Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have been talking about the immigration challenge that is facing this country. It is one that needs to be faced and dealt with, and I believe it is possible for us to achieve comprehensive reform. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will not do the job. It will not be consistent with what I have heard from my Alabama voters or with what we have been telling our voters all over the country that we would do in immigration legislation. Let me make a couple of points about this issue. There are two aspects, I guess one can say. One aspect is what to do about those people who are here illegally and how should they be treated, which ones should be allowed to stay and which ones should not be allowed to stay and under what conditions. Those are all very important matters for us to discuss in some depth and, frankly, we have not done that, not in any effective way. We passed that portion of the immigration bill last Monday after about 3 hours of debate, at 6 o'clock, and the bill was on the floor the next day or Wednesday, and what we actually passed out of committee was printed Wednesday night. So there was very little serious discussion about the bill. It is a tremendous problem. We are dealing with 1.1 million people entering the country illegally being arrested each year by our Border Patrol agency--1.1 million. This is huge. We have a system, I heard the Democratic leader say earlier today, that is lawless and it is chaos. If we are going to deal comprehensively with the human situation we are facing, ought we not also deal with the challenges of the legal system and try to make our borders a lawful place instead of chaos? First, I want to say, we can do this. It is not that difficult. We simply have to take down the ``come on in'' sign that is there, that ``come on in illegally and sooner or later we are going to make you legal'' sign. We need to create enforcement on the border and create good enforcement at the workplace, and then we can reach that tipping point where people find that it is better to get that biometric card and come to the right border crossing and go there and present it and go right in. And you can go right back home when you want to go home. It would work. It can be made to work. Let me tell you the challenges that are in existence and why I think we haven't met those challenges. We have 1.1 million arrests. I think it is possible that if we get serious and send that clear message to the world that you have to come lawfully, we might see a lot fewer people attempt to come illegally. As a matter of fact, I am confident of that. Another problem we have is those who are ``other than Mexicans.'' It has been referred to now consistently as the catch-and-release policy. This is the deal: If you apprehend someone who is a Mexican, they can easily be taken back across the border, maybe that day or within a day or two. But what if someone is caught coming across the border from Brazil or the islands or China or someplace like that? It is a much more difficult problem. We have not done a good job of confronting it, and what has happened is, those people have been arrested at the border and many times they just turn themselves in to the agents. They take them 100 or so miles further inside the border, and they are released on bail and they are asked to come back to this hearing to explain why they are here illegally. Well, they don't come back. In fact, in one district, in one area, 95 percent of the people released after being caught didn't show up for their hearing. Does that not make a mockery of the law? And they are not even putting their names into the National Crime Information Center--they haven't been. They say they are, but still only a small number are getting in the system so that if they are apprehended somewhere else in the country, they will be picked up. If you skip on a DUI charge, they put your name in the NCIC, and if you are stopped in Maryland or Virginia or New York or California, you will get a hit that you are wanted for a DUI somewhere. We are not doing that. That indicates a lack of interest in seeing that the law works. So that has to be fixed. They say they are going to fix it, but it hasn't been fixed. In the appellate process--we had a hearing this morning--and Senator Specter had language in the bill that is before us today that would take a good step toward fixing the problem with appeals. In the committee, however, somebody offered an amendment to take it out, and it was taken out. This is the problem: In 4 years, there has been a 600-percent increase in the number of appeals in immigration cases. As a result, we have created a large backlog. This backlog has resulted in the unbelievable situation by which it takes 27 months now to get a decision. So we have a 600-percent increase and 27 months before you get an appeal decision out of the courts. Some of that is getting the transcript ready; some of that has been delays in the court system. So we had a proposal to fix that. It obviously has to be fixed if we are going to transition from a chaotic system to a lawful system. Wouldn't everybody agree with that? But that was taken out. We are going to have to have jails and we are going to have to have increased Border Patrol agents and we are going to have to have increased barriers. This is so simple as to be without dispute, it seems to me. Good fences make good neighbors. Good fences make good neighbors, they say. When you have large numbers of people, in the millions, coming across--many of them coming across a specific area--a fence can make a huge difference. It made a huge difference in San Diego. I don't think anybody has breached that fence. Both sides of the fence now are growing and prospering terrifically. The property values have gone up, crime and violence and smuggling have all gone down, and it is so much better there. Nobody would want to take that fence down. So I don't understand this idea in opposition to the fencing or any barriers whatsoever. It is something you can't talk about. The reason that is so is because people want to make those who believe fencing and barriers are legitimate are against any immigration. They want you to say that there shouldn't be any immigration. But the amendment I have offered that would deal with expanding fences similar to what the House of Representatives passed by a large vote would increase substantially the number of legal entry points. I am not trying to keep people from coming lawfully or to put up a barrier that says: America doesn't allow immigration anymore. That is not what we are doing. We are trying to tilt it from an unlawful to a lawful system. Another thing that is very important is our local law enforcement officers. We have 600,000--750,000 State and local law enforcement officers in America. They have basically been told they should not contribute to the effort to deal with those who are here illegally. If they capture someone who is speeding or DUI or committing some other minor offense and they find out they are here illegally, nobody wants to come and get them and won't authorize the officers or encourage them even to participate and help. I do not believe we should mandate State and local officers to do anything they don't desire to do. They have plenty of choices to make in how they apply their resources. But if an officer is out doing his daily duties and he apprehends someone who is in this country illegally, why shouldn't the Federal Government come and get them? Why shouldn't they be thanked for it? The opposition to that indicates to me--and the nature of it and the kind of resistance and pushback we are getting for that--indicates to me that there are a large number of people who say they want law enforcement in America but really don't. They don't have the will to see this thing through and make sure the system works. Finally, let me tell you, it is very easy indeed for this Nation to get control of the workplace. This can be done and can be done very easily. American corporations obey the law, in general. There are some who don't, but most of them obey the law. What they have been told is they can't ask for people's identification today, they can't ask to find out whether they are legal or illegal, or they will be sued for some sort of civil rights violation, and they quit doing it. In fact, they are not required to do it, apparently, because they have never been punished for that. In 2004, we had only four companies that were assessed a fine for hiring illegal workers in this country. Only four. Isn't that amazing? It indicates that there has been zero enforcement, zero will to make sure there is a lawful process occurring at the workplace. What we need is clear language in our legislation and a clear commitment by this administration and the Department of Justice to take the law that we pass that clarifies all of this confusion that is out there and make sure there is a clear message to our businesses and, if they violate the law, to prosecute them or fine them. That can be done, and as soon as it starts being done, other businesses will clean up their act. They will not do it. You are not going to have to prosecute every company that is today hiring illegal workers because as soon as they know that it is not acceptable, that they will be prosecuted for it and fined for it, they will quit. That matter can be ended. T.J. Bonner, the head of the Border Patrol employees group, says you need two things to make this system work, and he believes it absolutely can work. One is increased enforcement at the border, and two is to eliminate what he called the ``magnet of the job.'' It is the job magnet that draws people across the border. Both of those can be eliminated very easily. So what do we have in our bill, the bill that is on the floor today? We have legislation that will place each one of the 11 million people here, virtually every one of them, on a direct path to citizenship. They say: Well, it is not automatic; they have to earn their way. They are supposed to work. How many hours? Well, 150 days. How much work do you have to do each day? Well, 1 hour. So you work 150 hours a year, and that qualifies you as a working person. But either way, that is what people come here for, to work. So what kind of earning is that? That is the benefit. That is why people come. That is the magnet. So they say that because they work, they earned the right to gain their complete citizenship by violating the American law, by coming here illegally, and then they are rewarded with every benefit this Nation can give them. They are rewarded with every social benefit, every welfare benefit, every medical care benefit, every legal benefit--even citizenship--rewarding them for coming in ahead of the line, ahead of those who stayed and waited their turn. So my point about that is this: Let's keep focusing on that. Let's figure out what the right thing to do is for these people. I am just saying that those who come illegally should not get every single benefit that those who come legally do. It is a myth that somehow a person here who is not a citizen is somehow mistreated and not appropriately treated. I had the great honor--and I have the great honor--to know Professor Harald Rohlig at the college I attended. He is in his eighties. He came here from Germany right after World War II. He is a great organ master. He has performed and recorded the entire work of Bach. He is one of the most delightful people I have ever had the pleasure to know, and a decent person. His wife died, and before that, she had decided she didn't want to become a citizen. But he decided--he always wanted to be a citizen. He wanted to be a citizen. He was in his eighties. Now, here he was, the head of the music department, recorded the entire works of Bach, and had done so many other wonderful things and was loved throughout the whole area, but he wasn't a citizen. He came in legally and was qualified and he, in his eighties, decided to become a citizen. The point of that story is you can be a great participant in America and have many wonderful things available to you, even if you are not a citizen. My next point is this: We are moving toward one of the most historic and generous proimmigration pieces of legislation this Nation has ever had. As we study the numbers, assuming that those who qualify are only 11 million to 12 million, we are looking at the numbers that come in legally on top of that--on top of the ones who come now, we are going to have 400,000 per year. And they are supposedly guest workers. So we are told there are 400,000 guest workers, but they come in for 3 years with the automatic ability to apply for another 3 years. It is my understanding that if an employer desires an alien to get a green card, the employer can apply on behalf of the alien almost as soon as the alien begins work. And for the first time we have made it so that the guest workers, after 4 years, can apply for a green card themselves. So within 4 years, anybody who comes in under this 400,000 per year, they will be allowed to get a green card, and a green card, of course, is an automatic step toward citizenship. It is just a matter of time after that--additionally, being able to speak English and not having been convicted of a felony or a serious crime--a felony. We need to make sure. When we go through this tremendous move to regularize, it is what we calculate to be 30 million people in the next 10 years. Counting the ones who are not here now, counting the ones who are coming in, plus the 10 or 12 million who are here, we are talking about 30 million people. Are we certain? Will anyone come on this floor to explain and say with confidence: ``Jeff, after we do all that, don't worry about illegal immigration, we have the border system under control now; we are not going to have any''? I don't think they can. I don't think they will. Because it is not secure under the legislation that is before us. Second, many of the things in the legislation that are good, that call for increased Border Patrol officers or increased detention space, are not funded. We have not appropriated the money. When this legislation passes, which gives legal status to millions, we have no guarantee that any Congress will ever fund border control and security adequately. They have not yet. We have had that opportunity since 1986--20 years--and we haven't done it. I believe the American people have a right to be concerned about the bait and switch. It is like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. In 1986, I think that is basically what happened. We did the amnesty. We didn't mind calling it amnesty then. We acknowledged it was amnesty. This bill does exactly the same thing we did in 1986 in all significant and important respects, but they didn't get the enforcement at the border. Now, instead of 3 million people as we had in 1986, here illegally, we have 11 million. By the way, I would note that in 1986, they estimated this would be 1 million to 1.5 million people claiming amnesty. When they opened it up and let people qualify, 3 million qualified, twice the number that was expected. Some think we have 20 million people in our country illegally, and we could see quite a large number there move up. I would say to my colleagues, we do not need to move forward with this legislation. A few tinkering amendments is not going to do the trick. What we need to do is decide what we are going to do about the people who are here, how we are going to handle them in a fair and just way that is consistent with our law. Second, we need to assure the American people in a confident and effective way that our borders will be fixed; we will have the computers, the aerial vehicles, the fencing, the barriers, the ability to deport people who do not live on our borders--so-called ``other than Mexicans,'' OTMs--to China and Brazil and Ecuador and Haiti and El Salvador, that we are going to deal with those criminal gangs which are here. Once we can do that with confidence, I think maybe we can reach an agreement and accord. It is within our grasp to do so. But I have not sensed the will to see it done. We hear a lot of talk. I urge my colleagues, my citizens, to listen to the remarks that are made on the floor by those who want to justify how we have allowed this system to get out of control. Listen carefully to their promises to fix it. If you examine them carefully, I think you will find that they are not substantial enough and we are going to end up, again, as we did in 1986, getting the legalization without getting the enforcement. I hope a lot of talk will continue in the days ahead. We will have a lot of debate on amendments on the floor, and as we move forward, I hope we get to the point where a bill could be passed such that we could go home to our constituents and with integrity say we have done something worthwhile--we have improved the situation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. In effect, it would not continue as an addition on top of the expanded immigration provisions in the committee mark?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will answer a question. We put in this bill--and Senator Mikulski offered a sense of this amendment last year and it won--to extend for 1 year these provisions. I thought in the bill that came out of committee we were dealing with it when we added 400,000 per year--more than doubling the number who would come in to work--who could be covered, I think, by this category. My question is, has the Senator been able to ascertain whether this would be in addition to the 400,000 who would be approved under the Judiciary Committee mark?

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the Senator's view that we need to certify that we have the enforcement system working for the immigration system before we make these other changes that allow people to be given amnesty or be given a right to stay here in some lawful way. The reason that is important is this: To boil it down in 1 minute before I yield the floor, the reason that is important is that once we pass the policies--the amnesty that is in this bill, or whatever policies we eventually pass--to deal with new immigration for years to come or to deal with those already here, that becomes law then. The problem has been that no President whom I know of--Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush--has ever taken it as a personal interest to ensure that what happens on our borders actually works. So they have not asked for more money, more people or asked sufficiently for technology for it to work. And the Congress, as the Senator said, often doesn't fund it. So what are we saying? Fundamentally, what happened in 1986, I believe, was that amnesty was granted and the promise to create a legal system in the future never developed. We have a very rightful responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen again. I think that is the intent of the Senator's amendment. I look forward to studying it, and I thank him for offering it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my sincerest appreciation for the leadership of Senator John Cornyn as we have attempted in the Judiciary Committee--of which we are both members--to try and help produce a bill that will actually work, that will allow legal immigration to be formal, effective, and allow more people to come into our country legally while ending the disarray which now exists. He is so knowledgeable as a former justice on the Supreme Court of Texas and former attorney general of Texas. He understands it so well, being a Member from a State that deals with this in such a consistent and continuous way. I thank the Senator for his excellent work. One of the aspects that is most troubling to me about the process--as it has gone along, I have become even more concerned about it--is that it indicates a lack of serious thought about what we are going to do as a nation to deal with those who are here illegally now. We know there are a lot of good people here. What are we going to do in the future? Let me report how things went in the Judiciary Committee. We had the Alito hearings, we had the Roberts hearings, we had the PATRIOT Act debate, and we had the asbestos debate. We have been as busy as any committee has ever been on a host of important issues facing our country all year. It seems as if that is about all I do, and I am on the Armed Services Committee at a time when we are a nation at war. We have a lot of things going on, and we have worked very hard. At the beginning of the process, I expressed concern asked that we not rush the committee into something before it was ready. The majority leader set this time for this bill to come to the floor, and he said he expected us to complete a bill if we wanted a Judiciary Committee bill to be the vehicle on the floor. So the committee tried to do it. But there was not enough time. We did not give enough thought to it, in my view. We met for 6 days in the Judiciary Committee attempting to mark up Chairman Specter's immigration legislation, a mark that he put out which is considerably better, in my view, then what is currently on the floor. His was not acceptable in some ways, but it is better than the one we produced. He put his mark out for debate in Committee. We began to discuss it. We met on March 2, March 8, March 9, March 15, 16, and 27. Six days may sound like a lot in the committee process, but this bill is 400 pages involving tremendous national issues which many people feel strongly about and which deserve real discussion. During the first day, we basically just talked about the bill. No amendments were offered during the markup. During the next 3 days, we talked about the enforcement provisions of the bill and simply accepted by unanimous consent noncontroversial amendments to the first two titles of the bill, two of the seven titles. We accepted some amendments. Then we get to day four. We did not have a single vote on any amendment during those first four days of hearings. On the fifth day, we once again in committee talked about how best to proceed. No amendments were offered, and none were voted on. During the 5 days, we did not vote on a single amendment. All the controversial issues got pushed off to Monday. We are not normally here on Monday, but we showed up on Monday because the leader said we had to have a bill out Monday night or he would bring up his own bill. During the morning session on Monday, we spent 3\1/2\ hours talking about amendments on the enforcement provisions of the bill. We spent a good bit of time on the enforcement provisions and made some progress. I got optimistic to the point that I have said if we did just a few more things, we could create an enforcement system that would work. So we spent a little time on enforcement. But we are still now talking about title II of the seven titles in the bill. After lunch on Monday of this week, we met for another 3\1/2\ hours and ran through the remaining five titles, five sections of the bill, with little discussion and less understanding of what the amendments were and what they amounted to. We voted on several amendments without even having language to review. In only 3\1/2\ hours on Monday, we voted on four amnesty provisions and increased the chairman's mark by over 100 pages. Let me make this clear. We spent 5 days talking about the enforcement issues with little controversy there. In contrast, we spent 3\1/2\ hours passing out the massive amnesty provisions in the bill that is now in the Senate that will attempt to legalize and put on an automatic path, virtually, to citizenship. We also passed legislation that increases the legal immigration in our country by at least double--probably more than that--to 400,000 per year, with little discussion of who and how that should be done. It just was offered and passed. I believe this Senate needs to slow down and think about where we are. It is very important. Members of this Senate have expressed deep concern that the border has become a major gateway for terrorists to have access to the United States. Senator Feinstein expressed that. Clearly, she is from California. We are pleased to have three Senators--Senator Feinstein from California, Senator Kyl from Arizona, and Senator Cornyn from Texas--who live on the border and know about it and understand it in many ways, far better than the rest of us. I share her concern and believe it can only be remedied by focusing on fixing our immigration system as a whole. It is something we can do. This is within our grasp at this point, but we are not there yet. Securing our borders and being able to keep track of the people who come in and out of our country is essential to our security. We know that countries without secure immigration policies are a natural fit for bad actors who seek to live anonymously within their borders. A country that does not protect its borders and does not know the identity of those who come in and out of the country is laying out the welcome mat for criminals and even terrorists. I have visited a number of times with troops and other government officials in Afghanistan. I have had the honor to meet with General Jones, our commander in Europe, General Abizaid, our commander in Central Command, and they have expressed exceedingly great concern to me about unregulated border areas. They have emphasized that there are a number of places around the globe, border areas of countries that are not very effective countries, in which criminals can gather and nobody does anything about it. It gets worse and worse, and terrorists nest there. The most dramatic example of that, of course, is this very long and very large border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where many think Osama bin Laden hides out today. Some ask why isn't it possible for us to find him? It is a very large area. It is basically an area that has not been controlled effectively by the Governments of Pakistan or Afghanistan, and as a result, it is far more difficult. I just came from there last week and had a briefing on this specific area. If anyone heard the briefing I had, there would be a far greater understanding of how difficult it is to control these areas. A great nation like the United States has to do better. We cannot allow that tendency to occur in our country. I believe we can say with some integrity and honesty that tends to be what is happening here on our border. Last night, I had an exchange with Senator Kyl in the Senate, and he talked about the increasing number of people who are involved in crime on the Arizona-Mexico border. Many are not from Mexico. Many are from further south, from other countries, who come into Mexico, but it is an area in which they operate, move drugs, extort, carry people, and it is not a healthy situation at all. It is something a great nation, if we care about the people who want to live here and come into our country legally, should be very concerned about. The United States felt the sharp consequences of open borders and lax enforcement when our ineffective immigration policies enabled 19 terrorists to obtain visas into the United States on September 11. September 11 was not the only act of terrorism on U.S. soil, though, that has resulted from poor immigration policies. Let's talk about the Brooklyn subway plot. People may have forgotten that. Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer was caught by the Border Patrol agents three times while trying to illegally cross the Canadian border. After a third apprehension, Canada would not take him back. Because the United States suffers from a severe lack of detention space for illegal aliens like Mezer, what happened to him? Canada would not take him back. He was released into the country on bail with a promise that he would show up for a hearing at which he would be deported. So he wants to come to this country, he is apprehended for the third time, Canada will not let him come back, and they release him on a promise that he will show up for a hearing on whether he should be deported. It sounds like, based on those facts, he probably was confident he would be. While waiting for his hearing, Mezer busied himself by plotting to bomb the Brooklyn subway. Mohammad Salameh, one of the World Trade Center bombing coconspirators in the first World Trade Center bombing attempt in 1993--more than an attempt; an explosion that did not bring down the building applied for a tourist visa to the United States. Although Mohammad Salameh overcame the presumption that he was required to overcome as a single male, young, and received a visa, he overstayed the visa and remained illegally in the United States. We passed amnesty. He applied then to be a permanent resident. It was rejected. Somebody caught it somehow and saw something there. What did he do? He applies for amnesty under the 1986 act, and they reject it. So what does that mean? Was he sent home? No, he just simply remained in the United States. Nobody bothered to come and look for him. He continued living and working here because there was no enforcement mechanism in place allowing authorities to detain and remove rejected green card applicants. Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the 1993 trade bombing, was legalized as a part of the 1986 amnesty, also. It was only after he was legalized that he was able to travel outside the United States. The trips he took after being granted amnesty included several to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he received the training he used in the bombing. Most people who seek to stay in our country are good and decent people. They are not terrorists. We know that. But we have an increasing number of criminals from around the world seeking to enter this country, and we have the terrorist problem. Abounalima took advantage of the amnesty. He got approved. Proper background checks apparently were not conducted, and he then, as a permanent legal resident, green card holder, was free to travel back and forth around the world and go to Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is where he got his training for the 1993 bombing. The mastermind of the 1993 bombing was Ramzi Yousef. He did not waste time applying for a visa to come to the United States. Upon his arrival at JFK Airport, he simply applied for asylum, saying he was persecuted. There was a lack of detention space while they were trying to determine his status. They said to this man who illegally appeared at John F. Kennedy Airport--You are here illegally; we will arrest you. And he says: I claim asylum; I am here because I have been run out of my country. So he is entitled, now, to a trial or a hearing on that. But they cannot do it that day, and they do not have any place to put him, so they release him. They parole him into the country until a hearing can be held on his asylum claim. Yousef then used that time inside the United States to plan the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Tower. Not only have our amnesty, visa issuance, and asylum policies brought terrorists into the United States, our programs have also served as a conduit for criminals and terrorists. Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, murdered two people at the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport in July 2002. Less than a year after 9/11, Hadayet conducted that attack at the airport which resulted in the murder of two people. He received legal status through the diversity lottery visa in this fashion: In 2002, Hadayet was a visa overstayer. He got a visa, came here, but he stayed illegally beyond the time he was supposed to stay. In his asylum claim, when they confronted him about it, he claimed that he was entitled to asylum, too. That is a good thing to say because that stops the works. So he claimed asylum. But a hearing was held, and the determination was that he was not entitled to asylum. It was rejected. But with no mechanism, no will and no capacity to tell the truth, to remove him, he just stayed in the United States with his wife. Then Hadayet's wife won the diversity visa lottery. She got a green card and she was able to get one for her husband. So both of them were legalized. That is how he got into the country--not a way it should have happened. Once his asylum had been rejected, he should have been removed. Now, we have been reading in the paper about Zacarias Moussaoui, who just confessed, apparently, to his intent to participate in the September 11 bombings in plane attacks in our country. He entered the country under the visa waiver program, and he just confessed that he was to fly a plane into the White House. I would like to share a few more things about the ineffectiveness of our system. Most of the people who come here are not criminals. Most of the people who come here have legitimate reasons. They ought to wait until we are able to check their records and verify they are an appropriate person to come in our country. That is how the system is supposed to work. But the truth is, we are seeing a larger number of criminals coming in than we ever have before. Criminals from other countries, and those who would commit crimes, also use the immigration system against us. On December of 2005, Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified that the Border Patrol encountered 1.1 million illegal aliens attempting to cross the southwest border between the legitimate ports of entry illegally. Just a few weeks ago, a Department of Homeland Security employee told us that approximately 12 percent--12 percent--of the people apprehended already had criminal records. That is 139,000 people. So for those they apprehended, they did a background check on them, and they found that 12 percent of those had a criminal record already, totaling 139,000 people. In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security deported over 88,000 criminal aliens. Those removals accounted for over 40 percent of the people who were removed. Now, these are not simple immigration violations. They are serious offenses: fraud, drugs, extortion, or violence. If we catch one criminal entering the country, each year, for every criminal entering the country we do not catch--and some say that is about correct--it is highly likely the United States received a net gain, in 2004, of 51,000 criminals, none of whom should have been allowed in the country if an appropriate system were operating. A great nation does not have to accept everybody who wants to come. No nation does--not everybody. So we set standards. One of the standards is, people are not allowed in the country who have criminal records or charges are pending against them. Now, the numbers of criminal aliens in the country is startling, I have to tell you. I wish it were not so, but I am just telling you what the numbers are. Criminal aliens now constitute a large percent of all the Federal prisoners in Federal prisons today. How many? What percent would you suspect? I will have to tell you, it is an astounding 27 percent. Twenty-seven percent of the Federal prisoners today are illegal aliens, criminal aliens. In 2003, that means 44,000 criminal aliens were serving sentences in Federal jails. This is just the Federal jails, which probably represent 10 percent of all the prisoners in the United States. I believe those percentages could be even higher in State and local prisons. And I understand in some States it may be even higher, like in California and others. An April of 2005 a GAO, Government Accountability Office, report found that the number of criminal aliens incarcerated in the United States increased 15 percent from 2001 to 2004. That is a steady and substantial increase. According to the Bureau of Prisons, the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens totaled approximately $1.2 billion in 2004. Now, again, I am not saying that we need to reject people and stop immigration and never allow anybody into our country because we are having an increasing number of people who attempt to come here who are criminals. What I am saying is, we need to make our system work so we can identify those people who have criminal histories and not allow them in and allow the good and decent people in. Isn't that what it is all about? It is a very important point. Criminal aliens are also having a severely negative impact at the State and local level. Recently, an ICE agent--those are the immigration enforcement officers--in Alabama contacted me to tell me there is an enormous, growing problem with aliens trafficking drugs across north Alabama. Who would think that? He informed me that all of the green card holders he arrests for criminal convictions for trafficking dope were once illegal aliens but have been granted amnesty somewhere along the way. To quote him directly, he said--this is what he told me: [It is] because they had no respect for the law when they jumped the river, worked illegally, and used fake documents with false names. That is what he said. Who can say there is no truth to that? I think there is some truth to that. Simply giving an illegal alien a green card does not suddenly make that person a law-abiding citizen. We need to make sure we have ascertained, when a person applies to come into our country by visa, or to obtain a green card, that they are law- abiding citizens who are going to contribute positively to our country. I like to tell my friends in Texas the whole story about Alabama. Perhaps Georgia has a spin on it. It probably has a little spin on it, I say to the Presiding Officer. But the story was: If somebody got in trouble with the law in Alabama, and you went to their house, they would have ``GTT'' on the door. What did that stand for? ``Gone To Texas.'' In the old days, they did not have many prisons, and basically if you got out of town, that was fine. I am wondering, sometimes, if people who are getting in trouble in their home countries are not finding it easier than being arrested and put in jail in their own country to just leave town. And if they leave town, maybe the local police and constabularies are happy to have them go and do not mind what happens to them. I am afraid some of that may be occurring here. I suspect in the early days, Georgia sent their people to Alabama, Mr. President. I don't know. Of course, your State was founded--I will not get into that story. The next story from Alabama ICE agents was surprising to me. In December of last year, in the past few months, they arrested, in the north Alabama area, a leader of the MS-13 street gang--that is basically an El Salvadorian violent street gang--for possessing a stolen firearm. ICE had to release the gang member from custody a couple months later because the judge determined that he derived U.S. citizenship from his father who received amnesty in the 1990s and was naturalized when the gang member was 17. Normally, as a noncitizen, being charged with this offense, he would be deported. A few weeks ago, just 30 days after being released from custody, the gang leader was again arrested, this time for firing eight rounds out of a car at a rival gang member in the town of Pelham, AL. Because he received citizenship through amnesty, Alabama will not see him deported. The guy the gang leader shot at is the area leader of the Brown Pride 13 street gang, which is another street gang. ICE tells me this gang leader is also a once-illegal alien who received amnesty and a green card. Now, we want to give amnesty to the people who deserve it. But we need to create a system that when we do that we have examined them to make sure they are the kind of people who would make good citizens. That is what we tell the American people we are going to do. That is what we tell them we are going to do. We tell them this bill sets up a lawful system for people to apply to immigrate to our country and that before they are allowed to immigrate and become a citizen, get a permanent status to stay here permanently, that we have checked them out. I am saying to you, too often we fail to do that. It is a hollow promise. ICE, in dealing with this gang leader, must wait for him to be convicted of a crime for him to be arrested. Unlike any of us, these Federal agents are in the trenches every day working hard to enforce the law, of which most of us only hear about on the news. As this ICE agent told me, he gets aggravated that people do not realize that yet another amnesty or allowance for adjustment of status will only ensure that the Government rubberstamps more criminals into our country and allows them to receive green cards. He is worried about that. I think if we took care and did it right, that might not be the case. I believe we can do it. But we have to be fully aware and take intentional steps or his prediction will be correct. And based on what he has seen in his experience, I have no doubt that he is somewhat cynical about the willingness of our Congress to take the necessary steps to make sure it does not happen. Around the country we are seeing an increase in the number of illegal criminal aliens who are being apprehended, some with access to critical infrastructure and information pertaining to national security interests. Jerry Seper of the Washington Post has written about these issues for some time. I have noted with some interest his accounts that demonstrate the gaping holes in our immigration enforcement and security policies. Let's share some examples of what he reported. In May of 2004, John Torres, Deputy Director for Smuggling and Public Safety, of ICE, the Immigration Service, testified before the House Judiciary Committee that criminal organizations worldwide make over $9.5 billion a year smuggling foreign nationals. This is his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Government official at ICE, that these criminal organizations make over $9.5 billion a year smuggling foreign nationals, illicit drugs, and weapons into the United States. This smuggling includes as many as 17,500 people forced to work as prostitutes. We have heard about the sex slave prostitution problem. He says it includes as many as 17,500 sweatshop laborers and domestic servants. Mr. Torres testified that these well-established smuggling and trafficking pipelines serve as conduits for illegal immigrants and criminals seeking entry into the country. Many of these people are easily exploited by terrorists and extremist organizations. It is these people who will be granted amnesty under many of the proposals currently pending on the floor. This is a prime example of why we must focus on enforcement and border protection before anything else. That is what the House decided to do. People say the House bill is harsh. The House bill is not harsh in the sense that it simply examined our enforcement procedures and found them totally lacking. They concluded the most honest way to deal with the problem was to confront border laxity and our enforcement mechanisms and get that under control. Once we have done that, then we could go to the American people with a plan to determine how many people will come in in the future, how many people are here, and how to handle those people who are here, many of them as fine and decent a people as anybody would ever want to know, working hard every day, contributing to our country. We do owe them fair and humane treatment. I will not support any bill that does not give them that. But the House said, as a first step, let's do that. We spent most of our time in the Judiciary Committee marking up the enforcement protections in the bill. But at the last day, this Monday, we dumped in about 100 pages or more of this issue, the more serious and complex issue of the people who are here, how to handle them, and who to allow in in the future. That is why we are a bit rushed. As a matter of fact, that bill was not even printed and received by the committee members. We did not know what the language was until it was finally printed Wednesday night at 8. Now they want us to pass this legislation dealing with the historic challenges in immigration going beyond improving enforcement to the entire philosophy and policy of our Nation for many years to come. We are not ready to do that. Certainly if we are, this bill is not the vehicle to do so. Last year in an isolated incident in Virginia, ICE agents arrested nine criminal aliens, six of whom had been previously convicted on aggravated felony charges, including child molestation, drug possession, and sexual assault. These aliens should have been deported on conviction. That is what the law says. These aliens were identified during an investigation that found they had attempted to obtain immigration benefits through the CIS, the immigration services agency, including work permits and permanent resident status. These are nine of the estimated 85,000 criminal aliens walking our streets today. Last March, ICE agents deported 37 criminal aliens rounded up in the Washington area, two of whom had ties to MS-13, the Salvadoran gang which operates within the region. This group of criminal aliens were people convicted of theft, assault, burglary, sexual battery, and malicious wounding. From the Washington area alone in 2004, ICE deported 819 criminal aliens. MS-13 has an estimated 2,000 members in northern Virginia alone. This is not your ordinary street gang. It is a malicious, violent gang involving alien and weapons smuggling, murder, robberies, burglaries, carjacking, extortion, rape, and aggravated assault. In May of 2005, ICE arrested 60 illegal aliens working as contract employees at a dozen critical U.S. infrastructure sites nationwide, including seven petrochemical refineries, very much potential targets, three powerplants, a national air cargo facility, and a pipeline company. What these things demonstrate, when I talk about Alabama or northern Virginia, is that the system currently is not working. We can make it work. It is not that hard. We are pretty close to getting there. We have jumped 8 feet, but the ravine we need to jump across is 10 feet wide. Let's go the extra 2 feet. Let's get out there and create a legitimate enforcement mechanism that will guarantee that we are as open and friendly as we have always been to those who want to come to this country but with a system that does not allow criminals to take advantage of us, does not allow terrorists to take advantage of us. In fact, this bill fails to prohibit the entry into our country of criminals in an effective way. That is why Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn have offered their amendment dealing with this particular issue. It absolutely needs to be a part of it. I was pleased that Senator Cornyn talked about the similarity between the bill we are moving today and the one we passed in 1986, which everybody agreed was amnesty. Black's Law Dictionary even defines amnesty by referring to the 1986 bill in their definition. Everybody admitted in 1986, it was amnesty. People have said we are not for amnesty. We have campaigned on it. Virtually every Senator, every leader, even the President has said we are not for amnesty. But anything you try to do, they say: That is not amnesty. Is it not an automatic path to a green card and citizenship? Why isn't it automatic? Well, they have to pay $1,000. They have to pay their income taxes. Don't you have to pay your income taxes? What is this? You have to have a job. What do they come here for? To have a job. And then only the most part-time job with the most minimal proof would establish the work requirement. Basically it guarantees anybody here a path to citizenship as long as they don't get convicted of a felony. If you get convicted of a felony before you are deported today, the chances are very good you can maneuver your way out on bail and never be deported. A good system would take a person directly from the incarceration facility and move them directly out of the country. That is what we say we are going to do, but we don't. I have many more examples of situations in which we have not managed our immigration system well. As a result, illegal aliens have been caught working in nuclear plants and military bases in highly secret and sensitive areas of our country. We can do better than that. We absolutely can and we must do better than that. I join with my colleagues Senators Kyl and Cornyn in saying: We definitely need to fix this omission in the bill that came out of committee that fails to properly deal with those who would come into the country illegally who have a criminal record and who could be put on a path to amnesty if we don't work it correctly. I urge my colleagues, let's keep an open mind on the legislation. Let's remember that our Nation has some of the finest people you could ever want living and working here, but we need to deal with them fairly and humanely. We don't need to build a barrier around our country if it does not allow people to come here lawfully. We are a nation of immigrants and we always will and should welcome immigrants into the country, but we need to gain control of our borders. That includes physical barriers, virtual fences, improved enforcement, additional detention space, technology, and also workplace areas. If we eliminate the magnet of the workplace, if we take firm, effective steps on the border, we can reach that tipping point where people move from coming illegally into our country and we don't know then whether they are criminals. We move those people from the illegal path to entry into our country to a legal path. Isn't that what we want? Isn't that what we promised the American people time and again, when we have been asked about it in our States and on interview programs? We have all said that. The legislation before us won't get us there. If we vote for that and tell our people that it will do the job, I do not believe we will be correct. Let's fix it. Let's improve it. Then we can make it work. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. One more question because I think this is very important for all of us here who strive to be responsible to the citizens we serve, and that is, we have had some amendments, some of which were accepted that I offered, that would increase bed space or increase Border Patrol agents and that kind of thing to improve enforcement. That is part of the bill that is before us. But I have been here long enough to get a little bit dubious about some of these things and learn the ropes around here. One of the things that I have learned is, just because you put something in an authorization bill, that you authorize a barrier, you authorize more patrol officers, you authorize more detention space, does not mean it will actually be created and done.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a very real concern Senator Kyl and I have talked about. The concern is we are basically telling the American people that in good faith we are going to recognize that somehow we failed to follow the law, that we failed to enforce the law and create a workable system. The last time in 1986 we said we had a million people here illegally, and we admitted we were going to give them amnesty, and that we were going to try to create a system in the future that would not lead to these kinds of problems again. What happened was 3 million people showed up--not 1 million--and they claimed amnesty. We never enforced the borders. Here we are 20 years later, and we have an estimated 11 million people, although I think one of the survey firms in the country said there may be 20 million people here. We will find out, I guess, when this passes. But the question is, What will we do to ensure with this implied promise we are making to the American people that won't happen again? The truth is, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, the former, President Clinton, and this President Bush have not come to the Congress and said, Congress, we are not getting the job done on the border. Give us more money and we will fix it. We have this problem. We need a computer. The employers are telling us they can't ask the proper questions because of this law or that law. The employment enforcement is not working. Help us change the law, Congress, so we can create a workable system. They never asked for it. They never did anything to suggest that. The system has gotten completely out of control. How do we know, when we pass this legislation and immediately provide for the benefit of those who come illegally new rights and privileges and a path that would lead them straight to citizenship, how do we know we are not going to have the problem again? That is all I am asking. I don't know how you can do it. You could say, Well, this law won't take effect until we have a border system that works. Is that the way we will do it? I am not sure. But the American people have every right to be skeptical. They have every right to be skeptical. They have a right to wonder if we are at all serious about what we are saying here. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. That is what I have done the biggest part of my professional life. I tell you it breaks my heart to see a legal system so ineffective. What has been going on here is a mockery of law. Time and again we come back and we admit we haven't enforced the law. What good is the law if it is not enforced, let me ask you. You can't make everybody happy. You can't do everything for everybody. I believe very strongly that this Nation is a nation of immigrants. I am perfectly prepared to approve allowing quite an additional number of people to come into this country legally. But in exchange for that, I think we have to have the balancing act of a legal system that works so we do not continue to see the large numbers of people coming in illegally. I will summarize again what I have said before. I think we can do it. This is not that difficult. We increase border security, we use barriers, we use the virtual fence concept, we use computer systems and biometric identifiers, the United States VISIT Program, which needs to be completed, and then we use enforcement in the workplace. As C.J. Bonner--people who have followed this heard him speak out before. He represents the Border Patrol agents. He said that absolutely we can do this. It is not going to cost a fortune and it is not going to break the Treasury of the United States, but it is going to cost some money. If we will step it up and do these things, we can create a tipping point where people come into the country legally instead of illegally. That is it. Right now, they come illegally. Why? It is easier to come illegally, that is why. People do what they are allowed to do. I believe we can make this system better. I believe the legislation that came out of committee moved far more aggressively to the amnesty direction in the bill that Chairman Specter started out with. The legislation that is pending before the Senate today does not represent the settled opinion of the American people. Once they find out about it, they will not be as happy as we would like them to be. It is time to slow down, listen carefully to what is occurring, make sure we have a plan in place that will guarantee enforcement on the border, that will guarantee workplace enforcement and a plan that will allow more people to come in a legal way, an effective way, using a biometric identifier so they can come through the border and maybe go back and forth every weekend if that works for them and create a system by which this country can decide how many workers and what category we need so that if we have a downturn in our economy, we are not driving Americans out of work in large numbers. Those are things that a rational country would do. This legislation, as presently configured, does not do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is the committee you serve on, Judiciary, the authorizing committee, and that I serve on.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe Senator Kyl has the floor. I was asking a question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Isn't it a Federal responsibility?

Mr. SESSIONS. I seek recognition from the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments. I see Senator McCain. Maybe there is time he wants to use.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, just for a question. I want to first say how much I value the insights of the Senator from Arizona into this important issue. On the Judiciary Committee he is one of the Senate's most knowledgeable members on immigration issues, and one of the best lawyers here. I think he has raised a very troubling point. This is part of the legislation that is moving forward, for reasons I am not quite sure of. But it does seem to have moved too fast, and it has a lot of real problems--almost anybody would agree. But this deal about crime is a very important issue. I have had the sense that we may be seeing more criminality on the border. Sheriffs from Arizona and Texas came up and told us about the rising crime rate, the increased number of assaults on their people and Federal people. I recall a recent trip I just took with the Armed Services Committee to Europe. I met with General Jones, who has Africa. He talks about the border areas that tend to be the areas that are the most dangerous. Is the Senator concerned that we are creating areas in the country, as a result of lack of enforcement around the borders, that are really more dangerous than other parts of his State?

Mr. SESSIONS. That is good. I wanted to follow up because the Senator mentioned methamphetamine. I had an opportunity today to meet with the executive director of the Alabama District Attorneys Association. Through Alabama laws and the Federal law we passed pseudoephedrine is not so available now, from which methamphetamine is being made in the United States. He just told me casually this morning, now all the methamphetamine is coming in from Mexico. You are on that border. Do you sense that there is a growing problem with methamphetamine being brought in across the unsecure border?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, isn't that in fact what happened in 1986? We passed the amnesty bill, and the American people were told this would be a one-time thing, it would solve this problem, and we are going to have enforcement on the border. That was promised. But, in fact, it never occurred. The monies were never appropriated. The President never aggressively asked for the resources necessary to make this occur, and we ended up not enforcing the law.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to GEN Lance W. Lord, commander of Air Force Space Command, and his wife Beccy for their lifetime of service and unfaltering dedication to the U.S. Air Force and our great country. As both an airman and leader, spanning 37 years of military service, General Lord's contributions to our Nation's strategic deterrence and space missions were critical to the warfighter, global economy, and the safety of our families. General Lord's leadership was an essential element in winning the Cold War and vital to Air Force Space Command's support of combat operations around the world to include Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and the global war on terrorism. General Lord prepared for his illustrious Air Force career by graduating from Otterbein College and its Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1968. In January of 1969, General Lord was introduced to the Air Force through Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, ICBM, operational readiness and combat crew missile training. This training led to his first assignment to North Dakota as a Minuteman II combat crewmember. General Lord's Air Force journey would take him and Beccy through a series of Air Staff and Department of Defense assignments relating to space and strategic and tactical missile systems. He was assigned as the military assistant to the director of Net Assessment and directed the Ground-Launched Cruise Missile Program in Europe. He served as the commander of the 10th Strategic Missile Squadron in Montana, vice commander of the 351st Strategic Missile Wing in Missouri, and later commanded two ICBM wings in Wyoming and North Dakota. In California, General Lord commanded the 30th Space Wing responsible for satellite launch and ballistic missile test launch operations. Leading professional development and educational programs was a hallmark of General Lord's career. He led Air Force's education and training programs as commandant of Squadron Officer School, commander of Second Air Force in Mississippi, and commander of Air University in Alabama. Prior to assuming his current position, General Lord served as the assistant vice chief of staff for Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. During General Lord's tenure as commander, Air Force Space Command, he provided inspirational leadership to over 39,000 service men and women responsible for a global network of satellite command and control, communications, missile warning, space launch, and ensured the combat readiness of America's ICBM force. General Lord guided the command to a number of historic firsts: 44 successful consecutive operational space launches, establishment of National Security Space Institute, the launch of the last Titan IV, and transition to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, deactivation of the Peacekeeper ICBM weapon system, and the establishment of the quarterly High Frontier, Air Force Space Command's first scholarly space and missile journal. General Lord has been a stellar Air Force advocate for the creation of the Space Power Caucus, orchestrated the ``50 Years of Air Force Space and Missiles'' celebration, and developed the Space Professional Development Strategy. Most recently, he answered the President's call to service with the creation of the High Frontier Adventures, a program designed to inspire students to explore space, mathematics, science, engineering and technology. General Lord's impeccable service is characterized by his Command Space Badge, Space Professional Level III certification, operational space experience in nuclear operations and spacelift, weapon systems expertise in the Minuteman II, Minuteman III, and Peacekeeper ICBMs, and the Atlas E, Delta II, Titan II, and Titan IV Boosters. General Lord is the recipient of numerous prestigious recognitions: Space Champion Award, General Bernard A. Schriever Award, General Jimmy Doolittle Fellow Award, General James V. Hartinger Award, and the General Thomas D. White Space Trophy. Today, I have mentioned but a few of GEN Lance W. Lord's many achievements. General Lord is a visionary, steadfast military leader, and honorable man. I know my colleagues join me in paying tribute to him and his wife Beccy and their two sons, Jason and Joshua, for the years they have dedicated to our country and to the betterment of the U.S. Armed Forces. As a distinguished space pioneer, General Lord widely proclaimed the mandate, ``If you're not in space, you're not in the race.'' General Lord, we wish you well.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 30. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 1 hour with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; further, that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of S. 2454, the border control bill, as under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Today, by an overwhelming vote, we passed the lobbying bill. We now have turned to another important piece of legislation, the border control bill. We will be working on this bill for the remainder of the week and into next week. Under an agreement we entered this afternoon, tomorrow we will have more debate on the bill and Senator Specter will offer his substitute amendment at noon. Votes are expected tomorrow, and we will alert everyone when a vote is locked in for a certain time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. On behalf of the majority leader, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Durbin for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on today's calendar, Calendar No. 566. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.