Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. On behalf of the leader, I have the following announcement. Tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the highway bill. We need to make significant progress on the highway bill during tomorrow's session. Moments ago, cloture was filed on the pending substitute and the underlying bill. This will allow a full day of consideration tomorrow, and if cloture is invoked on Thursday, there will be an additional 30 hours available for consideration. Therefore we expect votes throughout the day on Wednesday. Also, in accordance with rule XXII, all first-degree amendments should be filed by 1 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 26, and the Senate now proceed to its consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note that I am extremely proud, as all of our Nation is, of the Tuskegee Airmen. Recently, I had the privilege to be in Iraq and visit the airbase where the unit, still known as the Tuskegee Airmen, was deployed. They had their banners up and it was an honor to be with them. Their heritage of excellence lives on.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 135, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for over three decades, John Bolton has had an effective working relationship with foreign governments, international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. He is a man who gets results. As Secretary Rice said: The President has nominated John Bolton because he gets things done. That is exactly what we need for the U.N. ambassador. John Bolton is the man for the job. Mr. President, I am proud to support him, and I do believe his nomination will be moving forward this week. I think this Senate should promptly move to confirm him in this important position. 60th Anniversary of V-E Day

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there have been a lot of complaints lately over John Bolton, the President's nominee to be United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton is an excellent choice for this position, as both his experience and leadership qualities prove. He graduated from Yale Law School, joined a prestigious firm, one of the country's great law firms, Covington & Burling. He worked there until 1981. He began his career in public service at the U.S. Agency for International Development, first as general counsel, then as assistant administrator for program and policy coordination. This was good training for him for his potential future role with the U.N. From 1985 to 1989, he was an assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice. I got to know him at that time because I was a U.S. attorney in Alabama when he served in the Department of Justice in the prestigious office of legal counsel. From 1989 to 1993, he was again involved in international organizational issues when he served as Assistant Secretary of State for international organizational affairs. Mr. Bolton was confirmed by the Senate for both of those positions. From 1993 to 1999, he was again in private practice, as a partner with the law firm of Lerner, Reed, Bolton, and McManus. In 2001, he became Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I believe he was confirmed once again in that position by the Senate. This was excellent experience for him. He dealt with issues relating to world security. Some say Mr. Bolton does not believe in the United Nations, multilateralism, and diplomacy. That statement is false. The President of the United States recently stated in a television interview that he asked Bolton if he supported the U.N. before he, the President, agreed to nominate him. Mr. Bolton answered that he did. Despite what others have been alleging, the facts show--and Mr. Bolton has proven time and again--that he believes in the U.N. That is why he has been such an effective advocate for honest diplomacy and an effective U.N. For example, he was a pioneer in helping to construct the G-8 global partnership to help keep secure dangerous technologies and materials, and to help stop the spread of dangerous weapons throughout the world. This global initiative will provide $20 billion through 2012 to achieve these goals of making the world a safer place, by working with other nations. Mr. Bolton was the President's point man in designing the Proliferation Security Initiative, the PSI. Over 60 nations are now working together, coordinated by John Bolton, to share intelligence, and are taking action to stop the transfer of dangerous weapons throughout the world. He has even done pro bono work for the U.N. in Africa, giving of his time for free to help those in need. He also worked closely and effectively with the U.N. when he served as Assistant Secretary of State in the State Department for International Organizations, from 1989 to 1992. He has been instrumental in galvanizing U.N. agencies such as the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to take concrete steps to actually make the world safer from weapons of mass destruction--not just to talk about it, but to do something about it. Isn't that effective multilateral leadership? I certainly think so. He was the driving force in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540 to get countries to take meaningful steps to stop the spread of dangerous weapons. He has clearly been instrumental in both diplomacy and multilateralism and has proven to be an advocate of a United Nations that fulfills its potential, its calling, to make the world safer, and to help people throughout the world develop to their fullest. He will not, however, be an enabler of a dysfunctional U.N. John Bolton has supported reform within the U.N. to help make it a better organization. This reform effort should not be misconstrued as opposition to the U.N. but, rather, as constructive and effective criticism. When parents discipline their children, it is not because they don't support them or believe in them. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. Good parents set guidelines and high standards for their children to guide them in life and to make them more responsible adults. If you love your children, you want them to reach their highest and best potential. That is exactly what John Bolton has done with the U.N. He has not come out against the U.N. He has not vehemently opposed the U.N., as some of my colleagues would have you believe. He has worked within the system to advocate reform in an effort to better the organization, to ensure that U.N. programs achieve their intended purpose. Under Bolton's leadership at the United Nations, when he served as Assistant Secretary of State in the administration of the elder George Bush, the U.N. General Assembly repealed, by a vote of 111 to 25, a resolution that described Zionism as a form of racism. Resolution 3379 originally passed in 1975--72 votes for, 35 against--decreeing that Zionism was a form of racism. Sixty-seven percent of the nations at that time voted for it. It was widely recognized as a sad day for the U.N. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described Bolton as the ``principal architect'' of the 1991 reversal of that resolution. Bolton recently referred to resolution 3379 as ``the greatest stain on the U.N.'s reputation'' and called its reversal ``one highlight of my professional career.'' Thomas M. Boyd, a fine former official in the Department of Justice who was Mr. Bolton's deputy when he was Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice, described the situation this way in a recent editorial in the Boston Globe: Starting in the summer of 1991 and continuing well into the early fall, Bolton arrived at his office early each morning and began calling ambassadors around the world, as well as here in Washington, one by one, each time using his keen mind and reputation for bluntness to their full effect. Citing from memory Senator Moynihan's November 10, 1975, contention that ``the United States declares that it does not acknowledge, and will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act,'' Bolton refused to accept their excuses and their schedule conflicts and called repeatedly until he talked on multiple occasions to virtually every ambassador whose country would be called upon to cast a vote. In time, his perseverance began to winnow down the naysayers. As a direct result of this effort, the hate-ridden resolution was overwhelmingly repealed on December 16, 1991. Let me point out an important aspect of this story. As Mr. Boyd noted, many in the State Department told him he should not pursue the repeal, that it could not be done, and that it wasn't worth the effort. But because John Bolton is a man of integrity, conviction, courage, and determination, he didn't see it that way. He didn't follow the advice of the professional bureaucrats and the State Department officials who said it could not be done. Instead, he worked tirelessly to do something that some people thought could not be done. He did the right thing, and he should be saluted for that. There is, indeed, a strength of character that is to be noted here. A terrible wrong had been righted with this repeal, and Mr. Bolton had not only shown his skill in diplomacy, but his determination to do what is right. Isn't that what good diplomacy is? It is not just seeing if you can get along and agree with everybody's ideas, but holding forth good ideals, good values, fighting for them, and actually winning people over to vote for the right thing. That is what good diplomacy is, what leadership is--not blindly going along with people's ideas whether they are correct or not. He is a good man, a courageous man, who will make a tremendous ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton realizes the benefits possible to the world through an effective U.N., and for that reason he has worked hard to make sure it stays a credible organization. You cannot blame him for being concerned about the United Nations. I certainly am. With the numerous allegations of corruption at the U.N., we need a frank and aggressive ambassador leading the American efforts there. Last month, the Washington Times reported that two senior investigators with the U.N. committee probing corruption in the Oil for Food Program have resigned in protest. These investigators believe the report that cleared Kofi Annan of meddling in the $64 billion operation was too soft on the Secretary General. The investigators believed the so-called independent inquiry committee, which was appointed by Secretary General Kofi Annan in April of 2004, played down findings critical of Mr. Annan when it released an interim report in late March relating to his son. This scandal has only gotten more complicated this week as it now seems that one of the investigators has turned over potentially incriminating evidence against Kofi Annan to a House congressional committee. This scandal has been described by some as the greatest scandal in the history of the world. Scandals such as these undermine the United Nations. They distract it from its intended purpose of promoting international peace and security. These scandals and mismanagement waste money that could be used for peacekeeping, medical care, economic development, and education in poor countries around the world. This money might help prevent hostilities, famine, and revolutions that disrupt these areas of the globe. We need a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. who has both diplomacy and tenacity as leadership qualities. Mr. Bolton has both of these qualities. One of my esteemed colleagues has alleged that Mr. Bolton blocked certain information from going to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice. There is no basis for this claim. Richard Boucher, the spokesman for the State Department, has expressly refuted the allegation, calling it ``silly'' and stating that ``nothing of that type occurred.'' Another colleague said Mr. Bolton tried to skew weapons of mass destruction intelligence on Iraq, Syria, and Cuba. Again, false. In every instance, whether talking about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Cuba's biological weapons, or Syria's weapons program, Mr. Bolton's speeches were cleared by the U.S. intelligence community; that is, he submitted his comments to the intelligence community for them to review to make sure nothing he said was incorrect. They cleared those speeches. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Bolton skewed anything. The allocations are false. On the contrary, there are scores of highly credible individuals who testify to his honesty and excellent candidacy for the position. For instance, I have a letter from former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to John Bolton expressing her strong support for Mr. Bolton. It is fitting that she should support John Bolton, particularly in light of the comments that he is too tough, too outspoken, too frank, too blunt. Those same criticisms were made about Lady Thatcher in 1975, earning her the nickname the Iron Lady. She embraced that nickname, famously asserting: If you lead a country like Britain, a strong country, a country which has taken a lead in world affairs in good times and in bad, a country that is always reliable, then you have to have a touch of iron about you. She was absolutely right, and the same holds true in this case. If our ambassador is going to represent the world's great superpower in the United Nations, an organization, unfortunately, that has been riddled with corruption and strong opposition by certain members to the values we hold dear, he must have a touch of iron about him, and he does. Say what you will about John Bolton, weakness is not one of his weaknesses. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Lady Thatcher be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this letter of April 5, 2005, is signed by 13 giants of American diplomacy, including five Secretaries of State and two Secretaries of Defense in support of John Bolton. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 11. 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 then begin a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, 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; provided that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3, the highway bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I understand there is a bill at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SESSIONS. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 127, which we received from the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 133, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I appreciate the debate that has been going on. It is an important debate. It is something we need to be discussing. I say, with real conviction, we can improve the immigration system in America. We can make it work better. We must do that. This is a defense supplemental bill, early in this Senate calendar. We are not ready, in any way, shape or form, to be debating this comprehensive legislation today. If the American people were to know what is being proposed, they would be very unhappy with us. I certainly hope we are not about to make this law. I understand, at one point, there were over 50 cosponsors to the Craig-Kennedy legislation, which is breathtaking, in a way. But I don't think the American people and Members of this body fully understand the import of it. It is a big deal. I say to my colleagues, you will be voting on this soon. I urge you to get your mind focused on what we are about to vote on and I urge you to say, ``I am not ready to vote on such comprehensive legislation-- this is a Defense bill''--and vote no. That is the first thing we ought to do. Let me see if I can summarize, from reading this legislation carefully, what I think the AgJOBS amendment says without any doubt. People who are here illegally, for any number of reasons, who should not be here contrary to the law, and, therefore, are who also working illegally and violating American law--under this bill, if they have worked 100 hours in 100 days, meaning 1 hour per day, within 18 months--virtually no real work is required in the 18 months--they become, immediately, just like that, a lawful temporary resident. They immediately become able, legally, to stay here. If they have brought their families here unlawfully, their families also get to stay and can not be deported. Then, in the next 6 years, if they work 2,060 hours--this has been explained as somehow earning your citizenship. I want to remind us that these people are here voluntarily, they are working and they are being paid what they earn. They are simply doing what they wanted to come here and do. This should not earn them a path to citizenship. They are not doing volunteer work in the community. They are earning a living and being paid for their work. Some say they should be earning more than their pay, that they are earning amnesty as well. But if they work 2,060 hours in 6 years--now, 2,060 hours is about 1 year's work for an American worker; that is how much you work a year--if they do that, some say they are then entitled to legal permanent resident status. At that point, they can bring in their family if they are out of the country. They can come into the country with you and also become legal permanent residents--even if you never intended for your family to follow you when you decided to come to the U.S. illegally and work illegally. Then, if you wait 5 years, as a legal permanent resident in the United States, and you work, and you are not convicted of a felony, you are not convicted of three misdemeanors--three will block you, but two will not. You can be convicted of two misdemeanors. You can be investigated for drug smuggling, for murder, for child exploitation, all of these things. You can even be indicted for those charges. But the statute says, if you are not convicted, the Secretary shall make you a lawful temporary resident and shall make you a legal permanent resident. It is mandatory on the Secretary. They are not able to do a background check and say: Well, the FBI is investigating this guy for drug smuggling or being a member of some gang or involved in child sexual exploitation. It says ``conviction'' is necessary to keep you from getting amnesty. Otherwise, you shall be approved as a temporary and permanent resident. And being a legal permanent resident puts you on the road to citizenship. That is what it is all about. If, indeed, a person has in 18 months met this 100-hour work status and has gone back to their home country, maybe without any intention of returning to America--this amendment will effectively be a notice to them from Uncle Sam that says: By the way, you once worked here illegally. We know you have left and gone back, but you should come back and become a temporary resident, then a permanent resident, and then a citizen. So it says: Come on back. They may not even have been intending to do this, but this may be an offer they feel they can't refuse because they may think: Well, the illegal alien is thinking--``I can go to the U.S. and become a lawful temporary resident, and then I can become a legal permanent resident. And, I can bring my family. I will move to the U.S.'' That is not the way we want to be doing immigration in America. It is not the way we need to be doing it. There is no dispute that this is amnesty. How can it not be amnesty? If this is not amnesty, what is amnesty? You take someone who violated the law, give them a guaranteed path to citizenship, not subject to review by the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, people--a guaranteed path. You shall be made a temporary resident if you meet these qualities. You shall be made a permanent resident if you meet this standard. And if you meet the legal permanent resident status, you are on the road to citizenship. That is what it is all about. If we ever want to create a legal immigration system--and I know we do--that is generous and allows people to come here who will be contributors to our country, that has any integrity whatsoever, we must not adopt this AgJOBS bill. It is a capitulation. It is a total collapse of any attempt to create an enforceable legal system. I must say that. We absolutely do not need to be sneaking it in on a Defense supplemental without the American people knowing what is going on here. They are not going to be happy. Now, how do these amnesty programs work? My colleague earlier challenged my numbers. I said it could be a million or even more people. He said it would be a half a million, plus children. But Dr. Phillip Martin, professor of agricultural economics of UC Davis and a member of the Agricultural Workers Commission says that at least 860,000 workers will come, and then their family members on top of that. We know last time we had an agricultural workers amnesty, in 1986, that amnesty drastically underestimated the number that would be approved. I think the number was two or three times as many as expected that were approved. So I think the numbers will be huge. Now, the commission that was called upon to study the 1986 amnesty said the program legalized ``many more workers than expected. It appears that the number of undocumented workers who had worked in agricultural seasonal services prior to the IRCA was generally underestimated.'' The commission also said that the 1986 agricultural amnesty, which was similar to the amnesty we are voting on today in fundamental principles, did not solve agriculture worker problems, rather they found that ``six years after IRCA was signed into law, the problems within the system of agricultural labor continue to exist.'' That was an official finding of a commission created by that act. Additionally, the commission found that ``an increasing number of newly arriving undocumented workers'' were still coming to the U.S. And finally, they said, ``Worker-specific and/or industry-specific legalization programs, as contained in IRCA, should not be the basis of future immigration policy.'' That is exactly what we will be doing if we pass this amendment. Mr. President, I do not know how much time I have.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Two minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator would not mind if I have 3 additional minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am going to put this chart up and make a couple of points in relation to some of the details in the act that are really breathtaking in their scope. I mentioned the amnesty provisions already. The AgJOBS amendment also overrides State law by eliminating ``at will'' employment, where an employer or employee can leave the employment whenever they chose. This says, if you come in under this act, unlike an American citizen, you cannot be terminated, except for just cause. To make sure that happens, this act has about six pages creating an arbitration situation where the Federal Government pays to arbitrate these disputes, an arbitration system that is not made available to an American citizen worker. They do not get that protection. It will also provide illegal aliens with taxpayer-funded legal assistance through the Legal Services Corporation to process their applications for legal status.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. By the way, the AgJOBS amendment also provides they shall be given fully paid-for health insurance, which American workers do not get. It provides that the worker organizations and employer associations are the ones to receive the applications for temporary status. But, they cannot provide that application or the information in the application to the Department of Homeland Security unless the alien consents. They might receive information or evidence in the application pertaining to a crime, but, apparently the sponsors of this amendment are not concerned about that. Instead, they want the applications and the information that is given to the organizations and associations that are authorized to receive them kept from the Department of Homeland Security. As a matter of fact, the only way your application is allowed to go to the Department Homeland Security and its Secretary--the only way it can go there--is if you have a lawyer. If you do not have a lawyer, your application has to go to one of these groups who will send it to DHS for you. These groups are not independent, fair groups. The employer groups and the worker organizations are groups that have a special interest in promoting this. So this is not protecting the interests of the people of the United States to give this process over to two groups, both of which have a special interest in promoting people coming into this country. And, of course, there are no numerical limits on the number of aliens who would be given amnesty. Also, finally, I would note, as the Senator from Georgia is well aware, group after group that are said to have been in favor of this legislation have changed their mind or oppose it. The National Farm Bureau no longer supports AgJOBS. Farm groups all over the country are opposed to it. I know that the largest individual H2A employer in the country opposes the AgJOBS amendment. I also know that the largest co- op user of the H2A program--the North Carolina Growers Association-- oppose the amendment. I have received letters from Mid-Atlantic Solutions, the Georgia Peach Council, AgWorks, the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, the Virginia Agricultural Growers Association, the Vidalia Onion Business Council, and the Kentucky- Tennessee Growers Association all of which oppose the passage of AgJOBS.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 456.

Mr. SESSIONS. Not if there are two convictions.