Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to address the 2,000-page, trillion-dollar-plus, year-end omnibus spending bill--drafted behind closed doors, away from public view, with only a limited number of people involved. Members of the Senate and Members of the House were unaware of what deals were being cut and what decisions were being made. I believe it contains provisions that will cause material harm to American workers--I just do--and to matters involving this legislation that I have worked on for years. I am very disappointed. Actually, I am deeply disappointed. This bill contains dramatic changes to Federal immigration law that would increase, by as much as four-fold, the number of low-wage foreign workers provided to employers under the controversial H-2B visa program. It has been a matter of controversy for a number of years. It has been added to this bill without hearings and without an open process in the Senate. These foreign workers are brought in exclusively to fill blue-collar, low-wage, nonfarm jobs--not agricultural jobs--in hotels and in restaurants and on construction sites, in amusement parks, landscaping, truck driving, and in many other occupations--jobs being sought by millions of Americans around this country. Millions are taking those jobs every day. When we go into hotels and restaurants, are not Americans doing those jobs? H-2B workers are supposed to be here to fill seasonal jobs that Americans allegedly ``won't do.'' That is what they say--those who want more, cheaper labor. Even those they are supposed to be temporary positions, foreign H-2B workers are allowed to bring their spouses and their children with them--which, of course, results in costs being incurred by local communities, hospitals, and schools across the country. Although the alien's spouse and children are not supposed to work in the United States, I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this administration has any intention--or previous ones, for that matter--to do anything to stop them from working if they want to, nor will they be deported if they violate the terms of their employment, nor will they be removed if they overstay the visa they have been given. Hotels have good jobs. Construction has good jobs. As to landscaping, there is a group that does my lawn in Alabama. Three African-American men come out and work on our lawn in a fairly short period of time, using good equipment. The head person is in his 40s and had 20 years in the Army. What do people mean that Americans won't do this work? At a time of record immigration, we do not appreciate the scope of it. We already have the highest number of foreign-born individuals in American history. We are not against immigration. Immigration is a positive thing--properly conducted. Good people come into America. But we are at record levels both in total numbers and, in a few years, the highest percentage of foreign-born in America will be reached, and it will continue thereafter. So is it any wonder that 83 percent of the electorate wants immigration either frozen or reduced? The Republican-led Congress is about to deliver the President a fourfold increase in one of the most controversial foreign worker programs we have. In fact, it is a much larger version of a proposal that was contained in the Gang of 8 comprehensive immigration bill that was rejected by the American people and the House of Representatives just 2 years ago. The result is higher unemployment and lower wages for Americans. The free market controls--more labor, lower wage; more labor, less job opportunity. It is indisputable. The Economic Policy Institute has noted: ``Wages were stagnant or declining for workers in all of the top 15 H-2B occupations between 2004 and 2014,'' and ``unemployment rates increased in all but one of the top 15 H-2B occupations between 2004 and 2014, and all 15 occupations averaged a very high unemployment rate . . . Flat and declining wages, coupled with such high unemployment rates over such a long period of time, suggests a loose labor market and an over-supply of workers rather than an under supply.'' I think that is a fact. Our free market friends ought to understand that. It is worth noting that the civilian labor force participation rate is currently at around 62.5 percent, a low that we have not seen in nearly four decades. Labor participation rate means the percentage of workers in the working ages that actually have a job. It is the lowest rate we have had in four decades. Nevertheless, despite this low labor force participation rate, this provision in the omnibus bill would exempt from the statutory limit, which is now 66,000 H-2B workers a year--any worker who was present in the United States during the three previous years. Thus, instead of 66,000 foreign workers, the bill would allow up to 264,000 foreign workers to be present in the United States on H-2B visas. That is over a quarter of a million low-wage, low-skilled workers brought in to occupy blue-collar jobs. That may be good for certain businesses that now have a large number of workers, because they don't have to raise wages and change working conditions and raise benefits to attract and keep workers. They can just bring in people from abroad who are thankful to get any good cash-income job at lower wages. This is bad for struggling American workers trying to get by and take care of their families. It is particularly bad, as economist after economist has shown, for minorities, including African Americans and Hispanics, and recent immigrants who are here lawfully looking to try to get a little better wage with a little better retirement and health care benefits. This is going to help them? Give me a break. On top of this provision, this omnibus bill approves, without any conditions--the President's request for increased refugee admissions, allowing him to bring in as many refugees as he wants. He can do that. It is hard to believe, but he is allowed to do so. He simply has to notify Congress of how many he intends to admit. He can bring them from anywhere he wants and allow them access to unlimited welfare and entitlements at the taxpayers' expense, which is not scored as a cost. At the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest that I chair, we had an official from Health and Human Services who testified that 75 percent of the refugees are self-sustaining within 180 days. But my staff helped me to ask the follow-up question. What we found was that means Health and Human Services is no longer giving them refugee money, but that other kinds of welfare don't count against them. But 93 percent, we know, of immigrants from the Middle East between 2009 and 2013 are on food stamps, and 73 percent are on Medicaid or health care programs. And they may be there the rest of their lives. This is not being scored. This is why a country that is smart seeks to bring in people who have the greatest chance of being successful. Sure, some will do well, and many are wonderful people, and we have a tradition of that. I am just saying that we have a President with unlimited powers who has an agenda, and he is passing on the costs that are going to be to the detriment of working Americans for decades to come. So the risks associated with the refugee admissions program are significant. With respect to Syria, FBI Director James Comey repeatedly said that we simply do not have the ability to vet refugees from Syria. Testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security in October, he said: We can only query against that which we have collected. So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but we are not going to. There will be nothing to show up because we have no record on that person. Well, that is absolutely correct. Of course, that is correct. But they tried to tell us in Committee that we are going to do biometric checks. So I proceeded to ask repeatedly, and finally, after the most difficult time, they acknowledged they have no database in Syria to check biometrics against. It is not like the United States: If you are caught by the police, they take your fingerprints, and they can tell whether you were convicted in Maine, Alabama, or California. It is in the computer system. They don't have that in Syria. So that was a misrepresentation, an attempt to mislead and create false confidence in the American people that we have an ability to vet people coming here from Syria--an ability we don't have. The FBI Director honestly and directly stated that. Any claims made by others that refugees in the United States never engage in acts of terrorism are demonstrably false. Just a few weeks ago, I identified a list of at least 12 individuals who were admitted to the United States as refugees, but who have been implicated in terrorism in the last year alone. We found out there may be more, and probably they are under investigation right now. In fact, the FBI has said there is a terrorism investigation in every single State in America. These terrorists, for example, are from Somalia, Bosnia, Kenya and Uzbekistan. They came in different stages in their lives. Some were admitted as children, others as adults. Yet they all turn their backs on this country after being welcomed here as refugees. This is not made up. It is a real problem. The American people want some action. They would like to see Congress and this Administration respond, especially, and they are rightly angered and upset with their elected representatives and their President for not taking sufficient action. I, along with my colleague Senator Shelby and others in the House, asked for inclusion of specific language in this omnibus bill that would protect the interests of the American people, that would reassert the constitutional role of Congress in establishing a uniform system of immigration, that would require the identification of offsetting cuts in Federal spending to pay for the refugee admission program. But none of that was included in the omnibus bill. I doubt they ever spent a minute looking at a letter from two Senators. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, I sent appropriators a list of several dozen provisions for inclusion in our funding bills to improve immigration enforcement and to block Presidential overreach and lawlessness, including among other things, provisions to defund sanctuary cities. Why should we be funding and providing Federal law enforcement money to cities that won't cooperate with the Federal Government in its most basic responsibility of respect and comity between these various Federal and State agencies. It goes on every day. But we are being blocked in sanctuary city after sanctuary city. Also, I asked the appropriators to prevent visas from being issued to nationals of countries that refuse to take back their criminals. This is important. My former colleague Senator Specter offered a bill for a number of things. It would bar admission for certain visas for nationals of countries that won't take back their people who have been in the United States. It is a fundamental principle of immigration law worldwide that if you admit a person from a foreign country, when their visa is up, they go home. Their visa is up if they commit a crime, and they are to be sent back home; they are to be deported. But country after country is refusing to take back their convicted criminals. I guess they figure: ``Why don't you keep our criminals for us?'' But that is not what the law is, and we are stuck with them in jails. We have to pay for their housing. After 6 months, absent certain circumstances, the Supreme Court says they generally have to be released. It's possible that if an alien files a habeas petition that the government will have to go to court and have hearing with a judge. This is driving up costs, using incredible amounts of hours. We shouldn't tolerate it one minute. There is no reason that this government shouldn't act--which the law will now allow and directly says they should do--to refuse to issue visas to a country that won't take back their criminals. They refuse to do it. There is additional legislation that would force that, and we could have done it in this bill. It should have bipartisan support. I also asked for language in the bill to defund the unlawful, improper Executive amnesty. The President's actions are unlawful. We don't have to fund his unlawful activity. There is no duty on behalf of Congress to acquiesce and provide money to people to work in a big building in Crystal City to process millions of people in the country illegally for amnesty because the President now says: ``I am just going to let them stay.'' It has been blocked for the most part by a Federal court, but there is nothing in the bill to expressly defund it. I asked for legislation to protect American workers against abuses in the H-1B program. This is where Southern California Edison had a program. They brought in 500 foreign workers from India in some sort of contract deal, had the American workers who had been at Edison doing computer work for years train the new workers, and then ended up terminating the Americans and replacing them with those from abroad. How can anyone say there was a shortage of workers? The same was done by Disney. Senator Nelson of Florida and I introduced legislation to fix that. I have introduced legislation with Senator Cruz and supported legislation from Senator Grassley to fix this program. None of that has been included in this bill. Why not? I asked for an expansion of the 287(g) program that allows Federal law enforcement officials and officers to assist with enforcing our immigration law. This was a good program. It had been on the books. President Bush finally began to expand it. They train local law officers for weeks at a time, and they become extensions of Federal law enforcement officers to help identify and process people who are unlawfully in the country and who have been apprehended--a very good program that had good results. This Obama Administration has eviscerated it. It is less than half of what it was. It should have been expanded all over America, if you actually want the law enforced in this country. But if you don't want the law enforced in America, you kill a program like 287(g). Did the appropriators put in the omnibus bill anything to deal with that abuse? No. We put in language that would prevent illegal aliens from receiving tax credits. This is unbelievable. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration from President Obama's own Treasury Department has done an analysis of this and urged that it be fixed. People come to America illegally, with children somewhere around the world. They don't have a Social Security number. They use an ITIN identification document--which was intended for executives. They use that, and they file a tax return. They don't pay taxes because their income is low, but they get a tax credit based on children that are not even in the country. How abusive is that? I understand this was rejected and was not in the omnibus bill because President Obama didn't want it. So he gets to dictate what is in a congressional bill that I think would have 90- percent support by the American people if they understood how significant it was? That is a different figure, but it is an abusive, improper tax credit. So all of these provisions were rejected by the bill supporters. But industry's request for more foreign workers was granted-- unconditionally approved. So I asked about this provision. I heard it might be under consideration, so I asked about it. I said: ``The American people don't want a fourfold increase in immigration. I know there are some special interests pushing for this. I have heard that. Tell me it is not so.'' I was told it wasn't so. But last night--this morning at 2 a.m.--when the bill was produced, it was in there. So I am not happy about it, colleagues. I don't see how we can operate around here if we can't rely on representations. Because of this bill, sanctuary cities will continue to get Federal funds, the Obama Administration can continue issuing visas to countries that refuse to repatriate their criminal aliens, and the President's Executive amnesty continues. Meanwhile, the tax bill that will be moved with the omnibus bill makes permanent the Additional Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, but it does nothing to block their future distribution to illegal aliens. A tax credit to a person who doesn't pay taxes is a check from the government. It is not a tax deduction; it is a direct payment. It scores as a welfare benefit. This means more illegal aliens will continue to get tax credits. It should be stopped. As I feared, the ultimate effect--and I have expressed concern about this for some months now--is that this bill will fund the President's entire lawless immigration agenda. The only real bill we have to provide an opportunity to legislate and fix some of these things is a big omnibus bill. And what does it do? It funds essentially the President's entire agenda. In fact, the omnibus spending bill will ensure that at least--for example, we have had discussions about the Middle East. People argue that we are not letting in enough people from the Middle East, and that we shouldn't talk about a pause. But under this bill it would ensure that at least 170,000 green cards--that means permanent residency with a guaranteed path to citizenship--and refugee and asylee approvals will be issued to migrants from Muslim countries just over the next 12 months. We are very generous about this, and it is very difficult to know if we are managing this properly, except that we know it is not being safely monitored, and the FBI Director has told us so. This bill even fails to address substantial problems with the EB-5 investment visa program, problems that some of my colleagues have worked for months to resolve. The problems with this program have been documented by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, not the least of which are issues related to fraud and national security. We can fix that program. We need to do it. This would have been a good opportunity. For years the American people have suffered under the lawless, dangerous, and wage-reducing immigration policies of this administration. They sent us here to Washington to protect their interests, to protect the people's interests, to ensure the defense of their families, and to advance the common good--the public interest. They did not send us here to bow down to the President's lawless immigration policies, nor to line the pockets of special interests in big business. That is not what we are here for. Whom do we represent? This bill explains why Republican and Democratic voters are in open rebellion, as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said recently-- open rebellion. They elected people whom they believed were going to take action to protect their security, their jobs, and their wages. And what do they get? A bill that is worse than current law. It goes in the opposite direction--no wonder people are upset. This legislation represents a further disenfranchisement of the American voter. What does a vote mean in this country? At a time when hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens are on our streets, criminal aliens are killing innocent Americans, numerous foreign-born individuals are implicated in terrorism, tens of thousands of aliens from Central America continue to stream across our southern border, countless Americans are being replaced by foreign workers and forced to train their replacements, and millions of Americans are just struggling to get by, this Congress has chosen to make things worse. We need to remember whom we represent and whom our duty is to. Our duty is to voters, the American people, not the interests of businesses, activist groups, and that kind of thing. I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. I have been very firm about my statements here, but I am very unhappy about this bill. I do not believe this is the kind of legislation we should be moving. It was not moved in the normal process on the floor of the Senate, where amendments could be offered and a bill could be studied over months of time before final passage, perhaps. So with regret and a good deal of frustration, I urge my colleagues to oppose and reject this proposal. I would also just mention one more thing, and then I will wrap up. Senator Shelby and I wrote a letter to the Appropriations Committee on November 16, asking for Congress to assume its constitutional duty ensuring immigration laws are uniform by approving the number of refugees who come to America, and not leave that as an open-ended power given to the President, who can execute it in an arbitrary manner. We also said that no benefits should be provided to future refugees until the Congressional Budget Office submits a score--a simple report on the cost of this program. How long would it take? Not that long. Don't we need to have a score, a cost number? We also asked that no refugees be admitted until the Department of Homeland Security submits a report on terrorist and criminal refugees. None of those provisions were included in any of the legislation before us. I think all of those are logical. I also previously wrote letters asking for other provisions, such as prohibiting funds for lawsuits against States that are trying to help enforce immigration laws, to bar funds for attorneys for illegal aliens through these grant programs that are being utilized. Fundamentally, it has never been the responsibility of the Federal Government to prepare and provide free attorneys for people who have entered the country illegally. It never has been the law. I also asked that no funds be provided for sanctuary cities. I asked for language that prohibited funds for Executive amnesty policies; that prohibited funds for the DACA Program; that there would be no spending of funds in the Immigration Examinations Fee Account for anything other than naturalization and immigration benefits provided by Congress. I asked for language that would bar funds for salaries of political appointees or other employees who direct employees to violate the law. Why should we be paying people who direct their own subordinates to violate fundamental provisions of immigration law? I asked for language that would prevent funds from being used to grant ``prosecutorial discretion'' to aliens in removal proceedings, no funds for an extension of Temporary Protected Status unless approved by Congress, and no funds to continue the Administration's abuse of the parole authority. We shouldn't be funding these abusive practices that undermine the certainty of immigration laws. I asked for language to prohibit funds to grant H-1B visas to companies that have replaced American workers. I asked for restrictions on the issuance of Employment Authorization Documents, and that no funds be used to add new countries to the Visa Waiver Program until implementation of a biometric exit system. This bill does direct some money to a biometric exit system, which, if this Administration would act, would begin to do something significant. But they have resisted what the 9/11 Commission has said we must have. When people come into the country, they are checked in, they are fingerprinted, and they are biometrically identified, but nobody checks if they left. So you can come into America on a visa and never go home. This is why almost half of the people illegally in America today came lawfully on a visa. They just didn't return when they were supposed to. I asked for money to establish--notably, there has been an advocacy unit in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the past to protect illegal immigrants and give them all kinds of additional rights--an advocacy unit for victims of immigrant crimes. I asked for others, too. I would just say that I, and others, have raised a series of important issues that need to be fixed, and would receive, if understood by the American people, 90 percent support. Senator Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee--of which my Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, is a part--has also been active in these things. It is a deep disappointment that this last piece of legislation that could make some improvement in a number of these issues will do nothing of significance, but it will increase by four-fold the number of low-skilled, low-wage workers allowed to enter this country from 66,000 to 264,000. They will pull down wages and reduce the job prospects of struggling Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for such time as I consume, not to exceed 30 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize retired LTG Harold ``Hal'' Moore of Auburn, AL, for his lifetime of service to the United States of America. LTG ``Hal'' Moore is best known as the lieutenant colonel in command of the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, at the Battle of Ia Drang, in 1965 during the Vietnam war and as the author of ``We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young.'' This book explores the weeklong Battle of Ia Drang where Hal served as the battalion commanding officer and led his troops personally. It is a magnificent book evidencing his courage, leadership, brilliance, and that of his regiment. I read it years ago and have not forgotten it. Encircled by enemy soldiers and with no clear landing zone that would allow them to depart, Moore managed to persevere despite overwhelming odds. Moore's belief that ``there is always one more thing you can do to increase your odds of success,'' along with the courage of his entire command, are credited with this victory. Hal used the concepts of air assault organization and employment that he and his troopers learned during their time at Ft. Benning, GA, for the first time in actual combat. Moore then took the lessons he learned from this initial battle and helped instruct future troopers on how to better employ the tactic, saving countless lives going forward. During the Battle of Ia Drang, Moore was referred to as ``Yellow Hair'' by his troops, for his blond hair, and as a tongue-in-cheek tribute referencing GEN George Armstrong Custer, commander of the same 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Bighorn just under a century before. For his actions, Hal was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest military decoration of the U.S. Army. After the Battle of Ia Drang, Moore was promoted to colonel and subsequently took command of the 3rd Brigade, commonly referred to as the Garry Owen Brigade. After his service in the Vietnam war, Moore served in various assignments until his retirement from the Army, as a lieutenant general on August 1, 1977, after completing 32 years of active service. Today he remains an ``honorary colonel'' of the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment. Along with the book he wrote, Hal is remembered in the 2007 book written by his volunteer driver, ``A General's Spiritual Journey,'' and in the 2013 biography by author Mike Guardia, ``Hal Moore: A Soldier Once . . . and Always.'' Moore has also been designated a Distinguished Graduate by the West Point Association of Graduates and has a 3-mile stretch of Highway 280 in Lee County, AL, named in his honor. Lieutenant General Moore splits time between Auburn, AL, and Crested Butte, CO. He continues to involve himself in his community. I am proud to call LTG Harold ``Hal'' Moore a fellow Alabamian and to acknowledge and celebrate his long and distinguished life.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the life and accomplishments of civil rights attorney Fred Gray, Sr., of Montgomery, AL. Fred Gray was born in Montgomery, AL, on December 14, 1930. He attended the Nashville Christian Institute and received a baccalaureate degree from the then-Alabama State College for Negroes. From there, he went on to receive a law degree from Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland, OH. Mr. Gray passed the bar examination and returned to his home town of Montgomery to establish a law office. He dedicated himself to the goal of ``destroying everything segregated he could find.'' He also began preaching at the Holt Street Church of Christ. During the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement, Mr. Gray worked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., E.D. Nixon, and other leaders of the movement. He represented Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks, who were charged with disorderly conduct for refusing to seat themselves in the rear of segregated city buses. Mr. Gray also successfully defended Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., against tax evasion charges. In addition, he represented the Montgomery Improvement Association during the more than yearlong Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955, which ultimately led to the United States Supreme Court case Browder v. Gayle. This case was filed by Mr. Gray. Additionally, Mr. Gray filed and argued the historic and much-cited case of Gomillion v. Lightfoot before the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned State redistricting of Tuskegee, AL. After this case, Mr. Gray continued to lead legal efforts to desegregate schools in Alabama. In 1970, Mr. Gray was one of the first African Americans elected as a State legislator in Alabama. However, he did not allow his new role to prevent him from continuing to represent local Alabamians in the judicial system. In the early 1970s, Mr. Gray represented plaintiffs in the class- action lawsuit regarding the Federal Tuskegee syphilis study and succeeded in securing appropriate damages and restitutions for 72 study survivors. As a result of efforts led by Mr. Gray, President Clinton invited the study survivors and their families to a ceremony at the White House, where he officially apologized for the actions of the Federal Government regarding the study. In 2002, Fred Gray became the first African-American president of the Alabama Bar Association. Mr. Gray has spent his life working to achieve equal justice and liberty for the citizens of Alabama. His dedication to the civil rights movement is unequaled, and we are all grateful for the tireless work he has done on behalf of all Americans.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 2, 2015, at 4 p.m., to conduct a classified briefing entitled ``JCPOA Oversight: The IAEA's Report on the Possible Military Dimensions of the Iranian Nuclear Program.''

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 2, 2015, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA)--5 Years Later: How have the justice systems in Indian Country improved?''

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 2, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Trade Secrets: the Impact of Trade Secret Theft on American Competitiveness and Potential Solutions to Remedy This Harm.''

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 2, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Administration's Criminal Alien Removal Policies.''

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 2, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 2, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Agriculture's Role in Combating Global Hunger.''

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 2, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 2, 2015, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I support the reconciliation bill that is before us. It will do the job. It will end the Affordable Care Act that the American people rightly have opposed, and it will put us in a position to repeal this monstrosity of a 1,700-page bill that was jammed through Congress in the last hours before Christmas Eve in 2009. I remember that day very well. It was a strict party-line vote and was passed despite the objections of the American people. It resulted in quite a number of people who voted for it not being in the Senate or the House again, and it remains a decisive issue for our country. Six years ago, the American people did not favor this legislation, they resisted it. But the Democratic leadership and President Obama determined they were going to pass it, no matter what the people said. They were going to get this done, and they rammed it through on Christmas Eve of 2009, even though Scott Brown was elected a month later in Massachusetts on a campaign to kill the bill. Had he been here at that time, there would have been only 59 votes, insufficient votes to shut off debate, and the bill would not have passed. He won in Massachusetts--one of our most liberal States--on a campaign that said: I will be the vote that kills this legislation. So I want to say first and foremost that the American people knew this wouldn't work. They opposed it from the beginning, they opposed the philosophy of it, and they knew we were going to have a mess on our hands. Now we have a majority of Republicans in both Houses. There are 54 Republican Senators in the Senate. We are going to move this reconciliation bill, and it will end the effectiveness of ObamaCare. But we know the President will veto it. I will just say this, colleagues. This is a historic moment. This is a moment of great importance nearly 6 years after this bill passed. You can be sure the people who pushed it to passage were absolutely confident that although the people opposed it then, they would get used to it, they would go along with it, and it could never be repealed. But that has not happened. The voters have elected Members of Congress to oppose this legislation. The polling data shows continued strong opposition to this legislation. What we are going to do is establish that the elected Congress, a majority in both Houses, opposes this terrible law and we will vote to end this incredible piece of legislation. We knew it was bad, but there was no way we could have understood what was in all of those pages. Health care is utterly complex. It is so different in every state from Wyoming, Alabama, New York, Massachusetts, and California, and even cities within the States--it is all different. So, a one-sized-fits-all approach dictated by the federal government simply will not work. The Federal Government cannot run anything very well, frankly. We absolutely do not need to be involving ourselves in and dominating health care in America. That is not the way to get better health care for our people. It was obvious from the beginning that we were going to have high costs and difficulties, but it actually rolled out with more difficulty than people could have imagined, starting with the failed computer systems. We had Democrats and Republicans concerned over how it was being carried out. It was bad from the beginning, and things are not getting any better. One of the most dramatic promises the President of the United States made to the American people was in September of 2009. In pushing for this legislation, he said: The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals. . . . it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. Well, that has not happened. In fact, health care costs for the insured in America are surging. In Alabama we are seeing 28 percent increases in premiums. I am going to read some letters from people who say what has happened to their insurance premiums and how incredibly high the deductibles are. No one has written my office to tell me that their healthcare costs have decreased. President Obama went so far at one point to promise that his health care plan would ``bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.'' The American people didn't buy that. They have heard these kinds of big government schemes before. They want to go to their doctors. They were pretty confident in their plans, and they were worried about costs, so this promise meant a lot to them. The President of the United States had said that costs were going to come down. That meant a lot, but they were skeptical. Their instinct, though, was correct because it hasn't happened, and health care costs have continued to go up. The administration has acknowledged that many consumers will see noticeable premium increases--and indeed we have--when buying health care on the ObamaCare exchanges in 2016. According to Health and Human Services' own data--government's agency--premiums would increase by an average of 7.5 percent for the benchmark silver plans in 2016 in 37 States using the exchanges, which includes Alabama. But, the rates for the benchmark plan in Alabama will increase by even more than that in 2016--by 12.6 percent. For 2016, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, the largest insurer in the State, reported an increase of 28 percent for individual plans and 13.8 percent for small group plans. These are huge costs. Currently, Blue Cross Blue Shield plans on the Obamacare exchange cover about 174,000 Alabamans. This is real money for a lot of people. BCBS initially proposed to increase the premiums for the platinum plans, the highest coverage, by 71 percent but later reported a final increase of 28 percent. We saw the same trend with the gold plans--BCBS initially requested a 53 percent increase, but it was finally reduced to 28 percent. UnitedHealthcare, the second largest insurer in the State and one of the largest in the country, reported an average increase of 24.5 percent. This amounts to real money out of the pockets of real Americans. So, it is clear that the healthcare law is fundamentally raising costs, reducing choice, and is opposed by the American people. In June of 2009, President Obama stated: If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. That meant a lot to people. A lot of people said: Well, if they do all that--but if I can keep my plan, I am not too worried about it, as long as I can keep my plan. Did that turn out to be true? No, it did not. By the end of 2013, the Associated Press reported that 4.7 million Americans received cancellation notices for their insurance plans due to the Affordable Care Act. In 2013, PolitiFact defined the ``Lie of the Year'' as President Obama's promise that ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' They just said it. Costs are going down, and you can keep your health care plan if you want to. They continued to say that, and they were able to get the law through Congress. But even then, the polling data showed the American people did not support this plan. Scott Brown of Massachusetts ran on it in the liberal State of Massachusetts. He said: Elect me, and I will be the vote that kills it. But, they got it done before he could take office. Under this so-called ``affordable act,'' we have higher premiums and higher deductibles. Great Scott, I am amazed at how high the deductibles have become. This is a communication from an individual in the Birmingham area. He wrote to me in June of this year: I am an owner of a small 10 person CPA firm in Vestavia. In our group plan offered by BCBS, for our family of 5 our BCBS health insurance went up by $6k a year last year and we are facing more increases this year from BCBS. In our case, this puts our family spending right at $24,000 a year on health insurance. We are blessed enough that we don't qualify for a subsidy and our new policy has less coverage much higher deductibles and more out of pocket costs than ever before. But that said, we are currently spending 18% of our family's AGI on health insurance premiums. He is not happy. Another individual from Mobile, AL, writes me: First year premiums 300 per month, last year 405 dollars per month and now for 2016 premium to be 1562 per month. I am being penalized for having worked all my life and having a retirement and income that puts me in an area with no subsidy. The premium is more than what I get from Social Security. This is going to put me into a area where we decide, my wife and I, on whether or not to get insurance. This is from a Ph.D., who wrote: For the first time, in 2011, my medical insurance premiums exceeded my mortgage, and they have continued to climb ever since. I now pay over $1,400 a month for mediocre coverage, and it's breaking us. . . . We need a new approach that is market driven and consumer oriented, an approach that doesn't penalize people for failure to participate in the market through a cleverly disguised fine designed to coerce participation from the free citizens of these United States. Another individual in the Montgomery area wrote: We just received notification at my place of employment that our health insurance premiums are going [up] at least 25 percent this year and possibly 40 percent next year. As the controller here, with 100 employees, we cannot afford these increases. We have already seen our benefits reduced to try to keep the costs lower but if we keep on at this rate we will be paying even more for less coverage. That is the real world. And I feel strongly that this is happening out there all over our country. What I want to say to those who are frustrated, who think nothing can be done, that is not so. What will be demonstrated today is that the majority of both Houses of Congress has the ability to pass legislation that will essentially eliminate this plan and require a complete overhaul of our health care system. We have the votes to do it. Yes, it will be vetoed by the President of the United States. He has rejected any and all improvements ever since the bill was passed. He has fought virtually everything that would make the bill better. No changes can be made in this legislation. But he won't be President forever. We are going to have another President soon. That is a fact. And this new President can sign a reconciliation bill. We will then be able to improve health care in America, to use common sense and not create a government bureaucracy of monumental proportions, and to actually serve the people we represent. We can enable them to have the type of health care policies that they need, at prices they can afford, and help people in need, in the same way we do today. But, we will eliminate this entire government takeover of healthcare. Several years ago, when asked if he believed in a single-payer plan for health care in America, Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, said: Yes, yes, absolutely yes. I raised that in the Committee on the Budget, and we had two Democratic members say: I, too, believe in a single payer for health care in America. One said: I will acknowledge the health care law is not workable today, and the only way to really make it work is to go to a single payer--in other words, a government- dominated health care system in America. I don't think that is the right way to go. The American people don't think that is the right way to go. They oppose that now, they opposed it steadfastly throughout, and they are being proven correct. It is not working. The promises made for it were wrong then and are being proven wrong every month that goes by. Mr. President, this is an important vote. Don't let anyone suggest it is not. It is a definitional vote: Do you want to fix the broken health care system or do you want to just continue it with no real reform? That is the choice. I hope we will have bipartisan support for making this kind of change. I hope and believe that if this legislation is vetoed by this President, we will have a new President in not too many months who will sign such legislation and allow us then to create the kind of positive health care system the people of this country deserve. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of Senator Portman. I think he is touching on some critically important issues that all of us need to fully understand. As always, his insights are valuable and worthy of serious consideration by all. I would also briefly note that I do believe--and I spoke about this several weeks ago--there is a need for this country, as Senator Casey noted, to develop a bipartisan strategy, particularly with regard to how we deal with the rising spasm of extremism in the Middle East. It is a fact. It is happening. We as a country have to be able to work together in a bipartisan way to decide what action we may choose to use--whether it is military force, whether it is technological advancement, whether it is working with allies--to do whatever we can to increase more stability, more peace and tranquility, and less terrorism and violence. It is a big matter, and I am not at all confident that we have a strategy. In fact, we don't have a strategy that anyone can recognize as effective in this region, as a number of witnesses before the Armed Services Committee have testified, including former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, who served under both President Bush and President Obama. This President seems to have his own plan. He refuses to listen. As he traveled around the world recently talking about the attacks in Paris, I think it stunned our allies. This is not a healthy situation. There are millions of refugees. Good leadership, responsible leadership, should have anticipated this danger, and when it developed, have a sound strategy that deals with it in a humane way. It cannot be the strategy of the United States and Europe that when instability occurs anywhere in the world, when instability occurs in Syria or other places in the Middle East, the solution is for everybody to come to Europe or the United States. This is not healthy for those countries, it is not part of the historical tradition, and for reasons I am going to touch on, it is very bad policy. I think Senator Portman is correct that we are not where we need to be militarily, strategically, and in other ways, to help bring about a situation in which people can return to their homes and be with their families and not have to be running all over the world, marching through Europe, not knowing where they are going to go, in countries that will not and cannot support them. It is not sound policy. I want to address the economic and security threats imposed by the President's refugee resettlement plan and talk about it in some detail and explain why the more effective and compassionate solution is to resettle the region's refugees in safe zones in the region rather than flying them into the United States or Europe or other places around the globe. Each and every year, the United States issues green cards to roughly 1 million immigrants. We admit approximately 500,000 foreign students. We distribute work visas to approximately 700,000 foreign workers and grant approximately 25,000 requests for asylum. Asylum is when a person arrives in our country and says: I can't go home because I will be in danger. A refugee is when somebody is in a foreign country--not their own country--and comes to our Embassy or to the UN and says: I am threatened here. I am not safe. I want to be a refugee and go elsewhere. If they are accepted, they are a refugee. If the others are accepted after they come to our country--perhaps illegally--they are asylees. We have brought in another 70,000 refugees on top of that each year in recent years. The fact is, refugees are among the most costly immigration programs for several reasons. Refugees are instantly eligible for all Federal welfare and entitlement programs. Most are low-skilled and frequently lack any formal education and many--most don't speak English. There is great cost involved in this. One estimate from an expert is that for every 10,000 refugees admitted, there will be a lifetime cost to the U.S. Treasury of $6.5 billion. This year, we are now going to accept 85,000. The President says he will accept 100,000 next year and maybe more. Now, 100,000 is 10 times $6.5 billion added to the debt of the country, because no extra money is being appropriated for Medicaid and for food stamps. The money is going to be added to the debt. It is not healthy. It is very expensive. There are enormous security concerns as well. We have seen a number of refugees implicated in terrorist activity inside the United States. We wish it weren't so, but it is a fact. Yet, in this environment of increasing Federal debt, wage stagnation driven by excess labor supply, and ISIS terrorists trying to infiltrate as refugees, President Obama has announced a unilateral expansion of the refugee program to begin admitting many more Syrian refugees. This is at a time when 83 percent of the voters say projected growth in immigration should be curbed, according to Pew polling. The President persists in his plan even though his own officials, testifying before the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, conceded there is no database in Syria with which to vet refugees. The administration briefed us last night, and they publicly stated: We are going to use biometric techniques. In the United Sates, what does that mean? It means they take your fingerprint and run it against the NCIC--National Crime Information Center--and see if you have warrants for your arrest or if you have been convicted of anything. You can't do that in Syria. You can take their fingerprints, but there is no database to run it against. So that is just puffing. That is spin. You can't run fingerprints in Syria, because there is no database to run them against. As his officials further concluded, there is no way to prevent refugees from radicalizing after their entrance into the United States, as has happened, unfortunately, with Somali refugees. It is an unpleasant but unavoidable fact that bringing in large unassimilated flows of migrants from the Muslim world creates the conditions possible for radicalization and extremism to take hold. This is what they are seeing in Europe. The FBI Director tells us there are now active ISIS investigations in all 50 States. They have a terrorist investigation involving ISIS in every State in the Union today. I think there are 900 open cases. Our subcommittee has identified dozens of examples of foreign-born immigrants committing and attempting to commit acts of terror on U.S. soil. It is happening every day. Preventing and responding to these acts is an effort encompassing thousands of Federal agents, attorneys, and prosecutors and billions of dollars in costs. They are directing their efforts away from bank fraud and Medicare fraud and toward watching terrorists. Their ability has been limited by restrictions on their ability to conduct surveillance. In effect, we are voluntarily admitting individuals at risk for terrorism and then on the back end trying to stop them from carrying out bad, violent designs. The former head of the Citizenship and Immigration Services union, which represents immigration workers who handle the casework on these evaluations for admission, issued this warning more than a year ago. This is important. This is the man who represents the individuals who do the work every day, and he got frustrated and he told the truth. This is what he said: It is also essential to warn the public about the threat that ISIS will exploit our loose and lax visa policies to gain entry to the United States. Indeed, as we know from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, from the Boston Bombing, from the recent plot to bomb a school and courthouse in Connecticut, and many other lesser-known terror incidents, we are letting terrorists into the United States right through our front door. . . . Applications for entry are rubber-stamped, the result of grading agents by speed rather than discretion. We've become the visa clearinghouse for the world. We can't properly vet the people coming now. Yet we are still talking about adding more and more people to it. Senator Cruz and I sent the administration a list of 72 individuals charged with or convicted of terrorism-related offenses in just the last year. We wanted to know something. We asked for the immigration histories of each one of these individuals. Isn't that a good thing to know? We are policymakers. We are supposed to decide how to conduct immigration issues. As we evaluate how to improve our immigration situation, shouldn't we know how these terrorists--who have been arrested, charged, or convicted--got into the country? Well, stunningly, the administration has just refused to respond. They didn't respond because they don't want the public to know. They think if they can ignore these requests, then people will not know and will not begin to question how things are being conducted. Congress should not acquiesce to the President's refugee funding request when he refuses to even publicly disclose the immigration history of these 72 terrorists, many of whom are involved with and directly connected with Al Qaeda and ISIS. An outright majority of the public opposes resettling Syrian refugees in the United States. In fact, voters across all parties wish to see a reduction of Middle Eastern refugee settlements. It is in the data. That is what people think. They are worried about this issue. Why shouldn't they be? We have had our own problems. We have had 9/11, we have had the Boston bombers, and many other instances, such as Chattanooga, and look at what is happening in Europe. I don't think the American people are mean or unkind. They are just rightly concerned. They want to protect their families, their Nation, and their interests, and I think we should consider their concerns. The safe and proper course is to focus on regional resettlement. One report says that for the price of placing one refugee in the United States, 12 can be helped in their homeland. Our goal must be to help refugees find safety and help them return to their homes, not for us to depopulate the region. How serious is this? Only this strategy will protect the security of the United States and the West, protect the finances of our country from further debt, and protect the long-term stability and safety of the Middle East itself. That is what our goal should be, and our President is not focused on this issue. It has been raised in committee after committee and nothing has been accomplished. He just sticks with the plan he has. What then is Congress to do to stop the President from carrying out a plan the voters oppose and Congress has not approved? The answer lies in the power of the purse. Each and every year the President submits a request to Congress to fund his Refugee Admissions Program. Only with these funds can the President carry out his plans. Congress, which has been run over time and again by this President, must not write the blank check the President is asking for. He can also bring in more refugees than he has currently indicated. Secretary Kerry has told the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate they just may well bring in more than this. My colleague Senator Shelby and I outlined in a joint statement that the answer is for Congress to include in the year-end funding bill a clear requirement that the President must submit his annual refugee plan to Congress for approval. Senator Shelby is on that Appropriations Committee. Under this plan, Congress must approve how many refugees are brought in and from where. Mr. President, is it time to wrap up?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and ask for 1 additional minute to wrap up.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are facing a humanitarian crisis of monumental proportions. In large part, it is because the President has mismanaged the situation in Syria. He is the Chief Executive, he is the Commander in Chief, the military does what he says, and this has not been good. It just has not been good. It has caused danger, it has caused innocent people to be killed, it has caused people to have to flee, and it has also allowed the surge of ISIS and Al Qaeda-type terrorist organizations in Syria to be able to create an entire state of their own and to export their terrorism. We have to create safe zones in Syria and other places in the region where people can stay in their homes, and we need to work to end this fighting as soon as possible so people can go back home permanently. It cannot be the position of this country that we just bring in millions of people because of the dangers abroad. It just does not make common sense. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Carper is one of our most delightful colleagues. He is always gentlemanly and calls us to consider and think on the higher things. I thank my friend from Delaware for that and his service.

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, I would point out to our colleagues, that we now have now received the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. It amounts to 5,544 pages, not including the dozens of side- agreements--three times the book I know the Presiding Officer knows, the Bible. It is three times the length of the Bible and several times the length of ObamaCare. It has just been delivered to us with all kinds of promises for good things that might result from its affirmation. No American has the resources to ensure that his or her interests are being protected in this document. It is so long and the ramifications are so broad that Congress cannot do its job to ensure that the people's interests are safeguarded by such an agreement. We already have trade deals with all the major TPP countries, except Japan. So I will say with real confidence this is much more than trade. If it was, a bilateral agreement with Japan would fix it. We have agreements with Australia, Chile, Canada, and other countries. The TPP is about the goal of creating a new global regulatory structure--what I have called a Pacific Union--transferring power from individual Americans and Congress, eroding Congress, to an unaccountable, unelected, international bureaucratic committee. Because President Obama has been given fast-track powers by this Congress--unwisely I think--Congress cannot amend this deal, we cannot strike one offending provision, apply a filibuster to force a supermajority of 60 votes, as we have to have for most legislation, or to apply a two-thirds treaty vote. Additionally, the White House writes the implementing legislation, which, in turn, necessarily supersedes any existing American law. So this is what we mean by fast-track. Today I would like to share a few thoughts about one aspect of this agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission. There is a particular chapter in this mammoth agreement, chapter 27, titled-- innocuously enough--``Administrative and Institutional Provisions,'' which deals with the creation of a Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission. Section 27.1 outlines the creation of this Commission and who is a member. The agreement states that ``each party shall be responsible for the composition of its delegation.'' In other words, we are empowering the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries to create a new congress of sorts--a group with delegates that goes and meets and decides important issues that can impact everyday lives of Americans. The American representative in this Commission, which will operate in many ways like the U.N., will not be answerable to voters anywhere. How long will their terms be? How will they be chosen? Will there be any restrictions on lobbying, any requirements of transparency? Can they always meet in secret? Are there any ethics rules? The answer is, it will be whatever the TPP countries decide it will be. The fact that they negotiated this in secret for months--years, really--indicates that transparency is not a quality they value very highly. It is an entity untethered above and outside the Constitution of the United States. All our government agencies in the United States must answer to the Congress and the President, the Chief Executive. These institutions will not. So we need to be cautious. All I am saying is, why do we have to do this? Why do we have to create a Commission in which Vietnam or the Sultan of Brunei gets the same vote as the President of the United States? Section 27.2 lists several powers of the Commission which should be expected in any regulatory body. It is granted the power to oversee the implementation of the TPP and the power to supervise the work of relevant working groups under its jurisdiction. However, then the section states this: Under the rules, the Commission shall ``consider any proposal to amend or modify this Agreement,'' to change the agreement. They get to change the agreement. We can ratify this, but they get to change it whenever they deem appropriate. Also, the Commission shall ``seek the advice of non-governmental persons or groups on any matter falling within the Commission's functions'' and ``take such other action as the Parties may agree,'' while considering ``input from non-governmental persons or groups of the Parties.'' It also says it will consider the findings of international fora to help advise them. I guess one of the fora they will not be considering is a group like the National Federation of Independent Business, small businesses. None of these terms are defined as to what constitutes a nongovernmental person or group. What is that? Remember, when the Founders of our country negotiated the Constitution, they worried about every word. They thought about what it would mean and could mean decades, centuries later. They talked about creating a new form of government on this entire continent. They actually believed that could be possible, and it certainly has become reality. Have we given that kind of thought to the power we are delegating to this Commission? How will the agreement be amended or modified? Just last week, the Secretary of State, Secretary Kerry, was in Kazakhstan. He told the television station in Kazakhstan that he is interested in seeing China and Russia be added to the TPP and that they would consider the Philippines a prime candidate to join in the future. That is an interesting thing to announce, particularly in Kazakhstan. Since it impacts the people of the United States, it might be nice for him to be talking more to the people of the United States. So this would create a situation in which new countries can be added, it appears, most any different way. The point is, this global governance authority is open-ended. The agreement states that ``the Commission and any subsidiary body established under this Agreement may establish rules of procedures for the conduct of its work.'' It even covers climate regulation--a lot about climate regulation. The agreement states that ``the Parties acknowledge that transition to a low emissions economy requires collective action.'' Having been a proud cold warrior, I have never been happy with people who use the word ``collective.'' It makes me nervous. The TPP is a living agreement. According to the U.S. Trade Representative's own Web site, the living agreement provision is in the TPP: ``. . . to enable the updating of the agreement as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.'' It says it is to deal with trade issues and new issues. Are those issues nontrade? Are they environmental issues? Are they labor agreements or other kinds of things that are unrelated directly to trade? I think it is clear this would allow that to happen. Regardless, after the TPP is passed and Congress has blessed the union, the Senate will have no say in how the Commission is established or the rules by which it is governed. It is untethered to the Congress. Second, currency manipulation is a serious issue. It is impacting our ability to trade effectively today in a very large way. Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve during a time when he and President Reagan transformed the American economy from raging inflation and interest rates to a sound economy, said that currency manipulation could wipe out decades of trade negotiations in a matter of minutes. We have seen that happen. Currency is huge and impacts so many companies. If you read the financial pages, you will see that companies are worried about their bottom line in large part because it will be harder for them to compete with foreign competitors who devalue their currency deliberately in order to gain an advantage in trade. But there is no enforceable currency mechanism in this agreement, although it was fought for in both Houses of Congress and came close, but it is not in it. On November 5, the Wall Street Journal wrote: ``Mexico, Canada and other countries signaled they were open to the [currency] deal when they realized it wouldn't include binding currency rules that could lead to trade sanctions through the TPP.'' This caused Ford Motor Company to immediately reject the TPP the day it was released. Their spokesman argued that they could not support a deal in which currency rules ``fell outside of TPP and [failed to] include dispute settlement mechanisms to ensure global rules prohibiting currency manipulation are enforced.'' This is a huge matter. Ford says that when they are selling an American-made automobile or truck in a foreign country, they are losing thousands of dollars as a result of currency manipulation by many of our trading partners. So it is hard to sell an automobile if our foreign competitors have, in effect, a comparative advantage on currency alone of several thousand dollars. The administration has zero interest in preventing foreign market manipulations and currency manipulations, and thus the TPP will cause massive job losses. It just will. We will be less able to compete. Let's be frank. I supported the Korean trade agreement. We have great allies in Japan and Korea and others in the Pacific, but they are tough trading partners--competitors, if you want to know the truth. They are competitors. They are mercantilists. They have a goal. Their goal is to sell as much as possible to foreign countries and particularly to the greatest market in the world, the market they lust to gain even more access to--our market. They want to sell to us. Through a whole lot of different mechanisms, they resist purchasing anything from us. Have we made any progress in lessening the trade deficit to Japan or Korea lately? It is not going to happen because these barriers are nontariff, currency being one of the most noteworthy. Foreign workers and governments under the TPP are not inhibited from illegally undercutting American workers through currency manipulation in order to export their unemployment to the United States. The way this happens is, if you have a business in a foreign country and the world market has slowed down and your exports are slowing down, if you devalue your currency, your product becomes cheaper and can be sold in the United States or other countries at a cheaper price, and you keep your people working and manufacturing those widgets, whereas the country that imported your product lays off its workers because it can't compete at that price--for the widgets. It is an artificial way to gain market advantage. In May of this year, I wrote the President and asked him simple questions. This is important, colleagues. I asked him to state whether the TPP would increase or decrease our trade deficit. He refused to answer. I asked him whether the TPP would increase or decrease the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States. He refused to answer. I asked him how the TPP would affect the average hourly wages of the American middle class. He refused to answer. He never wrote back. All that the proponents in the White House have said about this deal is that it would increase production and jobs in the export industries. But exporting is such a small part of American industry production. They don't mention how many jobs would be lost by the increased imports into our country. Dan DiMicco, the CEO emeritus of Nucor Steel, which operates steel plants all over the Nation, wrote in his recent book: The world says one thing about open markets and free trade but does another. Whatever sharp cultural or political or language differences may separate the Japanese from the Chinese, or the Germans from the French, this much they all have in common: they know how to advance and protect their economic interests. Mr. President, has my time lapsed?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to wrap up.

Mr. SESSIONS. They know how to advance their interests, and we have not been effective in advancing ours. It is time to take TPP off the fast track, take this off the fast track and get busy defending the interests of the American people. DiMicco writes: In principle, any industrial policy would begin by saying the business of creating, making, and building things must be at the heart of any overreaching economic strategy. This agreement is not just about promoting trade; it is about creating a framework for a transnational union which supersedes the authority of Congress. Finally, if it were truly about opening markets to U.S. producers, the United States would simply have negotiated bilateral agreements with the countries we need to talk to. We are the world's greatest market for worldwide products that are made, and right now we give open access, incredibly, to foreign imports. Just look at those containerships on the Pacific coast stacked to the top. It is not working for jobs in America, it is not working for wages in America, and it is not working for manufacturing. We have to make things. Moving to a services economy would be failure. Of course we want trade. Of course we want to purchase items from abroad. I am not saying we shouldn't. What I am asking is, are we, in negotiating this trade agreement, giving even broader access to our markets without getting enough in return? That is the problem. America must make things. Consumption in America should be for Americans and for export. Our competitors want the opposite, and they have been winning, but they need us more than we need them; thus, we have great power to reverse this course. Figuratively speaking, some of our politicians will be pushing up daisies if they don't listen to what the American people are saying. They must listen to the sound, common sense of the people who hold the ultimate power. They expect us to make sure their interests are legitimately defended. I don't believe this trade agreement does that, and we will talk more about it as time goes by. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank Senator Murkowski for her courtesy.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had a very important court of appeals ruling last night. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the injunction that had been issued by Judge Hanen in Texas, that blocked the President's determination to carry out his DAPA Executive amnesty plan. The court found it improper and unlawful, and ordered it to be stopped. It recalls for us the fact that when the President announced he was going to do this no matter what--before the election--great public outcry arose. Then he said--for political reasons, obviously--well, I am not going to do it before the election, but I will do it after the election. That is when I will issue this Executive amnesty and give lawful presence and Federal benefits and Social Security cards and work authorization to millions of people--4.3 million here in the country illegally. It is a dramatic thing. So the country was in an uproar about it. It was a big factor in the Republicans winning a huge majority in the House and a surging majority in the Senate. So what was this all about? Well, Judge Hanen found that this was wrong. The President didn't have authority to take people Congress has said are here illegally and give them food stamps, health care, Medicaid, and work authorization. It went against the law. He couldn't do that. And he found that this was such an egregious action that it needed to be stopped now through an injunction before the trial even completed. So it was that injunction, that blocking of the President's amnesty, that went up on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and they upheld Judge Hanen's decision. First, 26 States--over half the States--participated in this litigation against the President's order, and they were found to have legal standing. Then the court found this critical legal fact: They found that the States that were objecting to the President's order were likely to succeed in the final court ruling and on appeal. They found that it would likely succeed. And they noted this, referring to the Secretary of Homeland Security: At its core, this case is about the Secretary's decision to change the immigration classification of millions of illegal aliens on a class-wide basis. The Court went on to say: DAPA would make 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, employment authorization, and associated benefits, and we must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency. They basically were saying that they see no evidence that such a huge event would be delegated to the administrative bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security. Congress, in fact, I believe--and the court went on to say--explicitly laid out how we deal with this. The Fifth Circuit rejected President Obama's claim that he could issue employment documents--the right to work in America--to persons illegally here in any way he sees fit. That is what the administration argued. The court condemned that interpretation, saying: The interpretation of those provisions that the Secretary advances would allow him to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the United States--an untenable position in light of the Immigration and Nationality Act's intricate system of immigration classifications and employment eligibility. Even with ``special deference'' to the Secretary, the INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization. That is an absolute refutation of the President's position, as well it should be, because anybody who is familiar with that debate last year knew that it was bogus. The American people knew that argument was bogus, and the court affirmed it just last night with clarity and consistency. They said: Well, historically, the Secretaries have done some of these things. The court doubted that. Quote: Historical practice that is so far afield from the challenged program sheds no light on the Secretary's authority to implement DAPA. Indeed, as the district court recognized, the President explicitly stated that ``it was the failure of Congress to enact such a program that prompted him . . . to `change the law.' '' He asked for this. He asked for legislation to do this, and the House of Representatives said no. And he did it anyway. And the court of appeals slapped that down as being above the powers of the President of the United States, as indeed it is. The court found that this DAPA Program is foreclosed by Congress's careful plan. Quote: ``The program is `manifestly contrary to statute' and therefore was properly enjoined.'' The President of the United States has a duty to the law, a duty to enforce the law whether he likes it or not, and he has a duty to carry out the law. That is his oath. He is the Chief Executive. He is the person responsible for ensuring that the laws of the United States are carried out, and he breached his duty and took steps to absolutely eviscerate law passed by Congress. And being unhappy that Congress refused to change it as he wished it to be changed, he just did it anyway. And that is wrong. The court has slapped him down, as they should. I hope the American people understand that somewhere in this system there is a commitment to law and to propriety and to the right of Congress. Congress is going to have to continue to work on this. It should boldly assert its prerogative to pass laws and its prerogative not to fund Executive amnesties, or any other program we don't think is worthy of being funded. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and the highest regard that I speak on the accomplishments of my valued constituent and friend, Dr. Donald Williamson. On October 31, 2015, Dr. Williamson concluded 23 years as Alabama's State health officer and 29 years of service in the Department of Public Health. Dr. Williamson has served the public health community for more than 30 years, first in his home State of Mississippi and in Alabama since 1986. He began his career in Alabama as the director of the Division of Disease Control from 1986 to 1988. He then served as the director of the Bureau of Preventative Health Services from 1988 to 1992, when he was appointed as the State health officer and director of the Alabama Department of Public Health. Dr. Williamson received his medical degree, cum laude, from the University of Mississippi School of Medicine and completed a residency in internal medicine at the University of Virginia Hospital. His devotion to health and public service has been recognized on numerous occasions. He received the 2011 Nathan Davis Award from the AMA for outstanding public service by a career public servant at the State level; the 2009 Wallace Alexander Clyde Award from Children's Hospital; the 2000 Arthur T. McCormack Award from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials for dedication and excellence in public health; the 1999 Theodore R. Ervin Award from the Public Health Foundation; and the 1999 Child Health Advocate Award from the American Academy of Pediatrics. He also was the recipient of the 1997 D.G. Gill Award from the Alabama Public Health Association for outstanding contribution to public health in Alabama and the 1998 Internist of the Year Award from the Alabama Society of Internal Medicine. In addition, he has held leadership roles in several national and State organizations, including the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. For the last 3 years, Dr. Williamson has held two of the largest jobs in State government, serving both as health officer and chairman of the Alabama Medicaid Transition Taskforce. Governor Robert Bentley appointed Dr. Williamson to serve as chairman of the transition taskforce at a time when the Medicaid Program was on the brink of failing. During his tenure, All Kids, Alabama's public health insurance for children, was recognized nationally for its success in reducing the number of uninsured children. As the chairman of the Medicaid transition taskforce, he helped rescue the Alabama Medicaid Agency and restructured the Medicaid Program. Under his direction, the Medicaid Program will be transformed into Regional Care Organizations and Patient Care Networks. This new structure represents a shift from treating an illness or injury to focusing on overall health and well- being and will lead to improved health outcomes for many Alabamians. Dr. Williamson has demonstrated the ability to find solutions for seemingly insurmountable challenges and has been a calm, strong voice of reason and common sense in the most difficult of times. Throughout his career, he continued to find new ways of making Medicaid work for its patients and the physicians who treat them. However, it is good to note that this is not the end of Dr. Williamson's healthcare service. He will become the CEO and president of the Alabama Hospital Association in November. His tremendous knowledge of health care will continue to be a valuable resource to Alabama and to this critically important organization. I have known this able, energetic leader for many years. I share the views of the great majority of health professionals that he is a treasure for Alabama and the Nation. No one was surprised and all were pleased when Governor Bentley asked him to take over as chairman of the Medicaid transition taskforce at a truly critical time. His reputation throughout the State, the awards he has received, and the sustained effort he has given for the betterment of the health of all Alabamians, especially the poor, truly sets him apart and makes him worthy of the highest accolades. In light of these and all of his many accomplishments, I want to congratulate him on his outstanding career and to wish him the very best in his next important and challenging endeavor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from New Jersey, and no doubt they faced tremendous challenges. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daines be recognized for up to 2 minutes for remarks and that I then be recognized for the 30 minutes I have noticed.