Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4311, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the leader's remarks on Thursday morning, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to H.R. 8, regarding the death tax. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for debate, with 10 minutes of the minority time reserved for Senator Durbin and 10 minutes reserved for Senator Dorgan prior to the vote on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed; provided further that the last 20 minutes be reserved for the Democratic leader to be followed by the majority leader. I further ask unanimous consent that regardless of the outcome of that vote, Senators Roberts and Clinton be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 25 minutes equally divided. I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate, the time until 12:45 p.m. be equally divided again between the two leaders or their designees, with a vote on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 147 occurring at 12:45 p.m. on Thursday; provided further that if cloture is not invoked on both of the motions to proceed, the Senate then proceed to executive session for consideration en bloc of the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 627, Noel Hillman, U.S. District Judge for New Jersey; No. 628, Peter Sheridan, U.S. District Judge for New Jersey; No. 633, Thomas Ludington, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan; No. 634, Sean Cox, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan; provided there be 10 minutes of debate for each of the Senators from New Jersey, 10 minutes for Senator Stabenow, and 10 minutes each for the chairman and ranking member. Following the use or yielding back of time, I ask that the Senate proceed to consecutive votes on the nominations as listed; however, no earlier than 2 p.m. I further ask unanimous consent that following those votes, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 663, Susan C. Schwab, to be the United States Trade Representative. I further ask unanimous consent there be 30 minutes for Senator Dorgan, 15 minutes for Senator Conrad, 10 minutes for Senator Baucus, 30 minutes for the chairman. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action or debate; finally, I ask unanimous consent that following that vote the President be immediately notified of all of the Senate's previous action and the Senate resume legislative session. I further ask unanimous consent that if cloture has been invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 8, the Senate resume debate at this time with all time consumed to this point counting against cloture and the bill not be displaced upon the adoption of that motion if cloture is invoked on a motion to proceed to S. 147. If cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 147, then the Senate begin consideration of that under the provisions of rule XXII upon the disposition of H.R. 8.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 504 submitted earlier today.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would just say this: that we are at a point in our history where it is now the opportunity of this Senate to allow the American people an opportunity to have their views heard on the question of the definition of marriage. It has been eroded by courts improperly, in my view, but it is being eroded nevertheless. By voting for this constitutional amendment, we will not make any constitutional amendment become a reality. We will simply send the matter to the States. And if three-fourths of the State legislatures agree, only then will this amendment become law. Why would we want to deny the American people the right through their representatives to adopt this amendment? I do not know, and I do not think we should. I think we should support the amendment. How should the people properly respond to this real or perceived abuse and, in particular, to this very real threat to traditional marriage? The proper answer is for the people to ask their elected representatives to pass a constitutional amendment to fix the problem, or the potential problem. It is the right way, the lawful way, for the people and the Congress to respond. Amazingly, it has been suggested by those who oppose the right of the people to have their voice heard on this matter, that the Marriage Protection Act violates the Constitution. How silly is that? The Marriage Protection Act would become a part of the Constitution. How could it violate the Constitution? More importantly, the court rulings that have created this crisis are themselves, in my view and the view of many, contrary to the Constitution. Regardless of whether such rulings are sound, the people have a right to have their voice heard on the matter of marriage. Some here argue that we should not have an amendment that decides the question here in the Senate but should allow the States to do it. But, that is the problem. The States, and the people, are having their decisions overturned by courts. On May 16, a Georgia judge struck down that State's law that prohibits same-sex marriage. At least nine States are facing similar lawsuits. And if Lawrence is any indication, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to make a similar ruling. This is why the American people are rightly concerned and want us to do something to stop this trend by the undemocratic branch of government from altering marriage, a cornerstone of our civilization. Of course, if this Congress were to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment, it does not then become law. It then would go to the States where three-fourths of the State legislatures would have to agree, for it to become part of our Constitution. Thus, our vote today is the key step in allowing the States to express the will of their people. Thus vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment by those who say they oppose same-sex marriage, would deny the States the authority they need to protect their laws from judicial activism. Finally, some argue that marriage is not an issue of such importance that it should be placed in our Constitution or even have debate time allotted to it. They are wrong. This is a huge issue, one of great importance. The real question is, why deny the right of the American people through their legislatures the right to vote on this issue? What harm is there in letting the people speak? I suspect the real concern of many is that if this amendment were to get to the States, it would pass. Those who openly or surreptitiously favor same-sex marriage surely would not want the Marriage Protection Amendment to go to the States. And, there is nothing unusual about constitutional amendments that address specific problems. We have passed amendments that are quite specific as well as broad. The 27th amendment, ratified May 27, 1992, provides that Congress can't raise the pay of members of the House or Senate until the next election in the House. The 26th amendment, ratified July 1, 1971, provides that eighteen- year-olds must be allowed to vote. The 25th amendment, ratified February 10, 1967, provides for presidential succession. The 24th amendment, ratified January 23, 1964, abolished the poll tax. To my mind, the Marriage Protection Act is a wonderful way to allow the American people to have their voices heard on a matter that is very important to them and our Nation. The courts have gotten it wrong. Wrong as a matter of law and wrong as to policy. They are not higher beings. They make mistakes and they need to be held to account so that good law and good policy are restored. A narrowly drafted constitutional amendment that deals with this one, single issue, is the proper way to give legitimate voice to our citizens. The traditional understanding and law of marriage are being overturned. The sounds of the conflict can be heard in Lexington and in Omaha. Why stand we here idle? Let's authorize the Marriage Protection Amendment to go to the States so the people's will may be accomplished. After all, our founders created a democracy, not an oligarchy. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Brownback. He is such a champion on this issue and has raised so many important matters for us to think about. I believe the debate we are having is a very important debate. I remember the hearings we had in the Judiciary Committee. The Senator had several--I believe he had one in the Commerce Committee maybe, and I had one in the Judiciary Committee on marriage. One of the things we found was that almost every category of individual character and wellness was better if you were married. That is just the way it was. You had a longer lifespan, you ended up with more wealth, you had better health, you were happier, and there was less drug use, less criminality, and less suicide. All of those things are so taken for granted in the committed, historic marriage relationship. I believe this issue is an important one that is before us. I want to share a few thoughts on the matter that deals with certain issues that are important to me, which I think are important. We are not here, let me say, first of all, because of some band of Christian conservatives. Indeed, virtually every religious organization in America cares about this issue. It is not that we wanted to enter into some sort of argument with the gay community or with those who favor same-sex marriage. We are not here because of a political agenda. Traditional mainstream Americans were going about their business when courts began a pattern of rulings that subverted democratic principles on the long held meaning of marriage. As the cases and lawsuits have mounted and scholars reviewed the opinions and pondered their implications, it became clear that this activist movement was bold and far reaching in scope. Their design was to effect a complete change in the meaning of marriage, altering an institution that is thousands of years old. The lawyers who filed these cases had a simple plan: They would file a lawsuit attacking the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They would urge the courts to declare, based on some subjective constitutional theory such as evolving standards of decency, that the Constitution of the United States--they sought to have the courts declare that the Constitution of the State or the United States requires that marriage be redefined to include same-sex marriage. When the people complained about this usurpation, what did you hear back from those who promote these ideas? They all lift their noses and respond: ``All we are doing is being faithful to the Constitution. Don't you respect the Constitution? We know you have deeply held beliefs, and we understand that, but we all must yield to the requirements of the Constitution, don't you know?'' That is kind of the feedback we get on this issue. But the American people are not so easily fooled. They chose not to go quietly this time. They have chosen to fight, and it is going to be a long battle. And well they should have made that decision since the question here raises the nature of marriage and the usurpation of judicial power to effect a political or social agenda, which are matters that go to the heart of this Republic and our governing structure. So let's make some things clear. One, those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage did not start this fight. The debate is not a distraction from important issues; it is an important issue. It is not about wedge politics. Let me state the plain truth. We are here debating this issue because there has been a deliberate and sustained effort by leftists in America to alter the definition of marriage to include a union of two men or a union of two women. This action has been, to some degree, successful, as shown by rulings in a number of important cases. So the matter is real. It is not a theoretical matter; it is very real, right now. I do not agree with these changes in marriage. I favor the traditional approach for many reasons. More importantly, the American people overwhelmingly oppose this idea. There has been no support in the Senate, no support in the House of Representatives or the State legislatures for such actions. This new marriage concept has been rejected by legislative branches all over the Nation and has been rejected in, I think, 19 statewide votes, averaging about 70 percent each time. These social activists have always known they have no chance to get elected officials to adopt their concept of marriage. It will not be voted in. So they have looked through the Constitution and decided their goal could only be achieved by arguing before activist judges that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a denial of the constitutional guarantee of due process or equal protection or ideas such as that. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts flatly agreed with those lawyers. This court declared that the constitution of Massachusetts, adopted in 1780, requires that same-sex unions be given the same recognition as a union of a man and a woman. They found that a constitutional requirement. This is activism, pure and simple. It is the very definition of activism. The drafters of that constitution in 1780 would never have imagined their constitution would some day be so twisted. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court plainly reached, I believe, a political, social, and cultural conclusion about homosexual unions. And they took language out of their State constitution that was never, ever crafted, designed, or expected to cover such a situation as this, and they just declared that the long established concept of marriage violated the constitution of Massachusetts. They just did it. These judges don't have to stand for election--certainly Federal judges do not--and they are not accountable to the American people. If judges do not show their personal restraint, modesty, and fidelity to the Constitution--whether or not they like the Constitution--then democracy is thwarted. So this is no small matter, I say to my colleagues. Some will argue that the problem is a problem for Massachusetts only and that each State can decide these issues. But the U.S. Constitution provides that every State must give full faith and credit to the marriages of another State. In other words, the U.S. Constitution ordinarily requires that each State must recognize the marriages of other States. But what about DOMA? We passed DOMA, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, in this Congress a number of years ago. It was passed to deal with what was perceived as a problem a decade or so ago. Didn't DOMA fix the problem? The simple answer is no. To understand why, let's look at the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. I was attorney general of the State of Alabama. This deals with one of the things you do as an attorney general of a State: you defend the laws of that State when they are challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States. So I can identify with Texas in this matter. Without regard to established law, the Supreme Court reversed their own opinion on a very similar case in Georgia just 17 years earlier and followed a new vision of social justice, masquerading, I suggest, as constitutional law. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court reversed their opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, a Georgia case, and said all State sodomy laws are unconstitutional. This is most certainly not a discussion concerning sodomy laws or the wisdom of such statutes. This debate is about the Constitution, what it means, and who controls the legal and social policy in America. Some statutes and ordinances certainly are unconstitutional and should be declared so. A city ordinance that required Rosa Parks to sit at the back of a bus simply because of the color of her skin did violate-- clearly violated--the command of the U.S. Constitution that everyone be provided equal protection of the laws, and Judge Frank M. Johnson and the U.S. Supreme Court were correct to strike it down as discriminatory. That decision was not activism. It was a new commitment to the plain meaning of the existing Constitution that had been the law all along. The situation is quite different in Lawrence. It is instructive to review how five members--only five, really, because Justice O'Connor only concurred in the result, not in the reasoning--of the Supreme Court came to reverse Bowers, which had upheld Georgia's law just 17 years before. So what changed? Certainly not the law. Certainly not the Constitution. This is why our American people need to pay close attention to these issues, or the judicial sleight of hand that is beginning to occur too often will succeed. No doubt the American people are paying closer attention today than they have in the past. The majority opinion in Lawrence divorced morality from law. The Court flatly held that morality, even long established, objectively determined moral values, cannot be a basis for law, so they struck down the Texas law. The Court said the law was a product of morality, which they found was without value as a justification for law. I kid you not, that is what they did. Remember, the Court is examining now a long-established provision of criminal law, a provision that had been recently upheld as constitutional. Remember also, the issue is not whether you approve or would vote for such a law but whether it stands without any basis such that it becomes the duty of the Supreme Court to strike it down as violative of the U.S. Constitution. Lawrence was troubling, with far- reaching ramifications. What does Lawrence have to do with the marriage amendment? A great deal, unfortunately. If the Supreme Court were to hold that marriage should no longer be limited to a union of a man and a woman and a court finds as they did in Lawrence that such is required by some word or phrase in the Constitution, than any Federal law, such as DOMA, or any State constitutional provision--we are voting on one in Alabama today to protect marriage, and I assure you it is going to pass--but any State constitutional provision would be erased from the books, held for naught, and struck down if found to be in violation of the Constitution because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and its provisions trump all other laws and State constitutional provisions. In Lawrence, the U.S. Supreme Court used very broad language that by fair deduction would suggest that the majority's reasoning would be supportive of redefining marriage. While not denying the logic of this possibility, the Court in its opinion in dicta did note that Lawrence ``does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.'' So the facts did not involve that, but the opinion did not deny that this same reasoning could be used in the future in cases such as the Massachusetts marriage case. It was obvious, of course, that the issue of same-sex marriages was not before the Court in Lawrence, but they were aware of that. Justice Scalia was not beguiled by this language. His brilliant dissent went right to that point, and it is the issue before us today. Justice Scalia aptly stated: This case ``does not involve'' the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. It doesn't involve the issue of homosexual marriage only if logic and principle have nothing to do with the opinions of the Court. What he is saying quite plainly is, following the logic and principle of the opinion in Lawrence, marriage, as we know it, is in jeopardy today, and he dissented. Justice Scalia is a brilliant jurist. He loves the law and believes in being faithful to the law as written, not as he may wish it to be. This debate in the Senate about activism is important. It is a debate that was raised aggressively in recent elections in Senate races and the Presidential election. President Bush said he admired Justice Scalia and he wanted more judges on the Court such as Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia's dissent reflects one of the critical issues that highlight the difference between an activist judge and one who is respectful of the people's branch of Government, the legislative branches of Federal and State government. In large part, the Massachusetts marriage case and Lawrence v. Texas are the kinds of rulings that have caused so much controversy, rulings where a slim majority of an aging group of justices--four maybe in some courts, five on the U.S. Supreme Court--allow personal views on some subject to cloud their thinking to such an extent that they delve into the Constitution in order to find some phrase they can use to impose that view on the people, all the while insisting they are merely following the commands of the Constitution. In fact, our Supreme Court Justices have created a double standard. They have plainly held that the legislative branches--the Congress, our State legislatures--elected by the people, cannot base a law on an established, objective moral code, but they--the enlightened judicial branch, the one branch of our Government unaccountable to the people-- may strike down congressionally passed laws if the Justices conclude that the legislative laws do not comply with what the judges find are ``evolving standards of decency.'' ``Evolving standards of decency'' is a phrase activist judges often use, and it can mean anything. Who can say what that means? ``Evolving standards of decency'' is not a proper legal standard. It lacks the precision needed for a legal standard. It is, in fact, not a standard at all. In truth, it is a license to the court. It can allow as few as five Supreme Court Justices to roam the world to find European law or some other foreign law or some study or some report which they base their opinion upon.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to confirm President Bush's nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to be a U.S. circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. President Bush first nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the DC Circuit on July 25, 2003. He received a hearing before the Judiciary Committee on April 27, 2004, but the committee did not vote on Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination. President Bush renominated Mr. Kavanaugh on February 14, 2005, and again on January 25, 2006. It is past time for Mr. Kavanaugh to receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Brett Kavanaugh is a well-respected attorney with impeccable academic credentials and the background and experience necessary to serve as an excellent judge on the DC Circuit. He currently serves as Assistant to the President and staff secretary. He previously served in the White House Counsel's Office as Senior Associate Counsel and Associate Counsel to the President. Mr. Kavanaugh graduated from Yale College, cum laude, and Yale Law School where he served as the notes editor on the Yale Law Journal. He served as a judicial law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as Judge Walter Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Prior to his Supreme Court clerkship, Mr. Kavanaugh earned a fellowship in the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States. After his clerkship, Mr. Kavanaugh served as an Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel, where he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues. He was a partner at the prestigious Washington law firm of Kirkland & Ellis and has argued both civil and criminal matters before the Supreme Court and appellate courts throughout the country. Besides his obvious academic and professional credentials, I would note that Mr. Kavanaugh believes in giving back to his community. While in private practice, Mr. Kavanaugh took on challenging pro bono matters, including representation of the Adat Shalom congregation in Montgomery County, MD, against an attempt to stop the construction of a synagogue in the county. Those who know Mr. Kavanaugh best strongly praise his intelligence, integrity, and approach to the law. Mark Touhey III, Mr. Kavanaugh's supervisor at the Independent Counsel's Office, wrote in his support: ``Mr. Kavanaugh exhibit[s] the highest qualities of integrity and professionalism in his work. These traits consistently exemplify Mr. Kavanaugh's approach to the practice of law and will exemplify his tenure as Federal appellate judge.'' Judge Walter Stapleton said of Mr. Kavanaugh: ``He really is a superstar. He is a rare match of talent and personality.'' After arguing against Mr. Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court, Washington attorney Jim Hamilton stated, ``Brett is a lawyer of great competency, and he will be a force in this town for some time to come.'' Some of Mr. Kavanaugh's critics have tried to argue that he is too young to be a Federal appellate judge. In truth, Mr. Kavanaugh is 41 years old and has had a broad range of experience that makes him an ideal candidate for the DC Circuit. Mr. Kavanaugh's legal work ranges from service as Associate Counsel to the President, to appellate lawyer in private practice, to experience as a prosecutor. He clerked at two of the U.S. Courts of Appeal, the Third and Ninth Circuits, and at the Supreme Court. In private practice and during his service as a prosecutor, Mr. Kavanaugh participated in appellate matters in a number of the Federal courts of appeal and in the Supreme Court. Besides, at age 41, Mr. Kavanaugh is considerably older than many of our Nation's most distinguished judges were at the time of their nomination. In fact, all three of the judges for whom Mr. Kavanaugh clerked were appointed to the bench before they were 41. All have been recognized as distinguished jurists. Justice Kennedy was appointed to the Ninth Circuit when he was 38 years old. Judge Kozinski was appointed to the Ninth Circuit when he was 35 years old. Judge Stapleton was appointed to the district court at 35 and later elevated to the Third Circuit. There are many other examples of judges who were appointed to the bench at a young age and have had illustrious careers: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name Circuit Age ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Harry Edwards................... DC Circuit............... 39 Judge Douglas Ginsburg................ DC Circuit............... 40 Judge Kenneth Starr................... DC Circuit............... 37 Judge (now Justice) Samuel Alito...... Third Circuit............ 40 Judge J. Michael Luttig............... Fourth Circuit........... 37 Judge Karen Williams.................. Fourth Circuit........... 40 Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson............. Fourth Circuit........... 39 Judge Edith Jones..................... Fifth Circuit............ 35 Judge Frank Easterbrook............... Seventh Circuit.......... 36 Judge Donald Lay...................... Eighth Circuit........... 40 Judge Steven Colloton................. Eighth Circuit........... 40 Judge Mary Schroeder.................. Ninth Circuit............ 38 Judge Deanell Tacha................... Tenth Circuit............ 39 Judge Stephanie Seymour............... Tenth Circuit............ 39 Judge J.L. Edmondson.................. Eleventh Circuit......... 39 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Age should not be the sole measure of a person's experience. Many Senators began their service at a young age. Senators Biden and Kennedy were elected to the Senate at the age of 30, and Senator Leahy was elected at age 34. Some of Mr. Kavanaugh's critics have suggested that we should hold his service in the White House for President Bush against him. They seem to suggest that Mr. Kavanaugh's public service to his Nation is somehow a disqualifier for later serving on the bench. I disagree. Public service in the executive or legislative branches of Government should not be a disqualifier for judicial office. This has never been the case, nor should it be. Justice Stephen Breyer was once the chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee before being nominated and confirmed to the First Circuit by a substantial majority. I hope that none of us believe that his service on Senator Kennedy's staff should have disqualified him. Judge Abner Mikvah spent most of his career prior to the bench as a Democrat in elective office. He was a State legislator in Illinois and later a U.S. Congressman. In fact, he was a sitting Congressman when he was nominated to the DC Circuit. He, too, was confirmed by a substantial majority. The Senate has not considered service as a Democratic staff member or as a Democratic Congressman a bar to service as a U.S. Circuit Judge, nor should it consider Mr. Kavanaugh's service in President Bush's White House as a strike against him. Suggesting that service in an elective branch of Government somehow tarnishes a lawyer's reputation would be a terrible message for this body to send to the legal community and to all citizens. Mr. Kavanaugh is superbly qualified to serve as a U.S. circuit judge, and he has made clear that he understands the role of a judge is different from the role of a member of the White House staff. Some of Mr. Kavanaugh's critics have raised concerns about Mr. Kavanaugh's ABA rating. The ABA's Committee on the Federal Judiciary has consistently and unanimously found that Mr. Kavanaugh has the integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament to serve on the DC Circuit. Each year Mr. Kavanaugh's name has been in nomination the committee has rated Mr. Kavanaugh, and each year every member of the committee has found him ``qualified'' or ``well qualified.'' According to the ABA: To merit a rating of ``well qualified,'' the nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community; have outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience and the highest reputation for integrity; and either demonstrate or exhibit the capacity for judicial temperament. The rating of ``qualified'' means that the nominee meets the Committee's very high standards with respect to integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament and that the Committee believes that the nominee will be able to perform satisfactorily all of the duties and responsibilities required by the high office of a federal judge. In 2004 and 2005 a majority of the committee thought Mr. Kavanaugh had earned its highest rating, ``well qualified''; the rest thought he had earned a ``qualified'' rating. This year the balance changed, with more members of the committee believing he deserved a ``qualified'' rating and the rest thinking he deserved a ``well qualified'' rating. Despite the fact that the ABA committee has included many committed Democrats, the committee remains unanimous that Mr. Kavanaugh is indisputably competent, intelligent, and qualified to serve on the DC Circuit. In response to what some of my Democratic colleagues have said about Kavanaugh's ABA rating, listen to what ABA committee chairman, Stephen Tober had to say: Let me underscore . . . that we didn't find him not qualified. There's not a breath of that in this report or any earlier report. We found him qualified/minority well qualified. What I said at the end is what, in fact, many people said, that he has a solid reputation for integrity, intellectual capacity--a lot of people refer to him as brilliant--and an excellent writing and analytical ability. Those are great skills to bring to the court of appeals. There is just no question about that. According to Mr. Tober, in all of the ABA's ratings, Mr. Kavanaugh's ``positive factors haven't changed a whole lot. He is found to have high integrity. He is found to be brilliant. He is a very skilled writer and legal analyst. He has those components, and I have said this before . . . he has those skills that will serve him well, certainly, on a Federal court. Finally, Mr. Tober acknowledged that ``there is not a single not qualified vote in the picture.'' Brett Kavanaugh is a highly qualified attorney who has experience as an appellate litigator presenting arguments in court, and experience as a judicial law clerk on the other side of the bench evaluating appellate arguments. He has spent most of his career as a public servant. I am confident that he will perform his duties as a judge in a fair and even-handed manner. Today's vote on this nominee is long past due. I urge my colleagues to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to be a U.S. circuit judge.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, before I get into that, I would like to take one brief moment to note that in an election which took place last night the winner got 63 million votes, more than anybody who has ever run for President. The winner is a fine Alabaman, Taylor Hicks, who was crowned ``American Idol'' winner last night. I have to tell you I am proud of him. We watched it closely and with enthusiasm. If my wife were voting in a normal election, she would be in jail because she voted more than once for him, I can tell you. And we are thrilled. Taylor is Alabama's third finalist in the show, and after last night's finale, he became the second person from Birmingham to be crowned ``American Idol.'' Of course, that followed Rubin Studdard's victory 2 years ago, and Bo Bice as a runner up last year. We are proud of that fact and we are proud of Taylor Hicks being crowned ``American Idol.'' Mr. President, I am also pleased that the sponsors of the immigration bill we are debating accepted my preemption amendment that I originally offered in committee. That provision, which was included in the current bill, relates to day labor centers and is included in title III. My amendment makes clear that the provisions of title III which regulate the recruiting, referring and hiring of undocumented aliens, preempt any State or local laws. The laws it preempts are those that require business entities, as a condition of conducting, continuing or expanding a business, to provide, build, fund or maintain a shelter, structure or designated area for use by day laborers at or near their place of business or take other steps that facilitate the employment of day laborers by others. Language identical to this preemption provision in the current Senate bill was included in H.R. 4437, the bill passed by the House of Representatives. Empirical research proves that day laborers in the United States are used overwhelmingly by undocumented migrants. I would like to enter into the Record along with this statement, an extensive January 2006 study of the day labor issue in this country entitled: ``On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States,'' by Abel Valenzuela Jr. and Ana Luz Gonzalez of the UCLA Center for the Study of Urban Poverty; Nik Theodore of the University of Illinois at Chicago, Center for Urban and Economic Development; and Edwin Melendez of the New School University, Milano Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy. The findings in the study are based on a national survey of day laborers drawn from 264 hiring sites in 139 municipalities in 20 states and the District of Columbia. A critical finding of this national survey, page 17, is that three-quarters of the day labor work force is comprised of undocumented migrants. The scope of title III goes beyond the prohibition of the direct hiring of an unauthorized worker or the requirement that employers electronically verify the validity of the work authorization documents they are provided by applicants. It also prohibits persons from recruiting and referring undocumented workers and facilitating the employment of undocumented workers. A number of local governments have taken actions or sought to impose ordinances that facilitate the employment of day laborers, many of whom are not authorized to work in this country. Local governments have done this by providing public funding of day laborer centers that act as gathering places where employers can hire day laborers, and by requiring, as a condition of conducting their businesses, that business entities build and maintain day laborer centers on or near their property to facilitate the employment of day laborers by customers or contractors. In some instances, these local governments even force employers, as condition of doing business, to hand out to day laborers a written description of their employment rights under the law. There is no doubt that these local governments are directly or indirectly forcing these businesses to attract and recruit these day laborers to their property and facilitate their employment by customers and contractors. They are forcing these businesses to create what amounts to hiring halls in the form of day labor shelters. These ordinances or proposed ordinances expose these businesses to liability under the employer sanctions provisions of title III by forcing them, as a condition of conducting business, to act as agents of the day laborers in facilitating their employment. While these businesses may not hire the day laborers, they are forced to be parties to the hiring process, for which they face potential exposure to liability under section 205 and title III of the Senate bill, and the harboring provisions of section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These local ordinances and practices put businesses in an untenable position. Businesses oppose ordinances that provide for the accommodation of day laborers on their property, particularly when these laborers are undocumented workers. Some local governments deny licensing essential to expand or maintain their business if they do not. It is a no win situation that Congress must address consistent with the overall purpose of this legislation. Without the preemption provisions I have offered to this bill, there would be a gaping hole that would allow public entities to foster the employment of day laborers, whom the recent study I have cited shows to be largely undocumented workers, and force, through their regulatory and licensing authority, businesses to be their agents in this process. This flies in the face of the overall intent of this bill, which is to control our borders and eliminate the job magnet for undocumented workers to enter this country. Through the preemption language that I have added to title III, we have exercised the uniquely federal role given to the Congress under the Constitution to regulate illegal immigration into the U.S. and to prohibit State and local governments through local regulatory authority to thwart the intent of Congress to prohibit the hiring and facilitation of hiring of undocumented workers. Mr. President, let me share a couple of thoughts fundamentally about the immigration bill that is now before us. The question of immigration is clearly one of the most important issues of our time. This vote will be one of the most momentous of our decade. The American people know that. That is why they are engaged in this debate. That is why they are watching it. That is why your phones are ringing in your offices and mail is pouring in. They care about it. They are focused on it, and they want something done. A lot of people say, Well, they are angry at immigrants, they are mad at immigrants, they want to punish them, and they are not fair and generous. That is not so. You know who the American people are mad at. I will tell you who they have a right to be mad at, and that is the governmental officials they sent to Washington who refuse to create a lawful system of immigration to enforce the laws that have been passed by this Congress. That is what they are mad about. They have every right to be mad about it. They were angry in 1986. What did we do? We passed an amnesty bill that promised enforcement in the future. It was utterly not so. The amnesty took place immediately, and the enforcement never occurred. They have been asking, What is going on? In 1986, we found that there were 3 million people who came forward to claim amnesty, and now they tell us 20 years later that there are 11 million people here illegally. Why shouldn't they be frustrated? They are not against immigration. The American people are not against immigration. They are worried about a system that is lawless, unprincipled, and indeed makes a mockery of law. And they have every right to be so. They should not be forgiving if we try to pull another fast one by passing a deeply flawed bill. I don't think they will be forgiving. The problem is, this is a deeply flawed bill. It is not going to accomplish what the goals are for immigration in America. That is a plain fact. It is amusing now to see the sponsors of the bill when confronted with the problems, and those who say they are going to vote for it, and say they do not like it, a lot of them, but they are going to vote for it. Do you know why they say they are going to vote for it? Because maybe the House will save us in conference. What a weak argument, that the great Senate of the United States, dealing with one of the most important issues of our time, is reduced to saying, We know this bill is flawed, we know we have problems, maybe somebody in the House can fix it, but I am going to sign my name and I am going to cast my vote to pass it. First of all, immigration will not end if this bill is not passed. There is not going to be mass deportation of people from America if this bill is not passed. We should do what I suggested several months ago when they tried to run this bill through. Remember, about a month ago, they tried to move this bill through this Senate without any amendments. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said we are not going to have any amendments. They tried to move it through, just slide it through, so the American people did not know about it. Senator Frist finally said, no, we will pull the bill, and they reached an agreement that we would have some amendments. But the bill that hit the floor, as I said at the time, was so deeply flawed, it would never be able to be fixed by the amendments we could bring up. I know Members care about this issue, as do I. They want immigration to continue, and so do I. I can support an increase in legal immigration. What I am saying is we are voting on a bill, not some vague picture, not some emotional deal. We have legislation before the Senate. Will it do what we tell the American people we are going to do? Will we be honest and faithful with the American people when we say this piece of legislation is a comprehensive fix of immigration problems in America? I submit not. As time has gone by, more and more people have seen this is a totally flawed bill. People are getting more and more worried. They had no idea and I am not sure the sponsors knew of a lot of the weaknesses and problems with the legislation. Some have been changed by amendment but, trust me, there are many more. Briefly, I will mention the fundamental flaws in the legislation. These are fundamental. What I am going to talk about today is not some nitpicking over the error of a draftsman. I am talking about fundamental flaws in the bill that make it unpassable, legitimately, in my view. It should not be passed. That is why I have said it should never, ever become law. First, the people now here illegally, the 11 to perhaps 20 million people here illegally, will be given, over a period of years, every single benefit this Nation can bestow on its citizens. That is amnesty. In my mind, that is amnesty. I have tried not to use the word ``amnesty'' in the sense that is automatically disqualifying. What I have tried to say is we should not give those who violate our laws to get here every single right we give the people who wait in line and come lawfully. That is a very important moral and legal principle. In 1986, those who opposed that amnesty, warned that if we do so, more people will come and they, too, will expect amnesty. We will have increased numbers in our country, and we will be forced to grant more amnesties in the future. That is exactly what they said. Go back and read the debate. Who proved correct? The other side said it is a one- time amnesty, we will enforce the law in the future, and the result was 3 million people were given amnesty. The laws were not enforced. Twenty years later, we have 11 million people here, and we are talking about another amnesty. We should not do that. Whatever word you want to use, amnesty or not, we should not do that. Second, the border is not secured by this legislation. We have not worked out the difficulties on the border. T.J. Bonner of the Border Patrol Agents Association, as reported in the paper on Monday in the Washington Times, said the House bill will not work and the Senate bill is ineffective. Why should we pass a bill the experts say will not work? Now, under our procedures, we can authorize fencing. My amendment to add some fencing passed. We can authorize electronic equipment. We can authorize more agents. We can authorize more bed spaces. But will we fund it? Will we maintain a determination in the years to come to make this system work? I submit that without the Isakson amendment, which simply says that until the Congress fulfills its authorization requirements under the bill, the amnesty cannot take effect. When it was voted down in this Senate, every American had to know right then there was no commitment to make this system work. If not, why didn't they vote for it? All it said was if we fulfill the things we authorize, amnesty can be given, if they choose to do amnesty, which remains in the bill. The US-VISIT system is not working. The agents and beds and fences are not up. What about the workplace? That is a critical component in our legal system. The workplace verification system is not in place. There is only a pilot system. We have not worked out the Social Security number problem. It is not fixed. We voted down an amendment so weak in dealing with that. We have not fixed that problem. So the workplace is not fixed. They say it is a temporary guest worker program, but it is not. The bill does not have temporary guest workers. People come into this country, and they ask for a green card as soon as they get here. We vastly increased the number of green cards that can be issued. And everyone comes in under the rubric, the big print in the bill that says ``temporary guest worker'' and will be able to file for a green card through their employer the first day they get here. Soon they will get that green card unless they get in some sort of trouble, and that entitles them to legal, permanent residence. Within 5 years of that, they can become a citizen. This idea that it is a temporary guest worker program is as phony as a three-dollar bill. I hope we never hear that word mentioned in the Senate anymore. We should have one. That is what the President says he wants. The American people understand that and would be more supportive of that. That is precisely what we need: a good, temporary guest worker program and another program to allow people to come into the country to citizenship. But we do not have that. They sold this as a ``temporary worker program'' when it is not. The bill will increase immigration legally by at least three times the current level. We have had no study which justifies that. Three times the current level? Has anyone heard a national discussion or discussion in the Senate about that? No. We have conducted no official study of the huge adverse financial impact this bill will have in the outyears. Any legislative body serious about this issue would have known of this problem long ago. Even before the bill was drafted, they should have known we would have these consequences. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that in the 10th, 11th year, through the next 20 years, this bill will cost $50 billion a year. That is more than the budget of Homeland Security. It has tremendous financial costs. We will have some increased taxes, yes, but in the outyears it will not compensate for this. The reason is, the people who will be given amnesty, a certain high percent of them, unfortunately, do not have a high school diploma. Once they become a legal permanent resident, once they become a citizen, they are entitled to all the panoply of welfare and social benefits our country has. We have taken no steps to ensure this country's immigration policies reflect our Nation's needs. Canada, England, Australia, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are working on that. Canada has a point system. They evaluate people based on what they can contribute to the Canadian economy, and then they decide whether to let them in. We have nothing like that. We know, from my analysis of the bill, it will allow in three times as many people, legally, as we allow in today, and that 70 percent of those will be admitted without regard to what skills, education, or English language capabilities they have. That is not a good principle. That is not what Canada does. Is Canada a backward nation? I submit they are smarter. There are a number of reasons we need to vote down this bill. One of them is the huge financial cost. I will talk about one of the most dramatic costs this bill will impose on the American taxpayer. I offer an amendment to deal with the extraordinary financial impact that will accrue to the American taxpayers as a result of the legalization of 11 million people here today. I asked the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, what the score would be with regard to earned income tax credits. They scored that over 10 years. It would cost the taxpayers of this country, this single program alone, $29 billion. As soon as we allow people into our country who are here illegally now, to convert to legal status under the language of this bill, they will immediately become eligible for the earned income tax credit. Most of these are low-skilled workers. They are not high school graduates. They are making the lower wages. They will qualify for that. Hold your hat. The average person who receives an earned income tax credit check from the Federal Government receives $1,700 a year. The maximum amount you can receive under it is $4,700 a year. These are huge welfare payments designed to help working families, American working families. It started in the 1970s. It cost about $1 billion then. The figure today is closer to $39 billion, one of our largest welfare programs. It has a lot of fraud, a lot of criticism, but it was designed with good intent, and it remains a good part of how we assist lower income people in America. These people will immediately become eligible for that benefit. When they become citizens, they are entitled to all the benefits. If they go through this process and we provide a path to citizenship, they will get that, and we cannot prohibit that. I would not want to prohibit that. I don't intend to prohibit that. We would not want to. But prior to that time, they are not entitled to it. Let me state why. As a matter of law and as a matter of fairness, we should not reward them with this. People who come to the country illegally want to work here, we are told. They do not want to be on welfare. They are not asking for anything special. They just want to be able to work in our country. We have allowed them to do that. They have not asked for, in my view, welfare; they are not asking for it and are not entitled to it. So what happens when they convert to a legal status? Are they then entitled to this gratuitous, generous program of the United States of America that was designed to help American families who have workers trying to get ahead, they get a little extra money each year? Should they be able to participate in that program? I say no. I say there is no moral or legal reason that requires us to provide this benefit as a reward and an inducement for those who have come here in violation of our laws. It is just not required of us. And it is not smart of us. People ask: How are we going to afford the fences and the several billions for the cost to enforce the border? They cannot find the money for it. I can tell you where we can find the money. They say that if you built a fence all the way across the border, 2,000 miles--our bill has 370 miles of fences--it would cost $4 billion or $6 billion. You have heard them say that. This legislation, under the earned income tax credit alone over 10 years, will increase, according to the Congressional Budget Office, our outlays by $29 billion. We can pay for the whole enforcement system on our border by not giving this gratuitous benefit to people who come here in violation of the law. They will be able to stay. They will be able to work. They will have medical care. They will have education for their children. They will have all those things provided to them free from the Federal Government or State governments, if need be. They get all those things, but they are not entitled and should not be provided the earned-income tax credit, in my view. They say: Well, they will pay taxes in the future. OK. Well, how long have they been here not paying taxes? It is just not possible for us to do everything. And this Government ought to ask: Why should we--out of fidelity to the taxpayers of our country, who already see that we are spending recklessly, and already have a major deficit--why should we provide this benefit? I do not think we should. The entire concept of earned legalization is muddled in this bill, in my view. But that aside, what should we do about the cost and the benefit that could be given to these people? Do we need to provide them an extra welfare benefit that they have no expectation of ever getting? By the way, I told you earlier, that the amount of money this benefit would cost over the next ten years was projected to be $29 billion by CBO. That was based on their estimate a few days ago that we would have 6 million to 7 million people who would be given amnesty under this bill. Just yesterday, we received a letter from them that said those numbers were wrong. They are now estimating it would be 11 million people coming in. So I would submit, if you take that increased number and you apply it to the $29 billion estimate we have, we are talking about at least a $40 billion outlay over the next 10 years. But $29 billion, $40 billion, $39 billion, whatever the figure is, it is very large. It is not necessary we provide this transfer payment, this outlay from our Treasury, directly to people who have come here illegally, and reward them in that fashion. What we should do is proceed forward. And if they move their way on to the path of citizenship, they would be entitled to it. I thank the Chair and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4108 on the earned income tax credit.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his exemplary and hard work on this legislation. From the beginning, had we listened to him, we would not be in the fix we are. With regard to this amendment, I have to tell my colleagues, it is a defining amendment. It defines us as a nation, as a Senate. The question is, Are we going to continue to allow lawlessness to operate at the border? If we don't pass the Cornyn amendment, we will be saying we have no more intention to see that we have lawfulness in the immigration system in the future than we had in the past. I was a Federal prosecutor for almost 15 years. What do you mean you can file a document and Federal investigators can't look at it to determine whether you committed fraud when you filed it? They are not going to be looking at people in the millions who are going to file to try to find some innocent mistake. How silly is that? They are not going to be able to prosecute blatant fraud, frankly, in large numbers. But we don't want them to be incapable of doing so. We don't want to set a policy that would prohibit criminal investigators of the United States to examine an application for amnesty under this bill and not be able to prosecute, if it has fundamental fraudulent statements in it, or even be able to use it to build some larger investigation that may relate to coyotes or organizing rings. That is what we are most likely to come up with, in my experience. Most likely they will be investigating rings of illegal aliens who have used false identification or come across the border illegally. And you are trying to put that together, and you go back and look at these applications which will be critical in establishing that case. They are barred from doing that. This is really a big deal because one of the weaknesses I have seen in our whole approach to immigration and, frankly, other issues is that we as a nation are becoming so soft that we are incapable of drawing a line anywhere. We are incapable of drawing a line anywhere. So the proponents of this legislation are saying it is somehow wrong that we could hold people to account if they file an application to become a beneficiary of amnesty. We cannot even investigate that and prosecute them, or prosecute other people who brought them in illegally in some sort of conspiracy, and deny the investigators that. I thank the Senator from Texas, who is a former attorney general and a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court. We should listen to him. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, once again Senator Bingaman is correct and has a very, very important amendment. My staff was the first to alert the country to the huge numbers that are involved in this bill and the extraordinary increases in legal immigration that will occur. We ran the numbers also. Senator Bingaman's previous amendment helps fix some of those problems. This one will further help. Under current law for employment-based green cards, 140,000 people are allowed in the country each year, and spouses and children count against that 140,000. Under the bill that is on the floor today, that number goes to 450,000, and spouses and children do not count. Utilizing the numbers of the Congressional Research Service, as the Senator said, 1.2 children and a spouse per worker coming in, that would total 990,000 under this simple provision alone. It goes from 140,000 to 990,000. It could be more that come in under the spouse and family provisions. Let's just say go to 650,000. That is about four times the current rate. How reasonable is that? I have not seen any economist, I have not seen hearings in which we have ever had official testimony that increasing by fivefold or sixfold the amount of legal immigration in this country is the right approach to take. So we don't have a necessary basis to assert this. There is not really a tenor here. It is not a question of evocative, emotional feelings. It is a question of what does this bill do. It is fatally flawed, and the Senator is correct. I support his amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a very real problem in the American court system today. In fact, one of our Senators wants us to add 9 new Federal district judges as a result of immigration, and we are having surges of cases involving immigration appeals to the courts of appeals, where people can take their appeals directly if they are unhappy with the system that has been set up where administrative judges, through the immigration department, make adjudications within their sphere of influence as to whether someone is here in this country legally or not. We are a great Nation. We are a nation of laws. Our strength is that we provide a good legal system. That is why a lot of people come here, because they are tired of being abused in their home country. They know they will be fairly treated here in our legal system. It is a key to our growth and prosperity and liberty. These appeals are increasing in large, large numbers. Under this amendment it would have the possibility of accelerating those increases of appeals, a great deal of it. I want to say a couple of things. A person who comes to our country, to any country, comes at that country's sufferance. They are here subject to the pleasure of that country and can only stay here according to the laws of our country. The laws of our country give adjudicative immigration courts the power and responsibility to adjudicate those questions about whether or not a person can stay here or has to be removed because they violated some law. One of the things that is wrong with immigration today is we have so muddled and so complicated and so confused our thinking that we don't understand what has happened. So a person is here. They are here illegally--or at least on appeal and a second appeal and a trial and appeal with the immigration courts they have been adjudicated as not being here legally. What should happen then, I ask you? They have a right to appeal to the U.S. court of appeals--not even a Federal district judge, the court of appeals of Federal judges, where we have had a number of appointments recently, and it is one step below the U.S. Supreme Court. They get a right to have that, but they do not get the right to remain here unless that court of appeals allows them to. In fact, the law is clear. In the vast, vast majority of the cases, they ought not remain here. They have no constitutional right to remain here after the adjudicative branch of the Government has concluded they are not supposed to be here. Their appeal can continue. They are not denied the right to continue their appeal. But they are allowed to go back home to their home country and to pursue their appeal otherwise through their lawyers in the appropriate way. They say this focuses on asylum. I would say asylum represents the best argument that can be made against the provisions of the bill that is now before us, but it does not apply just to asylum cases. It applies to all cases. Any immigrant who can maintain an appeal can get to stay in the country. We had testimony in the Judiciary Committee from the second circuit, a fine circuit court of appeals, that it takes them on average 27 months to decide one of these cases. What happens to that person during the 27 months, may I ask you? Two things happen. We have to take extremely precious bed space and leave them in custody for 27 months--remember, these could be people with terrorist connections or other connections--or we have to allow them out on bail. We have one area in our country where it was reported that 95 percent of the people who were released on bail pending an immigration decision absconded. That means they will go on, decide their appeal and some adjudication, and order that he is supposed to leave. Where has he been? He broke into the country, presumably illegally. Is he waiting around? Is he now going to show up so they can deport this person? They have already melded into the community in an illegal fashion. It is part of the problem that we deal with and which is making our system ineffective. We have to simply understand that there is no right to be here after a final adjudication has occurred while your case is on appeal in the court of appeals. But we allow them to. We give them a right, if they can show sufficient evidence under the standards that the Senator mentioned, that a court can approve that and allow them to stay if they think they have, according to the law, convincing evidence that they are rightly here. The court of appeals can override the adjudicating authority of the Immigration Service and allow the person to stay if they choose. We have had an abuse of that. We have had 10,000 such cases. With this amendment, we are going to see even more such cases. I suggest that we must get serious about immigration. The more we create appellate possibilities, the more we can confuse the law. The more we create exception after exception after exception, the more unable we are to operate a system effectively and fairly. The fair principle is, if you are adjudicated not to be here, you have no right to be here. But we give you a generous right to appeal to a court one step below the U.S. Supreme Court, but you have to go home until that court decision. If they override it, he can come back. I think that is preciously generous. I think that is fair and right, and it also provides that court, in narrow areas, to extend and allow a person to stay if they feel it is necessary to do so. I think this is a good amendment. The Department of Justice, I think, understands it. Senator Coburn offered a good provision to the bill which was adopted in the Judiciary Committee. It should not be overturned here on the floor. We can be sure that those who have a good case to stay will be able to stay. But overwhelmingly, if you have been found not to be here legitimately, you are not entitled to stay, you should go home. This amendment undermines that principle. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to speak further.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let's talk about the question of whether these ``legal'' workers have followed the rules and are entitled to this benefit. Those granted amnesty under this bill entered the country illegally, and have not followed the rules. At this very moment, the law says they are illegal and subject to deportation from the United States. Many of them have filed false Social Security numbers and committed crimes of that kind. We are not going to deport them. We are going to allow them to stay here. We are going to be generous to them. We are going to figure out a way that under this bill the vast majority of them will be on a path to full citizenship. Anybody that becomes a full naturalized citizen would be entitled to the earned income tax credit. My colleagues have said we are punishing these individuals by giving them amnesty. They don't say we are punishing them by saying they have to pay a penalty. They are not saying we are punishing them by saying they have to pay taxes if they owe them. One said we are declaring war on who they are. Those kinds of words and phrases indicate the bankruptcy of the argument that is being put forth. Under current law, they are not eligible for the earned income tax credit. Under current law, they should not be here. They are here illegally. We are now going to pass a law that is going to allow them to stay here, that will give them free medical care, that will give free education for their children, and allow them to utilize all the services this Nation has put together through the taxpayers of America. Then we are prepared, under this bill, to give these illegal aliens, prior to the time they become a citizen when we change the rules, $40 billion of the taxpayers' money. What offsets do we have? What efforts or plans have been made to pay for that over the next 10 years? Let me ask my colleagues: If we change the rules and we say we are not going to enforce the criminal laws against you or the immigration laws, why can't we say: you can stay here and, for the overwhelming majority under this bill, you are on a path to citizenship, but you do not get to claim the tax credit? This is a transfer payment. It is classified as an outlay by the U.S. Treasury. I was disappointed to hear a Senator try to compare this to having to go to the back of the bus. I introduced and was pleased to see passed a resolution that gave the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. It was given to her in the rotunda of the Capitol before she died. She is from Montgomery, AL. She was mistreated simply because of the color of her skin, and she was required to go to the back of the bus because of the color of her skin. I don't appreciate the suggestion that this amendment is against civil rights. These people broke the law by entering the country illegally, and should not be able to take advantage of this tax credit. This is a fair response of the American people. Let me ask this question: What about Rosa Parks' descendants who are paying taxes today? Their wages may be reduced this very day because of a large surge of illegal immigrants. This bill would increase that by threefold. Who cares about their wages perhaps being reduced as a result? And it is their money that will be paid to fund this $40 billion transfer payment to people who come here illegally. We are simply not required to give that benefit. Now, what about taxes? They say they pay taxes. The truth is that lower-wage people--and most of these are lower-wage people--don't pay income taxes. They pay Social Security taxes, but they will get Social Security under this proposal. They don't pay income taxes because they are low-wage. If they have children, they don't pay. Most of the people that get the earned income tax credit don't pay any federal income taxes. At the end of the year when they file a tax return they get, on average, $1,700 per person. Some get as much as $4,700. It is not just families that are eligible for this credit. Single people get it, too, though not as much. It is an income tax credit. It is a payment to them. I suggest that this is an important issue and that we think about our responsibility. We could pay for the entire enforcement mechanism for the border of the U.S. by simply not rewarding those who have come here illegally, who never expected to receive this benefit, with $40 billion in transfer payments. That is not punishing them. They are free. They are able to go back if they choose. They are able to work if they choose. They are able to carry on their own activities and make choices. But they are not entitled because we give them the benefit of legal status to receive this transfer payment that is provided for our people under current law. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think I need that time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will wrap up. Although it is my amendment, I suppose I will give my colleagues the chance to have a final word. This bill would not prohibit those who come here legally in the future from being entitled to the earned income tax credit even before they become a citizen. It would say, with regard to those who came here illegally and have no entitlement whatsoever to this outlay payment from the U.S. Treasury, that they should not be able to get it until they become a naturalized citizen. That is not a punishment to them. We are rewarding them with legality in our country. We are rewarding them with the health care benefits of our country and educational benefits of our country, and it is not required that we spend, I believe, what is a fair estimate of $40 billion over the next 10 years to fund this program. That money alone would be enough to fund almost the entire immigration enforcement system we need to put into place. Maybe it would fund all of the one-time costs and much of the continuing costs of that program. Why would we want to get into this argument that suggests that somehow we are discriminating against people because we don't give them a benefit to which they are clearly not entitled? We are giving them a number of benefits. We simply do not have to give this benefit. It has huge implications for our Treasury. Any way you spin it, our deficit would be $40 billion higher than if we don't adopt my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the earned-income tax credit is a major transfer of wealth that we provide to American workers and their families. It is a plan that has grown extraordinarily. The people who are illegally here now are not entitled to that plan. Just because they are legalized, they should not have an automatic right to obtain those benefits. If they are here until citizenship, they are entitled to those benefits. As a matter of law, they would be entitled to that. It amounts to, I believe, $40 billion over the next 10 years. It is something that we need to take seriously. This $40 billion will increase our debt by that much in the next 10 years. We are generous with health care and with education and to allow overwhelmingly these people to stay in our country. But they are not entitled to this welfare benefit. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 11:30 a.m., to receive a briefing on the status of on-going investigations into an incident involving Iraqi civilians on November 19, 2005, near Haditha.