on the floor today that we will vote cloture on next week. Workers and their families were given 3-year renewable visas. They could bring their families into the United States. They could be sponsored by their employer, the first year they are here, for a green card, to become permanent residents in the United States. They could continue to renew those temporary worker 3-year visas indefinitely, as long as they were working and did not have a felony conviction. So in last year's bill it was not a temporary worker program. It was a plan to bring in workers who were put on a virtual automatic path to permanent residence and citizenship. What will this new bill contain? We hear different things. One is that it contains a 3-year visa, where workers are allowed to bring in their families--I am not sure we can look our voters in the eye back home and say we are going to sponsor such a program again this year. Additionally, if we set aside 10,000 green cards a year for these new ``temporary'' workers to apply for--as I am hearing the bill may do--I am sure we cannot claim our intention is to create a temporary plan. So I am worried about that. All I would say to my colleagues is, let's be sure we have enough time. There is no reason for us to have to vote a week from this Friday on final passage of a 1,000-page bill that we have never even seen the language of yet. The only bill that is out there is last year's fatally flawed bill. Why can't we have this opportunity to review the new bill? I have argued we should move dramatically in the way that Canada moved to create a merit-based system for immigration, based on skills and abilities, which countries such as Canada or the United States would deem helpful to their nation. If we have 100 people who want to come to our country, and we cannot accept 100, we can only accept 50, why wouldn't we set up a system that asks them what skills and attributes they have that might be beneficial to our country--which would allow them to most flourish and benefit from the American experience? Why wouldn't we ask that and give preference to those who would come here? I say to my colleague, to show the bankruptcy of any idea that we could have open borders, in the year 2000, we had 11 million people apply for 50,000 diversity lottery slots. We have an amazing situation, if you want to come to America, and you do not qualify in any number of ways, you can put your name in a pot, and each year we draw out 50,000 names. We had 11 million people in 1 year apply for those slots. So why wouldn't a merit-based system work? Today, only 20 percent of the immigrants coming into the United States are admitted based on their skills. Canada went through a long period of discussion about this issue. They had a national discussion over some years, and the Parliament in Canada directed their government to establish a point-based system. Canada wanted that point-based system to ensure that 60 percent of the people who come into Canada come on a merit basis. Canada still takes those for humanitarian relief, Canada still takes other immigrants such as those with family connections, but in Canada that is much more limited than in the United States. That was their plan. They are very happy with it. I have met with the person who actually runs that program. They are happy with what they did. They think it is something we should consider. They think we would be happy with it. We are hearing discussions that would be a part of this package. What a great step that would be if we would move in that direction. It is critical to me that more immigrants be selected on a point-based system as part of comprehensive immigration reform. It is something for which I have advocated for some time now and think we could actually get there. I am hearing some good feedback about it. But, once again, we need to read the language of the new bill. I would point out a couple things. One, what I am hearing is the best they would expect to get to would be 40 percent of the immigrants would be coming into our country based on merit, not 60 percent like Canada. Australia also does that, with 60 percent of their immigrants coming into their country on a merit-based, on a point-based system. I am concerned that we will end up with a system that will not be effective to move us to a more merit-based system, which would serve our long-term national interests and would ensure the people who do come to America come with every prospect and every ability to flourish in our country and to do well, and not only not be a drain on our medical system or our welfare system, but actually be prosperous taxpayers contributing to the health and vitality of our Nation. I think I saw Senator Boxer in the Chamber a few moments ago. I will wrap up, if she is available, but I do not see her on the floor at this moment. I will share a couple more thoughts I do think are important. Last year, we did not get a final CBO score until 3 months after the passage of the bill. The August 18th CBO score estimated the bill would cost $126.9 billion for the first 10 years, and that ``beyond 10 years, definitely the costs would escalate.'' That is a major factor in what we are doing, and we have not even, to my knowledge, asked for a score from CBO, and I do not think we can ask for a score. We cannot ask for a score because we do not have bill language to say what is going to happen. We do not even know what is in the bill that will be dropped on us. Another issue that was quite contentious last year, and I believe is very important: Will illegal aliens who worked here under a fictitious name and fraudulent Social Security number be able to get Social Security benefits? Last year's bill would have allowed current illegal aliens to get Social Security benefits for the time they worked illegally in the United States. In addition to the predictable fraud on the Social Security system that would result from this provision--there would be no way you could identify with certainty who paid with what Social Security number if you are using false numbers--this concept is fundamentally unfair to the millions of Americans who rely on Social Security as their main form of retirement income. Our Social Security system is already in peril--$6.8 trillion will already have to be invested by Congress today to have enough money to pay all of the program's promised benefits between 2017 and 2081. So it is not a program that is financially sound. To provide millions an opportunity to make a claim to receive Social Security benefits when they were illegally in the country--utilizing a fraudulent Social Security number, illegally taking employment when they were not entitled to it, perhaps taking a job from an American worker--to be rewarded with Social Security benefits, I believe, is not required. Basic law--having handled a number of cases that dealt with it--is that one cannot benefit or go to court to enforce an unlawful contract. If you are a drug dealer, you cannot sue another drug dealer to enforce a promise to pay for drugs. You should not be able to have a claim against the Government based on your fraudulent conduct and then go to court and file a lawsuit to enforce that claim. That is just a basic principle of law, so any bill that offers a compassionate solution for the illegal alien population should draw the line at allowing those who come to our country illegally, utilizing false Social Security numbers, to receive benefits because it is unjust. And, how could you ever calculate that? I will mention one more thing and will wrap up. What about the earned-income tax credit? Will that be available to temporary workers or illegal aliens given status under the bill? The earned-income tax credit is a benefit designed to assist low- income Americans. I do not believe it should be provided to foreign workers who we invite to perform labor in our economy, whose own choice was to come and work here. The cost estimate released by CBO last August calculated that last year's bill would have increased outlays for refundable tax credits by $24.5 billion in the first 10 years because most of these workers are on wage scale rates that qualify for the earned-income tax credit. It would be the largest direct spending effect in the entire bill. Now, the earned income tax credit was a plan conjured up by President Nixon a number of years ago and has some legitimate basis. Many people--conservatives--like it, and some don't. But it was designed to help working Americans make extra money so they could take care of their families. It costs us $40 billion a year. It is one of the biggest programs we have. I see no reason in policy or equity that says if a person comes to America to work at a job at a certain wage rate and they would generally know what that wage rate is before they came, that they ought to be given an earned income tax credit, a credit designed to encourage American citizens to work. What kind of sense does that make? So we had a vote on that last year, and the vote was to continue to give this benefit, even to temporary workers. These are some of the issues I think are important. We are going to treat compassionately the people who are here illegally, try to work something out that is acceptable to them on any reform; we are going to try to do the things that Americans want to do in terms of generous and fair treatment to everybody. But we don't need to go overboard and put things in the bill for political correctness or other reasons that don't make common sense, that threaten our Treasury, that could drive down the wages of American workers, that could increase the flow of workers into our country to a degree that is much larger than we have seen in the past, and that would not move us effectively to a more merit-based system like our neighbors in Canada have adopted. Those are some of my concerns. I value and appreciate the hard work of the people who are working to try to make a bill come together, but I want people to know that it is a scary thing. I think it was the Chinese who said, in defining crisis, it is a crossing of danger and opportunity. Yes, we do have an opportunity to produce a bill that could be far better than last year's bill--a bill we could all support, that could actually work, that we could be proud of. I actually think that is possible. This year's framework for a bill is certainly a lot better. I am excited about that. But I have to tell my colleagues from what we are hearing about the language that is actually going into the bill, we could have big print rubric letters that promise this and promise that, but when you read the fine print, it is not there. We owe the American people an honest, hard study of any legislation we vote on. If that legislation is not produced until next week, even if we get an outline of some kind tomorrow, that is not enough time for us to study it. I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts. I sincerely hope that a compromise can be reached, and I hope it is one that will serve the United States. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jenny Lee, who is on detail from ICE with me, for the duration of the immigration reform debate, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to take a few moments this afternoon to follow up on my remarks of last evening about concerns I have involving the immigration process that is ongoing in the Senate and what Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, has indicated he plans to do. I absolutely believe a framework exists for us to develop comprehensive immigration reform that can be worthy of the American people, to create a lawful system of immigration that will work. It will be difficult in a number of areas, but we can do that. A framework is being discussed, I know, because I have seen the PowerPoint presentations and some of the other discussions about it. A framework exists that could lead to effective immigration reform. There is no doubt that this Nation needs comprehensive immigration reform. The whole system is broken. Nothing about it works. The legal system is an embarrassment to us as a nation and a source of frustration to the American people. They rightly are concerned about it, and politicians don't seem to be. That is why we have had a problem for so long, and frustration and anger gets built up. People sometimes call in to radio stations and say things they shouldn't say that are unkind. A lot of it is a direct response to a failure of the Congress and the executive branch to do what is required to create a lawful system of immigration. For Heaven's sake, don't we all agree with that concept, a lawful system of immigration? What interests should it serve? It should serve the national interest, the American interest. I asked Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security and Secretary Gutierrez of Commerce at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee not long ago, what should a lawful system of immigration do? Should it not serve the national interest? They said: Yes, sir. Professor Borjas, a Cuban refugee, at Harvard has written a book on immigration. He said: If you tell me what interest you wish to serve, I can help you draft an immigration policy that will work. For example, if you say it should be the national interest, I can help you achieve that. If you want to serve the interest of poor people around the world, I can help achieve that. He basically said in his book ``Heaven's Door,'' we could serve poor people around the world by just letting them all in. That would be in their interest. We know that. In 2000, we had 11 million people apply for 50,000 lottery slots. The names are drawn out of a hat randomly. Only 50,000 are drawn out a year. We had 11 million apply for those slots. We have to look at the basics. More people want to come to this country than we can accept, and those whom we accept should be based on what is in our interest. How much more simple can it be than that? I submit that is a moral and legitimate basis. We always have a humanitarian component to immigration. I would not reduce that. About 16 percent of those who come, thereabouts, are for humanitarian reasons. I think we will always want to have that available for people who are persecuted or otherwise need humanitarian relief. Fundamentally, the rest of our program ought to serve the national interest. This is what has happened. There are supposedly bipartisan discussions going on--and I know they are going on--to try to take the framework that has been agreed on by the President, Cabinet members, and some Members and to flesh that out and develop an immigration policy. That hasn't reached fruition. I understand some of the leaders on the Democratic side have walked away. They are not prepared to follow through on the overall agenda item for a given area, this framework. When you start writing down the words that will actually effectuate what you promise to do, then people start backing off. I have said a number of times on the floor that we have a great deal of interest in immigration reform, except that we need a lawful system which will work. If it is a system that will actually work, we find immediately people start objecting. Senator Reid has said these negotiators--I sometimes want to call them masters of the universe; I don't know who selected them--are meeting here and they are deciding the fate of American immigration. I want to say, well, let's see what they produce. I have told my constituents I hope they will discuss it, and maybe some agreement can be reached, one I could support. But I promised my constituents--and every Senator ought to make this commitment--that I am going to read that bill. Just because people have great sounding words, if you don't read the words carefully and what they will actually mean in the effort to enforce immigration law, then you don't know what you are going to get. You are going to end up as we did in 1986, with a program that was an utter failure. The one we had last year would never have worked. It would have been a disastrous failure. It had no chance of being successful or ever achieving the ideas it purported. Senator Reid apparently is unhappy. He has the power, as the Democratic leader, to call up any piece of legislation he wants to call up. He has said: I am not happy with the speed of this. He has said he is going to call up, under the power of the majority leader under rule XIV, last year's bill, and that this will be on the floor. Then he will want the negotiators to continue to negotiate, and maybe they will figure out what would be better. Then he might substitute this newly negotiated bill that hasn't been written yet--nobody has seen a word of it--and then we will vote. That will make everybody happy. Let me say this, with all sincerity: The American people know immigration is a big issue. It is an important issue; it really is. It says a lot about the nature of this country. Are we going to be a country that the world knows has laws that are never enforced, that our immigration policies make a mockery of the law, as they do today? Will we continue to see people all over the world get the idea in their heads--correct today, basically--that if they can just get into America, sooner or later we will make them citizens and give them everything, even if they came illegally? Is that the kind of message we want to send? Senator Reid has said he is going to bring up last year's bill. He also indicated that after last year's bill is introduced and maybe a compromise would be reached. Maybe they would substitute this compromise as a new bill which we have never seen before, nor the words in it. Let me tell my colleagues, an immigration bill is not an itty-bitty thing. An immigration bill consists of a lot of pages. A group of us, about 15 of us, wrote to the majority leader and asked that we have 7 days--I thought that was way too short--to read the bill. Isn't that pathetic? The immigration bill last year was 700-plus pages. Seven hundred pages. This never before seen compromise version may be longer. At least last year's bill came out of the Judiciary Committee, and we had a chance to argue over it in there, although the train ran right through the Judiciary Committee and it ran through--basically through the floor of the Senate. But we began to read it before it was over, and I remember making a speech down here, several speeches, pointing out 17 loopholes in that bill, fatal flaws in the legislation. But anyway, it passed, but the House refused to even consider it. Based on what was in the New York Times and Rollcall or The Hill or one of the publications, the plan would then presumably be for Senator Reid to bring up last year's bill, which is unthinkable, in my view. It was fatally flawed. We will stay on that bill for some time, and then perhaps they will plop on it a substitute and take out all or parts of last year's bill and substitute an entirely new bill, 600, 700 or 800 pages, and then we will vote on it. That will be good for the masters of the universe, you see, because when you do that, there would not be time for the American people or for Lou Dobbs or Rush Limbaugh to find out what is in it and to tell the American people what is in it so they can get mad about it. That is basically what it is about. They want to slide it through with the least possible time to discuss it. I think that is irresponsible. It is wrong. We should spend plenty of time on this legislation. We should go to the American people with honesty and integrity and tell them: Some of the things you want to do, Mr. and Mrs. America, we can't do. We are not going to be able to make immigration come out exactly like you would want it or exactly like I would want it. We are going to have to reach a compromise, but we understand we have a commitment to you, and that commitment is to create a system that will work in the future. But I am worried about it because from what I am hearing, the system seems to be moving in a way that is going to create an opportunity to vote on a completely unseen immigration bill--nobody has read it except a little group--and move it through this Senate. Now, remember, the bill that passed last year was a bad piece of legislation, but it did pass this Senate. People thought it would die in the House, and sure enough, it did die in the House and it was never considered. They wouldn't even look at it. But I am not sure that is going to happen this time. So we may have this plan in the works, and it will work something akin to this: Well, we spend 2 or 3 days talking about immigration, burning time and filibustering, filing cloture on a motion to proceed, and we get on the bill for a day or two and then all of a sudden a new bill comes on and in a day or two, it is passed. Hardly anybody knows what is in it or has had a chance to read it. Then it goes to the House of Representatives, where the Democratic majority now has a 15 seat, 16 seat or so majority over there; some of the Republicans would clearly be in favor of whatever passed out of the Senate. They don't have any way to delay votes over there, so the bill could be brought up and passed, the same bill, without any amendment. That could happen. Then it goes to the President and he signs it and then we will find out 2, 3 or 4 years from now whether it works. I don't think it is going to work. I am worried about it. I am worried about it. I am worried there is not a commitment among the executive branch to enforce the immigration laws. Anybody who would like to be elected President--the new executive branch leader has a commitment to ensuring a lawful system of immigration. That is all the American people want. They are not saying they don't want any immigrants in America. So I am saying this because I am concerned this is where we are headed. I think it is unhealthy for the Senate. If we do that, we would have failed in an august responsibility. This is the body that is supposed to let the passions cool, where Senators look over important issues, think them through, and then make a decision on them. Also, the delay and the slowdown that goes on in the Senate is helpful so the American people can be advised on what their representatives are actually doing. So I am worried about it, and Senator Reid's strategy is frightening to me. So let me repeat: I believe the framework that has been mentioned for the drafting of a comprehensive immigration reform bill actually has the potential to be successful. But based on my experience in the 10 years I have been in the Senate and the debate we have seen on immigration, I am inclined to believe they will have positive-sounding words on the headlines in big print, but the real language will not effectuate the promises they make or the goals they set. We could end up with no progress whatsoever. We could end up with amnesty and no enforcement in the future. That is what happened in 1986. If you remember, in 1986, they said there are probably a million people in the country illegally. The system was not working. We had to do something, so we should grant amnesty to the people who came illegally, contrary to law, and then we would develop a new system in the future so that this would be the amnesty to end all amnesties. There would be no more amnesties. Well, 3 million people showed up to take advantage of it rather than 1 million people, and in the 20-plus years--21 years--since, we now have found in our country an estimated 12 million to 20 million people here illegally. So now we want to, I guess, give amnesty again on a promise that we will have a system that will work in the future. But the American people, you see, are cynical about it. They are not comfortable with us anymore on this subject, and frankly they are right to be cynical. Because there are a lot of special interests out there who are asking for what is in their interests but not what is in the national interests. It is time for us to consider what is in the national interests and do the right thing on immigration. I firmly believe we will do a better job of writing a bill that will work, a bill that will serve our national interests, that will create a lawful immigration system, if the American people know what is going on, because that is what they want. The American people have been consistently right on this issue. Their instincts have been right consistently. Oh, there are some nutty folks out here who are mean spirited, there is no doubt about that, but they represent a very small number. The basic feeling of the American people is sound on immigration and has been. It is the Congress and the executive branches that have failed them for 50 years. We don't have to continue to fail the American people. We have a responsibility to make it work, and I am hopeful that in the discussions for the first time with Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez helping behind the scenes to develop some plans that would actually work, we might even get this thing done. There is some possibility. I wouldn't have believed it, but now I am beginning to think it is possible. But if at the last minute the special interest groups who seem to have dominated last year get their way, we would not be able to pass the bill we can be proud of. We would not pass a bill that will work, and we will be back in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now, dealing with another crisis. So I will not go on anymore about it. I will mention what the framework, as I understood it, contained, that these PowerPoint presentations that were shown around and got leaked to the press, it has real improvement in border enforcement. We need that. That is essential. If you are serious about immigration, you want border enforcement. It set up as a goal a very effective job workplace enforcement, something that could actually work, using biometric identifying cards, helping the businesses and telling them exactly what they need to do so they can't be prosecuted or sued for doing something wrong. They are told exactly what to do and what will work. We can make the workplace cease to be the magnet for illegal jobs. That is very important, and it can be done. We need to deal compassionately and realistically with the people who are here illegally, but I don't believe that someone who broke the law in our country should be given every single benefit that we give to those who come lawfully. We will have to wrestle with that, and nobody is going to be happy, I am sure, with the way that comes out. That is the way it is with any big piece of legislation. We need a genuine temporary seasonal worker program that is separate and apart from the program that would allow people to come into the country on a citizenship track. On the basic entry, citizenship entry into the United States, we need to be far more similar to Canada, which has a merit-based, skill-based system that evaluates applicants on what they bring to Canada: Do you speak English? Do you have an education? Do you have skills that Canada needs? It is a skill-based point system. It is objective and fair, and it serves the Canadian interests, and they are very happy with it. So is Australia, so is New Zealand, and I think the United Kingdom is also moving forward in this direction. A merit-based point system can actually be a framework for success. I understand that is being discussed. We do not need to promote such a framework, and then vote on a bill that doesn't create the merit-based point system when you read the fine print. That would be a failure. So those are my concerns, and I will object with every ability I have, I will utilize every tool I have to ensure that whatever bill hits this floor, that Senators and the American people have time to evaluate it and an opportunity to know what is in it. But there are ways that this time and opportunity can be denied if the leadership is determined and can get the support. We could deny the American people that right, and it would be wrong to do so. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I hope we are not moving forward with a plan that would introduce the immigration bill we considered in the Senate last year. That is what I am hearing. I believe there are talks ongoing today--bipartisan talks--talks in which the White House and other members of the President's Cabinet are participating where they are at least talking about a framework of a comprehensive immigration reform of which we could be proud. The bill that was introduced last year was fatally flawed. It was not the kind of legislation we should have passed. If it had been passed, it would never have worked and would have been an embarrassment to the Senate. I cannot say how strongly I believe that to be true. There was no way we could repair that bill by amendment. I talked about that last year. It was important that we start over with a new piece of legislation. We worked on it, and a majority of the Republicans in the Senate, last year, voted against the bill. The House refused to even consider it. They would not take it up. Four Democrats voted against the bill last year. So the only way to enact comprehensive immigration legislation is to start over and write a new bill on which both the Democrats and a majority of Republicans can agree. Until this week, I had hopes that was ongoing. I have not been in the detailed negotiations, but I have been briefed on some of the framework for reform that, to me, is very consistent with what I pleaded with my colleagues last year to do. Now, over the past several weeks, up to 10 Members of the Senate have been actively meeting to write a new bill. They started with the principles laid out by the White House in a 23-page Powerpoint that promptly got leaked. Maybe they wanted it leaked. I don't know. Those Powerpoints just have one or two lines. They do not have fine print. But they do set fourth agenda items and principles. The principles laid out in that Powerpoint are much closer to a bill I could support and I think the American people would be willing to support. This is what they included in that presentation. Although I am not involved in the details, I think it is what Members are discussing at this moment--have been discussing, at least. Apparently, people periodically walk away from the discussions, and they say this isn't good enough or I don't like this, but that is negotiation, hopefully, and we can work forward with it. Let me just tell you some of the things that are in this bill that were not in last year's legislation. There is an enforcement trigger. Before any new immigration programs or green card adjustments could begin, the principles in the Powerpoint would require an ``enforcement trigger'' to be met. Senator Isakson from Georgia offered that. He basically said: We are not going to trust you this time--the American people are not. We want to see that you follow through on the things that are critical to a lawful immigration system before we pass the green card adjustments and deal with those other issues. It also requires that the Border Patrol be increased to the numbers agreed upon--with a total of 18,300. It is one thing to say we are going to authorize 18,000 Border Patrol agents, which I think is a minimum, really not sufficient to cover the border--but it is an increase of significance. We are not going to go forward with the bill until you actually hire them and put them on the payroll and train them and they are out there. Also, 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing must be constructed. We talked about that, and I offered the amendment. It passed several times and eventually was passed last year. The catch and release at the border must be ended. This idea of catching people at the border who have violated our immigration laws and have come into the country illegally--they are being taken inland, taken before some administrative officer or judge and released on bail and asked to come back. Well, 95 percent are not showing up. That is what they wanted to do: to be brought into America. They were released on bail. Nobody ever went out and found them or looked for them. It is just a broken system. It is not working. Those are things that are part of the trigger as to what has to be fixed before we go forward with the legislation. That would be in the principles. The future flow of temporary workers is critical. As to the future flow temporary worker program, the so-called Y visas--the principles outline a new program for truly temporary workers. The White House plan would admit new workers for 2 years and could be renewed three times, for a total of 6 years. Between each 2-year period, workers would be required to return to their home countries for 6 months. Workers could not bring their spouses or their children but could return home to visit them if they choose. They would be able to go back and forth as often as they liked. There is no cap specified in the White House plan, but the plan envisions an annual cap set by the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, depending on American needs. Workers would be eligible to apply for green cards through regular channels. Regular channels are adjusted to a more merit-based system. It would include a merit-based system. I think this is a great improvement over last year's legislation. But I have to tell you, I am concerned about people coming to stay more than 1 year because I think it becomes more and more difficult for them to leave. They are less likely to leave. Many of them are more likely to violate the law and just embed and stay. I think a 1-year plan would be far better. But those are things that are being talked about which would be substantially better than last year's legislation. There is a seasonal worker program that makes much more sense than what was in last year's bill. The principles also contain a ``new and improved'' seasonal worker program that would combine the current agricultural--the H-2A plan--and unskilled--H-2B--seasonal worker programs. We combine those two programs, as they should be combined, because they are each for temporary workers. Workers could remain in this country for 9 months at a time, under this proposal, and would be required to return to their home countries for 3 months in between. This is a temporary worker program that appears to be actually temporary, unlike last year's legislation, in which the temporary guest worker program in last year's immigration bill said an individual could come to this country temporarily, but they could bring their wife and children. They could come for 3 years. That 3 years could be extended again and again and again. And they could apply for citizenship within the first year they got here. That was the temporary worker program last year. How broken was that? It would never have worked. People bring their children, they get settled in the country, a decade goes by. Who is going to be able to ask them to leave? What kind of painful scene would that be? Teachers, preachers, family members, neighbors--they have gotten to know people. They have a whole new mindset, an incorrect mindset. The bill, last year, said ``temporary guest worker program,'' and this is what it was. It was really a permanent entry into the country for very extended periods of time where it could be difficult for people to leave. Under this plan, the outline that is being discussed, they could actually work--and it is what I suggested last year--and spouses and children would remain in the worker's home country. Renewals under the seasonal program would be unlimited, which may be problematic. We would need to discuss that some. But these workers would also be eligible to apply for green cards under regular channels, if they are willing to compete against others on a merit- based basis to see whether or not they could come. Then the principles focus on a more merit-based entry policy into the United States. The principles I hear being discussed would eliminate the Diversity Visa Lottery and some chain migration categories, such as brothers and sisters and adult siblings of U.S. citizens. Green cards that have been given out for those individuals would be transferred over to a point system which selects legal permanent resident applicants based on merit. So I am concerned that the White House plan also appears to increase the total number of green cards available each year. Page 21 of the Powerpoint indicates that 1.4 million green cards would be available each year. We are at about 1 million now. That would be a 40-percent increase. I want to look at that carefully. But I like the idea of the entry being based on a more meritorious program. They have a plan to clear the current backlog of green card applications, which also has dangers in that it could substantially increase the number of people who would come. I am not sure comprehensive immigration reform is designed to increase--at least the American people have an idea that it is designed to increase dramatically the number of people who come legally today. I don't think that is what most people have in mind when they think about immigration reform. What about the population that is here today illegally? This plan that is being discussed would have given legal status to illegal aliens currently in the country through a new ``Z'' visa, which would be renewable indefinitely. Those holding Z visas will be eligible to apply for green cards through regular channels after they go back, ``touchback,'' across the border. But regular channels are adjusted to a more merit-based system. So they would have to compete with people who have other qualities and merits that may make them less likely to be admitted. If these principles are the ones that form the framework for a newly drafted, bipartisan bill, then I think it is possible that we could successfully enact immigration reform this year. Now, I cannot tell you that I am going to be able to vote for this plan in the end because I intend to read the fine print. That is what I learned last year. The rubric, the caption in the bill last year was ``temporary guest worker program'' in big print right in the middle of the bill. Then, when you read it, what did you find? We found that the individuals came here for 3 years, with their family, and they could reup, reup for 3 years, time and time again, and, frankly were never going to leave this country. It was not a temporary guest worker program at all. It was a scheme to confuse the American people about the real meaning of it. In fact, I think it confused Senators. I think they thought it was a temporary worker program, and it absolutely was not. It would never have worked. But the people who wrote it--I think that was their plan. They never wanted it to work to begin with. That is the true fact about it. So the fine print could contain things that will not work. So I think the framework, the outline, if we are honest and serious, could be the basis for a historic reform of immigration that could actually work, that we could actually be proud of. It is possible. But there are forces, special interests that are driving this process, and they do not respect the views of the American people. They want to ram it through on their terms, and they want to have it say what they want it to say. This is what the news reports are saying, and I am getting very concerned about it. It is now being reported that instead of being patient and waiting for this new bipartisan bill to be completed and actually written up so people can read it, the majority leader, Senator Reid, is forcing the immigration bill to this floor Wednesday, May 9, the day after tomorrow. According to Roll Call, this morning: According to an aide to Reid, the Majority leader is expected to bring up the . . . package passed by the Judiciary Committee last year . . . if negotiations produce a deal he will allow lawmakers to propose it as a substitute amendment. . . . Now, this plan is not a wise approach. Why do we want to bring up a piece of legislation that is fatally flawed, that should never, ever become law? I see no reason. I have one idea, though, or one suspicion I am going to discuss. It puts undue pressure, an artificial timeline, on those who are trying to work through this extremely complex and important piece of legislation we do not need. We don't have to set that kind of deadline. What we need them to do is to spend the necessary time to produce a strong, thoughtful, bipartisan product that will actually work. That is what we need to do. Then we can vote for it with pride instead of trying to sneak it through this Senate without anybody knowing what is actually in it. As I said last week when I heard about this plan, the Democratic leadership acts as if this is another piece of everyday legislation, but it is not. The immigration bill is one of the most important to come through the Senate in the decade I have been here. I believe that. I think the American people understand that. So this option is not new. In April, we heard news reports that the Democratic majority would be abandoning efforts to write a new bill and would be starting with the fatally flawed bill produced by the Judiciary Committee last Congress. ``Immigration Daily,'' an online immigration law publication, reported: There is good reason to believe that the CIR--that is the Comprehensive Immigration Reform-- Language will finally be introduced on the Senate floor within 2 weeks or less. What will the CIR language look like? CIR begins with S. 2611, the McCain-Kennedy bill which cleared the Senate last year. The New York Times reported a similar story: Senator Edward M. Kennedy has abandoned efforts to produce a new immigration bill and is proposing using legislation produced last March by the Senate Judiciary Committee as the starting point for negotiations this year. Mr. Kennedy dismissed the notion that his efforts to produce a new immigration bill had failed. He said he had decided that the committee report was the best starting point. We have had extensive hearings on the essential aspects of this bill, Mr. Kennedy said. We are effectively ready to mark up and for going to the floor. I am very disappointed--beyond disappointed--to hear those news reports. I have been pleased, I guess, today that so far these plans haven't come to fruition, that the majority has begun to engage or has continued to engage Republican Senators and the White House in a real effort to write a good bill. I hope that is what the majority will continue to do. I hope the majority will abandon last year's fatally flawed bill, not start with it. It cannot be amended and an effective bill created. It means this cannot be the starting point to come to the floor with a new bill this Congress. I implore our leadership to continue trying to write a bill that a majority of Republicans could support, that is possible if we follow through on the real principles people are talking about and saying they can agree to. It is not a question of the principles we are dealing with. The question is: Will we write the bill in such a way that the principles are carried out? That is the key thing. It was not done last year. In 1986, it was to be the amnesty to end all amnesties. They had 3 million people--I think they thought there were 2 million people--here illegally. They created amnesty for them and they promised we would pass a new law and that this new law would be such that we wouldn't have to do amnesty again. That was in 1986, 20 years ago. We had, it turned out, 3 million people who claimed the amnesty. What has happened since? Now we have 12 million people here illegally--maybe 20 million--who knows for sure. So why wouldn't we learn from that? Why wouldn't we understand this is not a political football to be kicked down the field? This is important legislation that ought to be passed and written correctly, so 5 years from now, we can go to our constituents and say: We did something good. It is working as we promised you it would work. Why not? Well, I will tell my colleagues what appears to me to be happening. By bringing up the old bill, last year's bill, which many people in this Senate voted for and probably still believe is good legislation, though it certainly is not, they can start it--they can start it and go forward with this bill that perhaps they never intend to be offered as the final legislation. You burn the time on the motion to proceed to the bill for the bill to be discussed, and they can go past that and move to proceed to the bill, and then file for cloture on the bill, and then offer a substitute, 700, 800 pages. That is how many pages it was last year--over 600. If they write this one well this year, it should be more than that. They drop a 700, 800- page bill and substitute the old bill, and there is no time to debate it, and they slide it right through, railroad time. I am telling my colleagues, that appears to me to be what it is about. That would be an abrogation of our responsibility. The American people care about this legislation. The American people are not unengaged. They know something compassionate is going to have to be done about the 12 million people, but I think most people agree with me that someone who came here illegally should not be given every single benefit we give to somebody who comes here legally. We need to set a principle that we are not going to reward illegal behavior in the future. So you work something out on that, and you work something out on these other complex issues, and we set up a policy of immigration for the future that reflects some of the principles Canada has: its point system, its merit-based system. That was never discussed last year. Not one hint of it is in the bill Senator Reid is apparently intending to bring up on Wednesday. How can we possibly talk about comprehensive immigration reform and never consider a merit-based immigration system? Isn't America based on merit? Don't we know far more people want to come here than can be accepted? Don't we know Australia does that, New Zealand does that, the United Kingdom is looking at that--all developed and highly sophisticated nations committed to humanity and civil rights, world leaders in that regard. Are their proposals somehow immoral and unfit? Of course not. Those ideas were not even discussed in last year's bill. So they say we might have something such as that in this legislation. Well, let's see it. Let's see what the words say. What is it going to say? Is it going to be like last year when it said ``temporary guest worker,'' and that was nothing but a sham when you read the fine print under it? Is that what we are going to get this year, a bill they ram through at the last minute, burning the time for debate so we have only the most minimal time to debate? Is that the plan? I hope the American people are keeping their eye on this one. They deserve more. The American people are concerned about immigration. It is an important issue. It is a very important issue to us. We had a group from Ireland testify at the Judiciary Committee last year and they told us only 2,000 people got into our country from Ireland last year. We had over 1 million come in legally. What is this? How do we create a system that does not give people throughout the world an equal chance, an opportunity to apply to come to America? We need to work on that. We can do it. There is a framework here that, if fleshed out with good legislation, good language, enforceability, we can be proud of. I am afraid that is not what we are doing. I am afraid there is an attempt here to move a fast one. I am afraid the masters of the universe who run this place, some on both sides of the aisle, don't want the American people to know what is in the bill. They don't trust them to be in on the negotiations. They want to do it and slide it through. I remember last year we offered--someone offered a good amendment, I think it was the Isakson amendment, on a trigger, and one of the Senators said: Oh, we can't accept that amendment. Why not? We can't accept it because it would upset that delicate balance of negotiations with the parties who put this bill together. So I asked: Who were they? Who are these parties who put the bill together? Where did they meet? Did they have votes? Did people elect them to go in this caucus to write this piece of junk that was the bill last year? Who was that? Oh, they wouldn't talk about who actually wrote the bill. They wanted to ram it through, and nobody could amend it because it would upset their delicate compromise. Well, phooey on that. We need to do this in the light of day. We need to stand up and explain to our constituents and ask them to support a good bill, and we need to stand up and oppose a bill that is a bad bill. We are going to live with it, as we have lived for over 20 years now with 1986, that failed piece of legislation that had so much promise and people were so happy about when it passed, and it never worked. There are several reasons we need to be cautious. You can put in a piece of legislation an authorization to add a bunch of Border Patrol officers or workplace enforcement rules, or you can put in an authorization to spend money to create a computer system that will actually work, and it can. We can create a system that will work, but authorizing doesn't mean anything. That doesn't mean anything. You have to come up with money, and the money comes up in the years to come. If this Congress isn't serious about what it is doing and we pass a bill that authorizes a bunch of provisions that could actually help and be worthwhile and we never come up with the money to do it, the system is going to collapse as badly as it is right now. We need a national debate, a national consensus on a good piece of legislation. The President needs to be committed to leading instead of undermining the enforcement of laws. They are getting a little better in the White House now, but Presidents in the past have had no interest whatsoever in seeing immigration laws passed. If they did, they would have come to Congress and said: We need more border enforcement, we need fencing, we need more Border Patrol, we need an end catch and release. They never came to Congress and said the law was not being enforced. American constituents talk to Members of Congress and the Members of the Senate and explain about the plain as day illegality that is going on, and the Congress is trying to make the system be enforced. My colleague, the Presiding Officer, is a former U.S. attorney. The President, the executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law, not the Congress. What do we know about how to catch all these people. They ought to be asking us for the laws. They should be telling us what is needed. But no, no, because nobody, not any President since 1986, has ever taken his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States seriously as they apply to immigration. So that is what we have. I have points I will not go into tonight that detail the incredible flaws that existed in last year's bill. Senator Specter offered a bill that I didn't favor, but it was better--he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee last year--it was better than the other two that arose. After he offered it in Judiciary Committee, we went on in a day or so, or two or three, and we had this deadline. Like Senator Reid, Senator Frist said: I have to have the bill out Monday. If you don't bring it out Monday, I am going to introduce another bill--a pretty good bill, actually, which was an enforcement-oriented bill. Also, the Judiciary Committee got in a flutter, and we ran around, and Senator Kennedy offered the substitute--Kennedy-McCain. The Specter bill was gone, and an entirely new Kennedy-McCain bill was on the floor. Then the controversial AgJOBS portion of immigration that had been floating around here and had been blocked over the years was offered up as an amendment to Kennedy- McCain, and it was added with no debate. We voted this out and it was on the floor, and the next day we were debating this 600-page bill. That is not the way to do business in the Senate. My chief counsel here studied this legislation, and we read the fine print, that 600 pages, and when we looked at it, we were shocked at the loopholes it contained. We identified--and I spoke here several hours on it--17 loopholes in that legislation. It began to lose steam. We found out just, for example--mind you, Senator Reid, I understand from the New York Times and others, is talking about introducing the Judiciary Committee bill. This is what the Judiciary Committee bill would have done last year, the one that passed out of the Committee, the so-called McCain-Kennedy bill. Under current law, over the next 20 years, this Nation would issue 18.9 million green cards--quite a substantial number. Under the Kennedy-McCain bill passed out of committee last year--hold your hat--it would have been, at a minimum, 78 million over 20 years to as many as 200 million. That is two-thirds of the current population of the United States of America. They tried to move that bill without amendments. I cannot recall the gymnastics they went through, but they were even denying Senators Kyl and Cornyn amendments they wanted to have, and Senator Reid wanted no amendments. Finally, we began to have amendments. Senator Bingaman offered two amendments, eventually, as time went by. It was brought back the third time. They brought those numbers down from 78 million and 200 million to 53 million, almost 3 times the current rate of immigration. So Senator Reid, as I understand it, according to a news report, is talking about bringing up the Judiciary Committee bill. This is not the 53 million people being brought in here permanently with a green card-- permanent residents--but we would go back to the 78 million to 200 million. How amazing is that? So I am just flabbergasted by the way this matter is being treated. There is only one way to do it; that is, we stand up like real Senators and we write a bill and work out a bill, and we give the Members of the Senate the time to read it, time for the American people to understand what is in it, and see if it can be amended and made better, and make sure it will actually work, not just be a political show--not some political sham but a piece of legislation that would actually work, and then we would pass it. We would be responsible to our constituents for a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote because we do need to pass comprehensive reform. I said that many times last year. Of course, we need that. The whole system is broken. Nothing about it works. Of course, we need to reform it from the ground up. But the legislation last year is no place to start. We don't need to be using some gimmick to get the bill up, with last year's language, and then substitute new language that nobody has read and ram it through the Senate. The American people should not be happy with that. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his patience and those who listened to my remarks. I believe we can do something better. I support real and genuine reform of immigration in America. I will support legislation that provides a compassionate solution to the people who have been here for years and have been dutiful, law-abiding people except for their illegal presence. We can work through those things. We need a future flow system, much more like Canada's, much more like New Zealand's. We need a temporary worker program that is really temporary. We need a workplace enforcement system that the average employer will have no problem in following. We need a biometric, identifying cards for immigrant workers so they cannot be illegally forged. That is all possible to do if we want to do it--unless the people who are driving this bill, the architects of this, just want to go through the motions of creating an immigration system that would work, unless that is their plan, to just go through the motions and pass a bill that has no chance of being successful, just like we did in 1986, and 8 or 10 years later, they can say: We are heartbroken; we thought it was going to work. I think we can do it, and I think we ought to do it. I hope the majority leader will not bring up the last year's bills--any one of them--and that he will bring up the bill that was drafted through this compromise process because I think it at least has some possibility to be a bill we could support, unlike the one last year, and then we can study it and debate it. The American people could be engaged in it, and we ought to stand up and vote and do the right thing for America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise and send to the desk a bill entitled the ``Fair Arbitration Act of 2007.'' This bill continues the legislative process that I started several years ago with the introduction of the ``Consumer and Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights'' and the ``Arbitration Fairness Act of 2002.'' The purpose of the Fair Arbitration Act of 2007, like my earlier proposals, is to improve the Federal Arbitration Act so that it will remain a cost- effective means of resolving disputes, but will do so in a fair way. The Fair Arbitration Act will provide procedural protections to everyone who enters into a contract with an arbitration clause. This bill ensures that consumers, employees, and small businesses that enter into contracts covered by the Federal Arbitration Act will have their disputes resolved in accordance with fundamental principles of due process, and in a speedy and cost-effective manner. Congress originally enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. It has served us well for over three-quarters of a century. Under the Act, if the parties agree to a contract affecting interstate commerce that contains a clause requiring arbitration, the clause will be enforceable in court. In short, the Federal Arbitration Act allows parties to a contract to agree not to take their disputes to court, but to resolve any dispute arising from that contract before a neutral decision-maker, generally selected by a nonprofit arbitration organization, such as the American Arbitration Association or the National Arbitration Forum. The parties can generally present evidence and be represented by counsel. And the decision-makers will apply the relevant State law in resolving the dispute. Arbitration is generally quicker and less expensive than going to court. In recent years, there have been some cases where the arbitration process has not worked well, but thousands of disputes have been fairly and effectively settled by arbitrators. Such a system is even more important because of skyrocketing legal costs where attorneys require large contingency fees. Accordingly, I have opposed piecemeal legislative changes to the act. Instead, I believe that the Senate should approach the Federal Arbitration Act in a comprehensive manner. The approach of reforming arbitration rather than abandoning the arbitration process provides a better solution in several respects. Arbitration is one of the most cost-effective means of resolving disputes. Unlike businesses, consumers and employees generally cannot afford a team of lawyers to represent them. And their claims are often not big enough so that a lawyer would take the case on a 25 percent or even a 50 percent contingent fee. In a 1998 article in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Lewis Maltby, then the Director of the National Task Force on Civil Liberties in the Workplace of the American Civil Liberties Union and a Director of the American Arbitration Association, explained how court litigation is often just too expensive for most employees: Even if the client has clearly been wronged and is virtually certain to prevail in court, the attorney will be forced to turn down the case unless there are substantial damages. A survey of plaintiff employment lawyers found that a prospective plaintiff needed to have a minimum of $60,000 in provable damages not including pain and suffering or other intangible damages before an attorney would take the case. Even this, however, does not exhaust the financial obstacles an employee must overcome to secure representation. In light of their risk of losing such cases, many plaintiffs' attorneys require a prospective client to pay a retainer, typically about $3,000. Others require clients to pay out-of- pocket expenses of the case as they are incurred. Expenses in employment discrimination cases can be substantial. Donohue and Siegelman found that expenses in Title VII cases are at least $10,000 and can reach as high as $25,000. Finally, some plaintiffs' attorneys now require a consultation fee, generally $200-$300, just to discuss their situation with a potential client. The result of these formidable hurdles is that most people with claims against their employer are unable to obtain counsel, and thus never receive justice. Paul Tobias, founder of the National Employment Lawyers' Association, has testified that ninety-five percent of those who seek help from the private bar with an employment matter do not obtain counsel. Howard's survey of plaintiffs' lawyers produced the same result. A Detroit firm reported that only one of eighty- seven employees who came to them seeking representation was accepted as a client. Without arbitration, consumers and employees are faced with having to pay a lawyer's hourly rate, which may amount to several thousand dollars to litigate a claim in court. If that is what consumers and employees are left with, many will have no choice but to drop their claim. That is not right. It is not fair. Thus, Professor Stephen Ware of the Cumberland Law School stated in a paper published by the CATO Institute that ``current [arbitration] law is better for all consumers [than an exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act] except those few who are especially likely to have large liability claims. . . .'' Thus, while some have argued that the Congress should enact exemptions from the Federal Arbitration Act for different classes of contracts from automobile franchise contracts to employment contracts to chicken farmers, such exemptions would not help the overwhelming majority of the people who could not afford a lawyer to litigate in court. This is where arbitration can give consumers and employees a cost-effective forum to assert their claims. Thus, before we make exceptions to the Federal Arbitration Act for special interests with friends in Washington, I think it is our duty to consider how we can improve the system for everyone. We can improve the arbitration system, but we must take a balanced approach. In such an approach, we must protect the sanctity of legal contracts explicitly protected under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. In any contract, the parties must agree to all the terms and clauses included in the contract document. This includes the arbitration clause. This is basic contract law, and the basic premise of the Federal Arbitration Act for over 75 years. Unfortunately, however, in certain situations consumers, employees, and small businesses have not been treated fairly. That is what the Fair Arbitration Act is designed to correct. The bill will maintain the cost savings of binding arbitration, but will grant several specific ``due process'' rights to all parties to an arbitration proceeding. The bill is modeled after consumer and employee due process protocols of the American Arbitration Association, which have broad support. The bill provides the following rights: 1. Notice. Under the bill, to be enforceable, an arbitration clause would have to have a heading in large, bold print, would have to state whether arbitration is binding or optional, identify a source that the parties may contact for more information, and state that a consumer could opt out to small claims court. This will ensure, for example, that consumers who receive credit card notices in the mail will not miss an arbitration clause because it is lost in the ``fine print.'' Further, it would give all parties a means to obtain more information on how to resolve any disputes. Finally, the clause would explain that if a party's claims could otherwise be brought in small claims court, the party would be free to do so. Small claims court, unlike regular trial court, provides another inexpensive and quick means of dispute resolution. 2. Independent selection of arbitrators. The bill grants all parties the right to have potential arbitrators disclose relevant information concerning their business ties and employment. All parties to the arbitration will have an equal voice in selecting a neutral arbitrator. This ensures that the large company who sold a consumer a product will not select the arbitrator itself, because the consumer with a grievance will have the right to nominate potential arbitrators, too. As a result, the final arbitrator selected will have to have the explicit approval of both parties to the dispute. This helps ensure that the arbitrator will be a neutral party with no allegiance to either party. 3. Choice of law. The bill grants the non-drafting party, usually the consumer or the employee, the right to have the arbitrator governed by the substantive law that would apply under conflicts of laws principles applicable in the forum in which the non-drafting party resided at the time the contract was entered into. This means that the substantive contract law that would apply in a court where the consumer, employee, or business resides at the time of making the contract will apply in the arbitration. Thus, in a dispute arising from the purchase of a product by an Alabama consumer from an Illinois company, a court would have to determine whether Alabama or Illinois law applied by looking to the language of the contract and to the place where the contract was entered into. The bill ensures that an arbitrator would use the same conflict of laws principles that a court would in determining whether Alabama or Illinois law would govern the arbitration proceedings. 4. Representation. The bill grants all parties the right to be represented by counsel at their own expense. Thus, if the claim involves complicated legal issues, consumers, employees, or small businesses would be free to have their lawyer represent him in the arbitration. Such representation should be substantially less expensive than a trial in court because of the more abbreviated and expedited process of arbitration. 5. Hearing. The bill grants all parties the right to a fair hearing in a forum that is reasonably convenient to the consumer or employee. This would prevent a large company from requiring consumers, employees, or small business owners to travel across the country to arbitrate their claim and to expend more in travel costs than their claim is potentially worth. 6. Evidence. The bill grants all parties the right to conduct discovery and to present evidence. This ensures that the arbitrator can have all the facts before making a decision. 7. Cross examination. The bill grants all parties the right to cross examine witnesses presented by the other party at the hearing. This allows a party to test the statements of the other party's witnesses and be sure that the evidence before the arbitrator is correct. 8. Record. The bill grants all parties the right to hire a stenographer or tape record the hearing to produce a record. This right is key to proving later whether the arbitration proceeding was fair. 9. Timely resolution. The bill grants all parties the right to have an arbitration proceeding completed promptly so that they do not have to wait for a year or more to have their claim resolved. Under the bill, a defendant must file an answer not more than 30 days of the filing of the complaint. The arbitrator has 90 days after the answer to hold a hearing. The arbitrator must render a final decision within 30 days after the hearing. Extensions are available in extraordinary circumstances. 10. Written decision. The bill grants all parties the right to a written decision by the arbitrator explaining the resolution of the case and his reasons therefor. If the consumer or employee takes a claim to arbitration, he deserves to have an explanation of why he won or lost. 11. Expenses. The bill grants all parties the right to have an arbitrator provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees in the interests of justice and the reduction, deferral, or waiver of arbitration fees in cases of extreme hardship. It does little good to take a claim to arbitration if the consumer or employee cannot even afford the arbitration fee. This provision ensures that the arbitrator can waive or reduce the fee or make the company reimburse the consumer or employee for a fee if the interests of justice so require. 12. Small claims opt-out. The bill grants all parties the right to opt out of arbitration into small claims court if that court has jurisdiction over the claim and the claim does not exceed $50,000. The bill also provides an effective mechanism for parties to enforce these rights. At any time, if a consumer or employee believes that another party violated his or her rights, the consumer or employee can request and the arbitrator may award a penalty up to the amount of the claim plus attorneys fees. For example, if a defendant party failed to provide discovery to a plaintiff party, the plaintiff could move for an award of fees. The amount of the fee award is limited, as it is in court, to the amount of cost incurred by the employee in trying to obtain the information from the company. This principle is taken from Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After the decision, if the losing party believes that the rights granted to him by the Act have been violated, it may file a petition with the Federal district court. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the losing party's rights were violated, it may order a new arbitrator appointed. Thus, if a consumer, employee, or small business has an arbitrator that is unfair and this causes him to lose the case, the plaintiff can obtain another arbitrator. This bill is an important step to continuing a constructive dialog on arbitration. This bill will ensure that those who can least afford to go to court can go to a less expensive arbitrator and be treated fairly. It will ensure that every arbitration carried out under the Federal Arbitration Act is completed fairly, promptly, and economically. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that consumers, employees, and small businesses who agree in a contract to arbitrate their claims will be treated fairly under the Federal Arbitration Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise and send to the desk a bill entitled the ``Fair Arbitration Act of 2007.'' This bill continues the legislative process that I started several years ago with the introduction of the ``Consumer and Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights'' and the ``Arbitration Fairness Act of 2002.'' The purpose of the Fair Arbitration Act of 2007, like my earlier proposals, is to improve the Federal Arbitration Act so that it will remain a cost- effective means of resolving disputes, but will do so in a fair way. The Fair Arbitration Act will provide procedural protections to everyone who enters into a contract with an arbitration clause. This bill ensures that consumers, employees, and small businesses that enter into contracts covered by the Federal Arbitration Act will have their disputes resolved in accordance with fundamental principles of due process, and in a speedy and cost-effective manner. Congress originally enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. It has served us well for over three-quarters of a century. Under the Act, if the parties agree to a contract affecting interstate commerce that contains a clause requiring arbitration, the clause will be enforceable in court. In short, the Federal Arbitration Act allows parties to a contract to agree not to take their disputes to court, but to resolve any dispute arising from that contract before a neutral decision-maker, generally selected by a nonprofit arbitration organization, such as the American Arbitration Association or the National Arbitration Forum. The parties can generally present evidence and be represented by counsel. And the decision-makers will apply the relevant State law in resolving the dispute. Arbitration is generally quicker and less expensive than going to court. In recent years, there have been some cases where the arbitration process has not worked well, but thousands of disputes have been fairly and effectively settled by arbitrators. Such a system is even more important because of skyrocketing legal costs where attorneys require large contingency fees. Accordingly, I have opposed piecemeal legislative changes to the act. Instead, I believe that the Senate should approach the Federal Arbitration Act in a comprehensive manner. The approach of reforming arbitration rather than abandoning the arbitration process provides a better solution in several respects. Arbitration is one of the most cost-effective means of resolving disputes. Unlike businesses, consumers and employees generally cannot afford a team of lawyers to represent them. And their claims are often not big enough so that a lawyer would take the case on a 25 percent or even a 50 percent contingent fee. In a 1998 article in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Lewis Maltby, then the Director of the National Task Force on Civil Liberties in the Workplace of the American Civil Liberties Union and a Director of the American Arbitration Association, explained how court litigation is often just too expensive for most employees: Even if the client has clearly been wronged and is virtually certain to prevail in court, the attorney will be forced to turn down the case unless there are substantial damages. A survey of plaintiff employment lawyers found that a prospective plaintiff needed to have a minimum of $60,000 in provable damages not including pain and suffering or other intangible damages before an attorney would take the case. Even this, however, does not exhaust the financial obstacles an employee must overcome to secure representation. In light of their risk of losing such cases, many plaintiffs' attorneys require a prospective client to pay a retainer, typically about $3,000. Others require clients to pay out-of- pocket expenses of the case as they are incurred. Expenses in employment discrimination cases can be substantial. Donohue and Siegelman found that expenses in Title VII cases are at least $10,000 and can reach as high as $25,000. Finally, some plaintiffs' attorneys now require a consultation fee, generally $200-$300, just to discuss their situation with a potential client. The result of these formidable hurdles is that most people with claims against their employer are unable to obtain counsel, and thus never receive justice. Paul Tobias, founder of the National Employment Lawyers' Association, has testified that ninety-five percent of those who seek help from the private bar with an employment matter do not obtain counsel. Howard's survey of plaintiffs' lawyers produced the same result. A Detroit firm reported that only one of eighty- seven employees who came to them seeking representation was accepted as a client. Without arbitration, consumers and employees are faced with having to pay a lawyer's hourly rate, which may amount to several thousand dollars to litigate a claim in court. If that is what consumers and employees are left with, many will have no choice but to drop their claim. That is not right. It is not fair. Thus, Professor Stephen Ware of the Cumberland Law School stated in a paper published by the CATO Institute that ``current [arbitration] law is better for all consumers [than an exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act] except those few who are especially likely to have large liability claims. . . .'' Thus, while some have argued that the Congress should enact exemptions from the Federal Arbitration Act for different classes of contracts from automobile franchise contracts to employment contracts to chicken farmers, such exemptions would not help the overwhelming majority of the people who could not afford a lawyer to litigate in court. This is where arbitration can give consumers and employees a cost-effective forum to assert their claims. Thus, before we make exceptions to the Federal Arbitration Act for special interests with friends in Washington, I think it is our duty to consider how we can improve the system for everyone. We can improve the arbitration system, but we must take a balanced approach. In such an approach, we must protect the sanctity of legal contracts explicitly protected under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. In any contract, the parties must agree to all the terms and clauses included in the contract document. This includes the arbitration clause. This is basic contract law, and the basic premise of the Federal Arbitration Act for over 75 years. Unfortunately, however, in certain situations consumers, employees, and small businesses have not been treated fairly. That is what the Fair Arbitration Act is designed to correct. The bill will maintain the cost savings of binding arbitration, but will grant several specific ``due process'' rights to all parties to an arbitration proceeding. The bill is modeled after consumer and employee due process protocols of the American Arbitration Association, which have broad support. The bill provides the following rights: 1. Notice. Under the bill, to be enforceable, an arbitration clause would have to have a heading in large, bold print, would have to state whether arbitration is binding or optional, identify a source that the parties may contact for more information, and state that a consumer could opt out to small claims court. This will ensure, for example, that consumers who receive credit card notices in the mail will not miss an arbitration clause because it is lost in the ``fine print.'' Further, it would give all parties a means to obtain more information on how to resolve any disputes. Finally, the clause would explain that if a party's claims could otherwise be brought in small claims court, the party would be free to do so. Small claims court, unlike regular trial court, provides another inexpensive and quick means of dispute resolution. 2. Independent selection of arbitrators. The bill grants all parties the right to have potential arbitrators disclose relevant information concerning their business ties and employment. All parties to the arbitration will have an equal voice in selecting a neutral arbitrator. This ensures that the large company who sold a consumer a product will not select the arbitrator itself, because the consumer with a grievance will have the right to nominate potential arbitrators, too. As a result, the final arbitrator selected will have to have the explicit approval of both parties to the dispute. This helps ensure that the arbitrator will be a neutral party with no allegiance to either party. 3. Choice of law. The bill grants the non-drafting party, usually the consumer or the employee, the right to have the arbitrator governed by the substantive law that would apply under conflicts of laws principles applicable in the forum in which the non-drafting party resided at the time the contract was entered into. This means that the substantive contract law that would apply in a court where the consumer, employee, or business resides at the time of making the contract will apply in the arbitration. Thus, in a dispute arising from the purchase of a product by an Alabama consumer from an Illinois company, a court would have to determine whether Alabama or Illinois law applied by looking to the language of the contract and to the place where the contract was entered into. The bill ensures that an arbitrator would use the same conflict of laws principles that a court would in determining whether Alabama or Illinois law would govern the arbitration proceedings. 4. Representation. The bill grants all parties the right to be represented by counsel at their own expense. Thus, if the claim involves complicated legal issues, consumers, employees, or small businesses would be free to have their lawyer represent him in the arbitration. Such representation should be substantially less expensive than a trial in court because of the more abbreviated and expedited process of arbitration. 5. Hearing. The bill grants all parties the right to a fair hearing in a forum that is reasonably convenient to the consumer or employee. This would prevent a large company from requiring consumers, employees, or small business owners to travel across the country to arbitrate their claim and to expend more in travel costs than their claim is potentially worth. 6. Evidence. The bill grants all parties the right to conduct discovery and to present evidence. This ensures that the arbitrator can have all the facts before making a decision. 7. Cross examination. The bill grants all parties the right to cross examine witnesses presented by the other party at the hearing. This allows a party to test the statements of the other party's witnesses and be sure that the evidence before the arbitrator is correct. 8. Record. The bill grants all parties the right to hire a stenographer or tape record the hearing to produce a record. This right is key to proving later whether the arbitration proceeding was fair. 9. Timely resolution. The bill grants all parties the right to have an arbitration proceeding completed promptly so that they do not have to wait for a year or more to have their claim resolved. Under the bill, a defendant must file an answer not more than 30 days of the filing of the complaint. The arbitrator has 90 days after the answer to hold a hearing. The arbitrator must render a final decision within 30 days after the hearing. Extensions are available in extraordinary circumstances. 10. Written decision. The bill grants all parties the right to a written decision by the arbitrator explaining the resolution of the case and his reasons therefor. If the consumer or employee takes a claim to arbitration, he deserves to have an explanation of why he won or lost. 11. Expenses. The bill grants all parties the right to have an arbitrator provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees in the interests of justice and the reduction, deferral, or waiver of arbitration fees in cases of extreme hardship. It does little good to take a claim to arbitration if the consumer or employee cannot even afford the arbitration fee. This provision ensures that the arbitrator can waive or reduce the fee or make the company reimburse the consumer or employee for a fee if the interests of justice so require. 12. Small claims opt-out. The bill grants all parties the right to opt out of arbitration into small claims court if that court has jurisdiction over the claim and the claim does not exceed $50,000. The bill also provides an effective mechanism for parties to enforce these rights. At any time, if a consumer or employee believes that another party violated his or her rights, the consumer or employee can request and the arbitrator may award a penalty up to the amount of the claim plus attorneys fees. For example, if a defendant party failed to provide discovery to a plaintiff party, the plaintiff could move for an award of fees. The amount of the fee award is limited, as it is in court, to the amount of cost incurred by the employee in trying to obtain the information from the company. This principle is taken from Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After the decision, if the losing party believes that the rights granted to him by the Act have been violated, it may file a petition with the Federal district court. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the losing party's rights were violated, it may order a new arbitrator appointed. Thus, if a consumer, employee, or small business has an arbitrator that is unfair and this causes him to lose the case, the plaintiff can obtain another arbitrator. This bill is an important step to continuing a constructive dialog on arbitration. This bill will ensure that those who can least afford to go to court can go to a less expensive arbitrator and be treated fairly. It will ensure that every arbitration carried out under the Federal Arbitration Act is completed fairly, promptly, and economically. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that consumers, employees, and small businesses who agree in a contract to arbitrate their claims will be treated fairly under the Federal Arbitration Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate and make some remarks today about a very valuable asset to the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the entire State of Alabama--Ice Hockey Head Coach Doug Ross, who is retiring after 25 years of coaching the UAH Chargers hockey team. Coach Ross began his coaching career at Ohio University in 1976 where he coached for one season, and then at Kent State University for 2 years. He came to UAH in 1982. The hockey team at that time was a top team and the only NCAA hockey team south of the Mason-Dixon line. Under his leadership, the team has had great success, reaching NCAA Division I status. Quoting Coach Joe Ritch, his predecessor at UAH. ``Doug brought UAH championships, unique notoriety, and national respect in the collegiate hockey world. We all owe Doug Ross a debt of gratitude for his commitment to UAH and hockey for this state.'' The team went to the NCAA Regional Tournament this year where they played the third longest game in NCAA Regional Tournament history. In a thrilling game with top-ranked and top-seeded Notre Dame, the Chargers lost 3-2 in double overtime on a power-play goal. If winning it all could not happen, this game was one on which to cap a career. Coach Ross is known for recruiting top notch student athletes to UAH. Following their success on the ice, many of his players are active alumni, living in the Huntsville area and actively involved in the community. Thank you, Coach Ross, for bringing NCAA hockey to the forefront in Alabama and for your loyalty and support for the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Your legacy is a great one and I join with UAH, the Huntsville community, and the State of Alabama in wishing you the very best in your retirement.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Those conference committee appointments are decided by the leaders of the Senate for the Senate conferees and the leaders of the House, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, would appoint those conferees. If it were something they wanted to have done badly, that was high on her agenda, would not they have appointed conferees before we recessed almost 2 weeks ago so the conferees could have begun work during this interim period, staffs could have been working on these issues and been ready to move rapidly when the House comes back in session? If they had wanted to, couldn't they have done that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to Senator Thune, I agree, and will recall for our colleagues that--I believe it was postelection-- General Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the Army, pleaded with us not to allow what happened last year to happen this year. He was referring to delaying passing the supplemental because it causes all kinds of problems. A few weeks ago, he testified again, and he was passionate about this. It is his soldiers, predominantly, Army soldiers in Iraq. He pleaded with us not to delay this supplemental. He said you have to take money from all kinds of accounts, and time and effort the leadership in the Department of Defense needs to be spending helping the soldiers being successful has to be redirected to bringing money together in ways that are not easy to fund the effort. He described it as trying to walk through a marsh waste deep in water--those were his words--in the muck. We are creating a political muck that makes it very difficult and adds additional burdens to our Defense Department when they have so many important things to do. We should not do that. I thank the Senator for his eloquent remarks and his leadership on the Armed Services Committee and for his commitment to our soldiers and commitment to the United States of America and the good foreign policy we have had, we seek to accomplish. Our foreign policy is a foreign policy designed to improve the Middle East. It is designed to improve the lives of the people in Iraq. It is not an imperialistic attempt to gain wealth or power at their expense. We want them to be successful. In the end, it will be successful for us. It will make us more safe. It will make the world more safe and can begin the end of some of the radicalism we are seeing. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from South Dakota. I believe his National Guard per capita is one of the largest National Guards in the country. I know mine is, both on a per-capita and aggregate basis. We have soldiers in Iraq right now from our home States. I talked to the mother of a soldier who was recently killed, and this is a painful subject for us all. At this very moment throughout Baghdad, Al Anbar Province, American soldiers are walking those streets, working closely with Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi police officers, in an effort to create stability so that political agreements can be reached that could lead to a stable and successful Iraq. This is an extremely, deeply important matter. Now we are in a situation in which our leader in the Senate, Democratic leader, Senator Reid, has said they intend to fund our troops. They intend to provide the money the President needs to conduct this war, but at the same time they want to tell the generals how to conduct it. They want to say that on a given date we have to move troops in this direction or that direction, and we will begin to bring troops home 4 months from today, regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of what the military experts say, without any real thought, if you want to know the truth. I have been to Iraq four times and will be soon going my fifth. Very few people in the Senate have been there so often. I submit we don't know sufficiently how to direct the deployment of our troops. I don't know. Who knows the best? General Petraeus? This is his third full tour over there. He has studied insurgencies and written a Department of Defense manual on how to defeat an insurgency. Who is the best qualified to make these decisions? This is not a little matter. We voted, over three-fourths of this Senate, to authorize military force in Iraq. Our soldiers are doing what we asked them to do--not what they want to do, what their duty is. A father of a military Army officer told me right out here a few weeks ago--his son was about to go to Iraq--he said: Senator, they are watching you like a hawk. Our soldiers over there are watching what we in Congress do. They wonder what is going on. They are putting their necks on the line for the policies we asked them to do, and they hear this kind of talk, they hear of this delay. We can't get even the emergency supplemental passed. It is very discouraging to me. I don't believe this is an action worthy of a responsible Senate. We know this Senate has the power, this Congress has the power to shut off funding for the war in Iraq and bring our troops home immediately. But if we are not going to do that--and the Democratic leader said we are not going to do that, we are going to give them the money they need under this supplemental--if we are not going to bring them home, and we are going to give them the money, for Heaven's sakes, let's don't micromanage what they do, and let's don't demand commitments from the Commander in Chief he cannot agree to. He cannot agree to 100 Senators telling him when and how to deploy the troops. What would General Petraeus think? What would his responsibility be to his general whom he asked to serve, who is serving, whom he told would be given responsibility to be successful in Iraq and bring stability there, with his whole effort focused on that? I wish to share with my colleagues a deep concern that we not get into some sort of game of chicken with the President and the Congress. I must say, I am glad the Democratic leaders apparently said last night, after earlier saying no, now they will meet with the President at his request to discuss their differences. But it is not just a political game of chicken between the Congress and the President; we have soldiers in the field whose lives are at risk this very moment. They need better support than that. Our allies need to know we are not going to be acting in a way this Senate resolution suggests. The enemy needs to know we are not going to be acting in that fashion, in my view. We have a tough challenge over there, there is no doubt about it. General Petraeus committed, at my request, that if he thought what we were doing would not be successful, he would not hesitate to tell the Congress and the American people exactly that. I believe he will. Right now, he believes he can be successful. If we allow him to do so, I believe he will be. Mr. President, I see others on the floor. I conclude by saying I believe we ought not to be in this posture of brinksmanship over this issue. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it places those soldiers we have sent at greater risk for their lives, and their mission is placed in a situation where it would be more difficult to accomplish. That is something we should not do. I hope cooler heads will prevail.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what time remains on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I could not agree with the Senator more. Having been in the Department of Justice a number of years as U.S. attorney and having had a few occasions to deal with this specific issue, money not appropriated by Congress cannot be spent by the Government. In fact, there is an Antideficiency Act that makes it a criminal offense for a governmental official to spend money that Congress has not appropriated. So that is our responsibility: to fund or not fund. The Democratic leader said they are going to fund. It is not our responsibility to micromanage the war, however. So I would say we absolutely as a Congress--if we reach that decision--can shut off funding, and tomorrow the troops would have to be brought home, or shortly thereafter.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. About the conference process, when an emergency supplemental is passed, even though it had language in it that I know the Senator opposes, and so do I, it would normally have to go to a conference committee of Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate. Sometimes it takes a good while, does it not, historically, for differences in the House and Senate bills to be worked out? It sometimes takes a good while; would the Senator agree?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, I think you are correct. I will be supporting S. 30 and voting against S. 5. And this has been an important debate. The American people have had the opportunity to hear some good arguments and a great deal of science and research. We are heading in the right direction, I believe, with the President saying he will not accept S. 5. I respect him for it. He stood up, absolutely. He has studied the issue, and he has firm views about it. Whereas the legislation may pass here, I am hopeful it will not finally become law. Thank you very much.

Mr. SESSIONS. I guess in 2001, President Bush acknowledged there were embryonic lines available at that time and that any action we took at that moment against those lines did not implicate human life. He said those lines would be available for embryonic stem cells for any university that would apply; is that correct?