Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. In other words--well, the words Senator Schumer is saying are quite plain. I have a great deal of respect for him. I know he wants to accomplish something valuable here. But it does seem to me he is saying, Well, if enforcement doesn't occur, we promise there will be a trigger and there will be no amnesty unless enforcement occurs; but if we get there and enforcement doesn't occur, you are still going to get your amnesty.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will conclude and yield to my esteemed colleague to lay out some ideas he has to actually improve enforcement so that if we get to the point where we can achieve a legal system that operates effectively in America, we will know it when it happens. We can get there. Without some of these provisions Senator Vitter will recommend, I am confident we will not get there. If people won't support these kinds of provisions, then it raises questions about whether they are serious about their promises to end the lawlessness. I just left a Judiciary Committee hearing. Mr. Vargas testified, who was here apparently illegally, came at the age of 12. I asked him: Should a good Nation have a legal system that has clear laws, clear policies, and those laws are in force? And he said yes. So there is nothing wrong, nothing immoral, nothing unconstitutional for the American people to say we should have a lawful system of immigration. Everybody is not able to come. You have to wait in line and wait your turn and meet the qualifications before you come. And if you try to enter illegally, there will be consequences. There is nothing immoral about that. It is only common sense. It is only the right thing to do. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his work on this and the ideas he will be presenting to us.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as we consider the serious issue of immigration reform, it is important for us to understand where we are as a country with regard to the laws we have and how they are being enforced. I will share some thoughts about that today because the American people and Members of Congress need to fully understand what is happening. It is well documented that the Obama administration has either unilaterally weakened or outright waived the enforcement of existing immigration law at the border, in the interior, at the worksite and at the welfare office. That is just a fact. Last year, I joined with my colleagues at a press conference with the top representatives of the Nation's rank-and-file immigration law enforcement officers--the presidents of the ICE--Immigration, Customs and Enforcement--and Border Patrol unions. Those men, who are elected to serve as the voice of their fellow officers, gave a chilling report at that press conference--right over in the Senate building, with several other Senators--they gave a chilling report about the administration's systematic effort to dismantle the enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. It is not just an effort, it is an effective plan and action to do so. At the center of this misconduct is John Morton, the Director of ICE. The evidence I am about to share with you leads me to the unfortunate conclusion that Mr. Morton can no longer effectively serve at this post and, perhaps more importantly, there can be no comprehensive immigration reform as long as he is the person charged with enforcing it. What purpose is served to pass new laws if the ones we have are ignored by the officials charged with enforcing them? This timeline shows how Mr. Morton and the administration have undermined enforcement. Most Americans do not fully understand the real effect of these immigration policies. In reality, right now, if a State law enforcement officer apprehends someone for speeding and discovers, for example, that he is illegally in the country, the result is that nothing happens. They do not even bother to call the Federal law enforcement officers to report they have apprehended someone who is in violation of our immigration law. And the reason they do not call is because nobody will come and get them. This is something I have discovered over a number of years. When I was attorney general of Alabama, and for 12 years, the top Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Alabama, the U.S. attorney, and I discovered how the system works--and it is not working. What happens is they release them. At townhall meetings I would ask the people who showed up, citizens: What happens if your local police officer apprehends someone who is illegally in the country? They say they call the Federal people or they arrest them and take them to jail. The answer is, no, they do not; they release them. That is what they do because the system is utterly broken and not working. Let me run through a series of events that have occurred in the last several years that further undermine the ability of America to enforce its laws. Let me just say, parenthetically, the only way to have a real effective law enforcement system is to welcome support and affirm the willingness of local law enforcement to participate and assist. There are, for example, some 600,000 State and local law officers out there every day enforcing our laws, protecting their communities. There are far fewer, maybe 15,000 or 30,000 Federal officers, dealing with immigration. The real eyes and ears in law enforcement in America are those State and local people. States have been sued by this administration for even attempting to assist. This administration is denying and refusing to renew the cooperative agreements that are necessary for Federal and State and local authorities to work together to effectively enforce the laws of our country, and this is what is causing our problem. Let me run through some of these areas and problems that have occurred recently. I may not be able to finish, and I will make the rest of my remarks available in the Record. In a 2010 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Director Morton announced ICE may not even process or accept illegal aliens transferred to the agency's custody by Arizona officials. They were not happy with Arizona, presumably, so they would not even accept people local law enforcement turned over. On May 27, 2010, an ICE e-mail revealed that low-risk, short-term detainees would be able to have visitors stay for an unlimited amount of time during a 12-hour window, would be given access to unmonitored phone lines, e-mails, and free internet calling. They would also be entertained with movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training. On June 25, 2010, the National ICE Council, the union that represents more than 7,000 detention and removal agents within ICE, cast a unanimous vote of no confidence in Director Morton. According to the officers, their vote reflects ``the growing dissatisfaction among ICE employees and union leaders that Director Morton . . . has abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and enforcing public safety and have, instead, directed [his] attention to campaigning for programs and policies leading to amnesty. . . .'' That is not a good thing for the chief immigration law enforcement officer of the country, for his people, the rank and file, putting their necks on the line every day, issuing such a report--and it is true. Unfortunately, it is. In August of 2010, ICE began circulating a draft policy that would significantly limit the circumstances under which ICE agents would take custody of illegal aliens. The memo provides that immigration officers shall issue detainers or official notification to law enforcement agencies that ICE intends to assume custody of the alien only after a law enforcement agency has independently arrested the alien for a criminal violation. A detainer is a big deal. A detainer, if anyone understands how law enforcement works, is a critical component of modern law enforcement. If a State has a charge against an individual, or if the Federal Government has a claim against an individual being held by a different law enforcement agency, they place a detainer on that person and when the arresting jurisdiction completes its work with the person, they are not released on the streets; they are detained until they are turned over to the other legitimate law enforcement agency that has pending charges. If we do not have that, dangerous criminals are released, and it is really an improvement in law enforcement over the last 50 years. This is a diminishment of that, significantly. In effect, no longer will ICE pick up an illegal alien for illegally entering the country or having false identification, or false immigration documents, if they are being held by State and local people for some local crime. On October 8, 2010--according to ICE deportation statistics, from October 2009 through September 2010, the agency deported 390,000 aliens. But most, half of those at least, were people who were convicted of serious criminal offenses, independent of the immigration violations. On December 6, 2010, interviews and internal communications cited in the Washington Post indicated that number, 390,000, was a padded number. First, the article charged that ICE included almost 20,000 removals in fiscal year 2010 that were for the previous year and should not have been counted. It also described how ICE extended a Mexican repatriation program beyond its normal operating dates, which, in effect, added 6,500 removals to the numbers that were not properly added. On March 2, 2011, in a departmental memorandum, Director Morton outlined new enforcement priorities that encouraged ICE agents not to enforce the law against most illegal aliens but only to take action against those who meet his priorities. Director Morton issued a second memorandum on June 17, 2011, further directing ICE agents to refrain from enforcing U.S. immigration laws against certain segments of the illegal population, criteria similar to that under the DREAM Act, despite having no legal or congressional authority to do so and despite the fact that the DREAM Act was three times defeated in Congress. What they did was they altered the enforcement policies of the Federal immigration officers to effect the DREAM Act that had been explicitly offered and rejected in Congress on three different occasions. On June 17, 2011, Director Morton issued a third memorandum, instructing ICE personnel to consider refraining from enforcing the law against individuals engaged in a protected activity----

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair--related to civil or other rights, for example union organizing, complaining about employment discrimination or housing conditions, and who may be in some nonfrivolous dispute with an employer, landlord or contractor. ICE agents were directed not to take action against someone who doesn't pay their rent and has a dispute with their landlord, apparently. They get special exemption. On June 23, 2011, leaders of the national ICE union express outrage over the June 17 administrative amnesty memoranda authored by Director Morton. The law officers say that since the administration was ``unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, [it] is now implementing it through agency policy.'' It also accuses top ICE officials of working ``hand-in-hand'' with the open-borders lobby, while excluding its own officers from the policy development process. In plain words, they are saying the political appointees of ICE are advancing the agenda of those here illegally and maneuvering against their own law officers trying to do their duty. On June 27, 2011, internal memoranda confirm that once the Houston Chronicle on August 24, 2010--exposed DHS' directive to review and dismiss valid deportation cases then in process, ICE officials attempted to publicly distance themselves from such lenient policies and deny that they ever existed. On October 12, 2011, In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Director Morton admits that White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and former National Council of La Raza employee now--White House Domestic Policy Director--Cecilia Munoz, assisted in preparation of the administrative amnesty memoranda. On October 18, 2011, ICE refuses to take any action after the Santa Clara County, California, Board of Supervisors votes 3-1 to stop using county funds to honor ICE detainers, except in limited circumstances. On October 19, 2011, ICE refuses to act after District of Columbia Mayor Vincent C. Gray issues an executive order to prevent D.C. police from enforcing U.S. immigration law. Among other things, the order prohibits all public safety agencies from inquiring about an individual's immigration status or from contacting ICE if there is no nexus to a criminal investigation. On November 22, 2011, ICE refuses to act after Mayor Michael Bloomberg signs a measure ordering all city jails to ignore certain ICE detainers issued to deport illegal aliens from those jails. As a result, New York City jails now release many illegal aliens back into the community instead of handing them over to ICE for removal. On December 15, 2011, without an opportunity to defend itself, and little regard for the maintenance of public safety or the rule of law, DHS rescinds Maricopa County, Arizona's 287(g) agreement--a cooperative agreement whereby local law enforcement receive training in identifying and apprehending illegal aliens. Director Morton tells the Maricopa County Attorney that ICE will no longer respond to calls from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office involving traffic stops, civil infractions or ``other minor offenses.'' However, it is unclear how ICE can refuse to respond to inquiries from the deputies and not directly violate federal law, which requires the federal government to respond to inquiries by law enforcement agencies to verify immigration status. On December 29, 2011, ICE creates a 24-hour hotline for illegal alien detainees to be staffed by the Law Enforcement Support Center--the same organization that ICE says is too understaffed to keep up with immigration status check requests from state and local law enforcement. ICE then revises its detainer form to include a new provision that says ICE should ``consider this request for a detainer operative only upon the subject's conviction.'' This shift in policy to a discretionary ``post-conviction'' model ignores the fact that being in the country illegally is a violation of federal law while simultaneously welcoming criminal aliens back onto the streets. On January 19, 2012, ICE attorneys in Denver and Baltimore recommend that the agency voluntarily close 1,667 removal cases, resulting in the release of illegal aliens already in proceedings without consequence for violating U.S. immigration laws. On February 7, 2012, ICE announces the creation of the ICE Public Advocate, who is to serve as a point of contact for aliens in removal proceedings, community and advocacy groups, and others who have concerns, questions, recommendations, or other issues they would like to raise about the administration's executive enforcement and amnesty efforts. On April 25, 2012, ICE officials announce it has offered to voluntarily close over 16,500 illegal alien deportation cases pending background checks in connection with the administration's review of 300,000 pending immigration cases. The administration also announces that the number of illegal aliens whose cases it has already dismissed is up to 2,700 from just over 1,500 the previous month. On April 27, 2012, ICE shifts its policy on Secure Communities, where local officers report arrests of persons who are here illegally, to stop the enforcement of immigration law against illegal aliens apprehended for ``minor traffic offenses.'' When Secure Communities identifies illegal aliens pursuant to a traffic offense, ICE will no longer ask the local jails to detain the illegal aliens so that ICE may begin deportation proceedings; rather, ICE will only consider detaining an alien if the alien is ultimately convicted of the offense. Moreover, despite claims of limited resources, ICE also announced it plans to take action against jurisdictions with arrest rates the agency deems too high. On June 5, 2012, ICE releases its latest statistics in its case-by- case review of pending deportation cases and states the Agency's attorneys have reviewed over 288,000 cases. Of those reviewed, ICE says it plans to voluntarily dismiss 20,648; it states over 4,300 of these cases have already been processed and the remaining will be closed pending background checks. As I noted earlier, last year, I joined several of my colleagues in a press conference with the President of the ICE Officers Association, Chris Crane. What he said corroborated our worst fears--it was a chilling report about the administration's systematic effort to dismantle our nation's immigration laws. Here is just some of what he had to say: As one example, prosecutorial discretion for [those qualifying for DREAM Act amnesty] is solely based on the individuals' claims. Our orders are, if an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go. Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything. Even with the greatly relaxed new policies, the alien isn't even required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria. There is no requirement, or burden to prove anything, on the part of the alien. We believe that significant numbers of people, who [do not meet DREAM Act criteria], are taking advantage of this practice to avoid arrest. The administration's new policies do not provide officers with new options or increased flexibility, but instead order officers not to enforce laws and not to take enforcement actions against specific groups, with officers under threat of losing their jobs if they do so. We were the only safety net between the community and these [criminal alien] predators, until now. Now, those folks, more and more, are walking out the back doors of these jails. We're walking away from them out in the field, we're encountering them in houses, and we're not allowed to talk to them. We're not allowed to do basic investigative work. And because of that, we're walking away from a lot of bad guys. This is not about individuals who are here to work, or whatever the case may be, there is a much larger problem and everybody is getting wrapped up in the same situation. When you take an officer's ability in the field to distinguish between those types of things, you place the public at risk. The situation is so dire that these brave men and women saw no choice but to file suit against their leadership, including Director Morton. Last Friday, a federal judge ruled that ICE agents and officers have the right to challenge the administrative amnesty policies instituted by Director Morton and President Obama, which command the agents to violate federal law and refrain from detaining most all illegal aliens, or face disciplinary action or worse--losing their jobs. According to the complaint, even violent offenders are eligible for automatic release under these non-enforcement policies. For example, ICE agent Samuel Martin, along with another ICE agent, picked up an illegal alien from the El Paso County, Texas jail on July 17, 2012. While the agents were trying to place the individual in the vehicle, he attempted to escape and physically assaulted the agents. Although the agents regained custody of the alien and transported him to the El Paso Criminal Alien Program office for processing, the agents' supervisors ordered them to release the alien without charges and specifically to not issue a Notice to Appear, as required by federal law. The agents protested the release of the alien but were told ``it was a management decision, based on the President's new immigration policies.'' Anyone with the slightest experience in law enforcement can see that these actions are devastating to law enforcement personnel. Let's take a minute and put ourselves in the position of these agents. Let's say you stop a 34-year old man for speeding. He speaks little English, has no identification, and has no proof that he meets any of the criteria of the President's DREAM Act amnesty. But he knows enough to say he has been in the country since he was a child. You have no way of confirming this or whether he has a criminal record in this or any other country, but you have to let him go. This is what is happening every day. What a devastating indictment of this administration's willful and reckless dismantling of enforcement. On August 3, 2012, I wrote to Director Morton regarding reports that ICE suspended an agent in the Philadelphia field office for arresting a 35-year old Mexican citizen unlawfully present in the U.S. with ten misdemeanor traffic violations, no driver's license, and apparent ties to a fugitive. The alien arrived in the U.S. at the age of 25, meaning that he should not qualify for ``deferred action,'' even under the administration's unlawfully imposed DREAM Act directive. Yet, according to reports, the acting field director, a supervisor, advised the criminal alien that he would be let go because he was not a ``presidential priority.'' On August 15, 2012, Director Morton responded to my letter, stating that the agent was in trouble for failing to obey ``chain of command.'' On September 11, 2012, I responded that the issue was not ``chain of command'' but rather the agent's sworn duties under the law and the administration's ``priorities'' that contradict that sworn obligation. The supervisors' actions in this matter, and Director Morton's support for them, disastrously undermine the effectiveness of our immigration law enforcement officers in the field and their ability to enforce our nation's laws. I stated that his apparent failure to support his officers in these incidents and his evident lack of concern for the administration's decision to nullify the very laws they were sworn to enforce, raised serious questions about his ability to lead the agency. Director Morton never responded to that letter. There is much more that I could say about this, and I have many more examples of actions taken by Mr. Morton that have been demoralizing to our agents. It is just not good as a Federal law officer, and it is not healthy. As I noted earlier, this is what ICE agents are telling us they have essentially been told: If an individual claims DREAM Act status--even though it never passed into law--they are directed to let them go on the spot. It is an evisceration of the law of the United States. Mr. Morton has no authority to do so, and he should not be doing that. A huge percentage of the people who are arrested are in their thirties or below. How are you going to tell? They make the assertion, they make the claim, and--according to the testimony and statements of these officers--they are told to accept that statement, accept that claim, and not detain or deport the person they have apprehended. The ICE union vote of no confidence and the detailed charges against ICE's leadership are corroborated by those inside the administration who are afraid to speak out because they fear retaliation by the Obama administration. That is a sad state of affairs. In the coming days, these facts and more will come to light. The administration has to realize there can be no comprehensive immigration reform as long as it is the policy of the Director of ICE, John Morton, to refuse to enforce existing law. We can't have an agreement. That is why, given everything that we have learned, Director Morton cannot continue in office.

Mr. SESSIONS. We cannot make progress on immigration reform as long as the man in charge of enforcing our laws continues to undermine those very laws and the efforts and work of his own agents, and refuses to act to protect them even when they have been assaulted by people. Aliens who have been released have assaulted agents. As I noted, ICE agents have filed a lawsuit against Director Morton for undermining their ability to do their sworn duty, and the court has just recently upheld the validity of that lawsuit to go forward, and it is now going forward. These officers are suing Mr. Morton. So the Federal Government is abdicating its responsibility. It is violating the laws of the United States. It is punishing officers who try to do their duty. They are creating a larger illegal population in this country. They are encouraging more people to come to the country by not enforcing our laws, and at a time of high unemployment, the result is we are lowering wages and creating more unemployment. They are suing States who try to cooperate. They are explicitly eviscerating the 287(g) program--a program I worked hard on a decade ago and was expanded--to train State law enforcement officers who can help the Federal agents to do their jobs. Now the President is making a speech today in Las Vegas, taking 9 hours to get out there, I understand, to make a speech. He is saying again, I guess: Trust me. We need to change the law, and then I will enforce it. Then we will have our people follow the rules that you passed. Well, this failure to deal in good faith and to actually follow the laws that Congress has passed is one of the biggest obstacles we face. We just have to say it. It is one of the biggest obstacles we face in being able to craft some sort of reform of our immigration laws and make it worthy of a great nation. We are a nation of immigrants. We believe in immigration. But we believe in the law. We believe that people should wait their turn and people should be able to be accepted here--over 1 million a year--in an orderly process, not a disorderly process, and that we shouldn't be rewarding those who violate the law and making it even harder for those who comply with the law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand I might be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask I be notified after 12 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know there is a group of Senators who announced today that they have ideas, a plan, an outline, and a framework for a new comprehensive immigration bill. Indeed, the fact that our current immigration system is not working effectively and is failing on a daily basis cannot be denied. It certainly needs to be fixed. It is a challenge for us to do so and it will not be easy. I want to warn my colleagues that a framework is not a bill. In 2006 and 2007, with the full support of the Republican President of the United States, a bipartisan group announced with great confidence that they had a plan that was going to fix our immigration system and we were all going to just line up and vote for it. The masters of the universe had decided, met in secret, had all the special interest groups gathered and worked out a plan that was going to change our immigration system for the better, and we should all be most grateful. It came up in 2006, and it did not pass. It came back again in 2007 with even more emphasis, and it failed colossally. It failed because it did not do what they said it would do. It did not end the illegality, it did not set forth a proper principle of immigration for America, and it did not sufficiently alter the nature of our immigration system to advance the national interest of the United States. It did not, and that is why it didn't pass. They had all the powerful forces, including the TV and newspaper guys, the Wall Street guys, the agriculture guys, the civil rights group, La Raza, and the politicians. But the American people said no. It was a challenge, and there was a long debate, but it didn't pass. I thought the lesson learned from that was there needs to be a demonstration that the law is being enforced, end the illegality, and then we can wrestle with how to compassionately treat people who have been in America a long time. I thought that was kind of what we had decided. Now my colleagues say: Don't worry, this is going to be a better piece of legislation that can work for us. I hope that is true. We do need to fix the immigration system. There are things we can do on a bipartisan, nonpartisan basis which would make our country's immigration policy better and more effective, and I hope that is what will result from this. But no one should expect that Members of the Senate are just going to rubberstamp what a group of Members have decided. We are not going to just rubberstamp what the President of the United States has just decided because we need to analyze it. Each one of us, every Member of this Senate has a responsibility, a firm duty to evaluate this proposal to ensure that it enhances our ability as a nation to do the right thing. We are a nation of immigrants, and we are going to continue to be a nation of immigrants. We admit over 1 million people into our country every single year legally. But now we are told that after 1986, when they had that immigration bill, that amnesty bill, that we have allowed 11 million more people, give or take a few million, into the country illegally. They have entered the country illegally. In 1986 Congress promised the American people that if they would give amnesty to the people who were here and who entered illegally, they would stop illegal immigration in the future and we wouldn't face this challenge again. In fact, our colleagues basically said that in their piece they put out promoting the bill: We are never going to have to worry about immigration again if Members pass our legislation. That was the promise made in 1986 when the bill did pass, but it did not fulfill its promise. So once again I think we are in a situation where the promise will be made that people will be given immediate regularized status and they won't be given full rights of citizenship until certain laws are enforced, and don't worry about it--it is all going to work out sometime off in the distant future. But questions do need to be asked, and we will ask those questions, and it will be important for us to do the right thing. I know there are people who like low wages. I know there are people who believe that it is hard to get Americans to do certain jobs and that we can use immigrants and they will do those jobs at less pay and ask fewer questions and demand fewer benefits. I know that is out there. We have talked about that in the past. I am hoping this legislation is not designed for the special interests but designed to advance American interests. What are some of the principles I think need to be in this system? I like Canada's system of immigration. It seems to work very well. They ask a number of questions. They give points when one applies to come into Canada, and a person gets more points for meeting the goals they have. One of the goals they have is that the potential immigrant speak the language. In Canada, they have two--French and English. If a person speaks French or English, they get more points or maybe they don't even get in if they don't have some grasp of the language before they come in on a permanent basis. Then they give more points, more preference to people with education, skills they need in Canada. This proposal suggests it does that. It should do that. It should be a major part of any immigration reform that focuses on trying to get people who will be most successful in America, the ones we know are going to be able to do better here. The plan should not admit a person who is likely to be a public charge. However, that is already the current law. A person is not supposed to be admitted to America if they are likely to be a public charge; that is, they will need government aid to take care of themselves. Some people will be turned down because of this. We should take the ones who are not going to be a public charge. We discovered in looking at the numbers recently that less than one- tenth of 1 percent of applicants that come to the United States are turned down on the basis that they might be a public charge. So, in effect, that is not being enforced. Basically, it is just not being enforced. So how can we be sure of that? My friend Stephen Moore was on the TV today. He is at the Wall Street Journal. He said: You don't have to worry about people coming in and being a public charge. There is a law against that. Well, Mr. Moore, there may be a law against it, but it is not being enforced. We need to know it is going to be enforced in the future. Younger people in Canada get a priority. Pretty soon, people will be on Social Security and Medicare when they reach those ages. Shouldn't we as a rational nation look to give priority to younger people who will work a little longer and pay more into the system before they draw these benefits? They give preferences to investors, those who create jobs and bring factories and manufacturing to their country. Those are the kinds of things I think we ought to be talking about. This proposal makes reference to guest workers. It is a very delicate issue. Let me tell my colleagues what was in the bill in 2007 and the reason. In my mind, it was one of the greater errors in the legislation. People would come into the country for 3 years. They could bring their families. If they were still working at the place at which they came in to work, they could extend for another 3 years and then another 3 years and then another 3 years. So I would ask, somebody who had been in the country 8, 9, 10 years, could we just easily ask them to leave? Not likely. What if they have had two children and the children are automatic citizens? This is a very impractical system. So we need to examine how a guest worker plan will actually be carried out. In my view, a guest worker should come without family for less than a year at a time to do seasonal--to do particular work and then return to their country. Otherwise, we create an entirely new system, and it will be very difficult to enforce. We need to know pretty much what the Nation can rightly absorb in terms of the number of people who come each year, and as a result of that, we need to make sure any legislation has a limit that would make common sense in the world in which we live. Finally, I would say that we face a particular hurdle this time. We faced this hurdle last time, but I believe it is even more serious this time. That is, if the chief law enforcement officer of the country-- then President Bush, now President Obama--President Obama has particularly acted to undermine the ability of the law enforcement community to actually enforce existing laws----

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have voted unanimously ``no confidence'' in Mr. John Morton, the Director of ICE, because of his failure to lead and his, in fact, undermining of their ability to do their jobs, and they sued him for interfering with their ability to do their jobs in enforcing the laws of this country. Actually, a federal court just recently upheld the lawsuit and allowed it to proceed. What a terrible thing it is that law enforcement officers have to sue their leadership to be able to do their jobs. So we need to be sure we have in the President someone who is committed to enforcing the law if it is passed. If that had been so, we would be in a lot better position today. I see my colleague from Louisiana, and I believe he is to be recognized next. He has been such a good student of this issue. He is a fabulous lawyer, editor of the Tulane Law Review, and he understands this, and I am really glad he could be here today. There is one more thing I would note. In addition to the fact that we have a President less willing to enforce the law, the labor participation rate in 2007 when the last comprehensive reform bill that included amnesty was defeated was 66 percent. Today, labor participation has dropped to 63.6 percent. Unemployment in 2007, when the last proposal failed, was 4.5 percent. It is now 7.9 percent. So I think we need to ask serious questions about any proposal, and maybe we can move forward with some legislation that would serve the national interests. Maybe we can do it on a bipartisan basis, but it is going to take real attention to details. The details are what make the difference, and that is what I am concerned about. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I was pleased to hear a few days ago that Senator Schumer said we would have a budget in the Senate. It has been now, I think, about 1,370 days, give or take, since we have had a budget in the Senate, even though plain statutory law requires the Congress to have a budget. Now Senator Murray has followed up today, I believe, with a quote saying: ``. . . the Senate will once again return to regular order and move a budget resolution through the Budget Committee and to the Senate floor.'' So the Budget Committee has not been meeting. It has not been doing its duty. As the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I have been aghast at the process and have talked about it for now for over 1,000 days. So this will be a good step. My colleagues would like to suggest somehow that they decided to do this out of the goodness of their hearts because it is the right thing to do. But I think the American people have had a belly full of this. The U.S. House of Representatives has repeatedly passed budgets, but the Senate has refused to even bring one up in committee or on the floor for over 2 years now. They have said they are raising the debt limit for about 3 months, but they have declared that the Senate does not get paid until we have a budget. Right now there is no punishment for not passing a budget. I was a Federal prosecutor for over 15 years and know how to read a code. It has no penalty for failing to pass a budget. It says the Senate should bring up a budget. It should complete the budget process in committee by April 1 and then the full Senate should take it up and it should be completed by April 15. The Senate is given priority: 50 hours of debate, virtually unlimited amendments--an opportunity to debate the financial condition of America. That is why it has not happened. Senator Reid, the Democratic leader for the last several years, has said it would be foolish to have a budget. What he meant was that it would be foolish politically. Because when you bring up a budget, this is a tough thing. The House did that. Paul Ryan offered a historic budget that would change the debt course of America and put us on a sound path. They had to make some tough choices. So they were, of course, attacked in the election--Oh, these are horrible people; they want to throw old people off the cliff and that kind of thing and it was irresponsible--while during this entire process, the Senate was in direct violation of Federal law that required us to bring up a budget. We did not bring it up because it would be foolish, foolish politically, because we have to take tough votes. We have to stand and be counted. Numbers have to be analyzed: How much are you truly going to raise taxes? Oh, well, is that going to change the debt course? Is this latest $600 billion tax increase going to change the debt course of America? No; it is not. Our deficit last year was about $1,080 billion. How much would this tax increase, this $600 billion, have changed that? That is $60 billion a year. Instead of $1,080 billion or so in deficit, our deficit would have been $1,020 billion. Is that going to fix our problem? No, it will not. These are difficult problems. These are very difficult problems, and it is not going to be easy. But it was easy to attack the House while not producing a budget. It is a pretty flabbergasting thing to me. So I am glad we are now going to have this process. It will not be easy for Republicans. It will not be easy for Democrats. But what are we paid to do? What responsibility do we have as the Congress--that has the power of the purse--if not discussing the great issues of our time? We are on an unsustainable debt path. Last year there was another trillion-dollar deficit, and they are projecting we will have a trillion-dollar deficit this year. That is 5 consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits. I know President Bush was criticized, and correctly sometimes, for spending too much. The highest deficit he ever had in 8 years was $470 billion. The year before he left it was $160 billion. President Obama has averaged well over $1,000 billion a year in an annual deficit ever since. This is not sustainable, as every expert has told us time and time again. So I am worried about it. Maybe we can move out of these secret meetings where the Senate just sits around and we wait for the people to appear, write us a bill at midnight on December 31--actually 1 a.m. on January 1--that is supposed to handle it and nobody has even read it. That is what we have been doing for the last 4 years. It has worked out good politically because it has kept an honest discussion of the dangerous path we are on from being part of the public debate. We have to have it part of the public debate. I am not saying this budget, if it moves through the Senate, is going to solve our problems and that it will be adopted. I am not saying that. But I do believe the American people will understand better the challenges we face and Senators will understand better the challenges we face, how deep they are, how systemic they are. In 2011, after Republicans won a victory in the midterm elections, there was hope we would have a new budget from the President, that he would reach out to the House that had gotten a Republican majority for a change--they took back the majority, and there were more Republicans in the Senate--and that the President was going to produce a budget that would put us on the right path and maybe a historic path that would help make Social Security and Medicare sustainable, preserve those programs so people can go to bed at night and feel confident these programs not going to go bankrupt and there are not going to be dramatic cuts. We can do that. It would take some belt-tightening, but we could do that. Yet the administration refused: You are just partisan, Sessions. I am saying, without fear of contradiction by anybody who knows what has happened, that this administration basically has not wanted to talk about those deep spending issues that amount to more than half the money we spend. That was a challenge. Maybe that logjam has broken and this budget process will give us an opportunity to move forward. I do not like to be critical of nominees or anyone. I try to be as courteous and respectful as we can to people whom we deal with on a regular basis in the Congress. But I have to share with my colleagues a deep feeling that we have a serious credibility problem with credibility on debt and financing. We have to end that credibility problem. We have to be honest and deal with real numbers. In January of 2011, Mr. Jack Lew, the then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget, with a substantial staff--one of their primary duties is to produce a budget every year--submitted the President's Budget to Congress. The President always submits a budget--it has been late, but they have always sent them over. The Senate has not moved budgets like it is required to, but every President has always sent over a budget. There was great hope that the budget would be the kind of breakthrough--with a Republican House and a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate--that somehow this would be an opportunity for historic agreement to put America on a sound path and get us off these trillion-dollar deficits, put us on a path to a balanced budget and do the kind of things that are necessary for the welfare of our country. Mr. Lew produced the budget, and he went on television immediately and talked about it. On Wednesday of that week, he was going to be before the Budget Committee, but this is what he said in his CNN Sunday morning interview about his budget. I would ask you to listen to these words, colleagues and friends, anybody who is watching, and see what they mean to you. He said: Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we're spending money that we have each year-- Money that we have each year-- and then we can work on bringing down our national debt. That was on CNN. So he appeared before the Budget Committee and I asked him if that was an accurate statement; did he stand by that. He said: Yes, sir, and he never wavered from that. I will just say that as part of the budget process we get a stack of documents--this much--from Mr. Lew's office. The Office of Management and Budget submits them--supporting documents--as part of their process. They are easily ascertainable. The numbers are not in dispute. The lowest single deficit over 10 years that Mr. Lew projected was more than $600 billion. In other words, there was never a balanced budget, never paying down the debt, never a single year we were not borrowing at least $600 billion. None of what he said is accurate. It is breathtaking. I called it the greatest financial misrepresentation in history. It would have added $13 trillion to the debt of the United States over 10 years, by his own estimate, not stuff I made up. Yet he said we are not going to be adding to the debt anymore. So I thought, if a businessman reported to potential stock purchasers, our company is on the right track, we are not adding to our debt anymore--we are going to look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore, we are spending only money we have--you are borrowing--the least amount of money you have borrowed in a single year is $600 billion, larger than President Bush ever had in 8 years as President. When I asked him about it, he insisted that it was true. So we have got a problem here, and that is why I am not going to support Mr. Lew for the Secretary of the Treasury. I am not going to vote for him. I believe he knew exactly what he was saying. He produced a budget that was panned by virtually every editorial board in America. They hammered it as failing to meet the challenge of our time, and he knew it was that way. He is not a person who doesn't understand these issues. He knew what it was all about. But they decided they would go out and spin it this way. They would say it did what the American people wanted. I hate to be this harsh, but there is only one conclusion. They decided to produce a budget that did not change the debt course of America and left us on an unsustainable path. Even their own numbers show that, but they would tell the American people this, say it was fixed, and maybe lull them into a false sense of confidence. Then they attacked Paul Ryan of the Republican House for producing a realistic budget. It wasn't a dramatic budget, it didn't even balance in 10 years, but it changed us and put us on a sound path. They would attack him as not caring about people, and for 2 years that is what has happened. Once we bring a budget to the floor of this Senate, Republicans and Democrats are going to find out this is a very difficult situation we are in. The challenge is going to be very difficult, and we are going to have a hard time dealing with it. Mr. Lew didn't just make that comment to CNN, in case you think I am exaggerating here. He also said this in an NPR, National Public Radio, interview on February 15, 2011, the day, I believe, of a Budget Committee hearing: If we're able to reduce the deficit to the point where we can pay for our spending and invest in the future, that is an enormous accomplishment. This budget has specific proposals that would do that. He looked the American people in the eye, or, I guess, talked to their ears on NPR, and said his ``budget has specific proposals'' that would put us in a position to pay for our spending and invest in the future and reduce our deficit. He went on to say on February 15, 2011, at the Budget Committee hearing--and I think this was my question, Was this an accurate statement that you made, Mr. OMB Director? He said: It's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt. We've stopped spending money that we don't have. I mean, I almost can't read those words without the hair standing up on the back of my neck. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget appeared before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and he said, ``it's an accurate statement,'' this baloney, ``it's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt . . . We've stopped spending money that we don't have.'' Nothing could be further from the truth--the lowest single deficit was $600 billion. What about on a different CNN interview on February 14, 2011: It [the budget] takes real actions now so that between now and 5 years from now we can get our deficit under control so that we can stabilize things so that we're not adding to the debt anymore. He promised, and looked the American people in the eye and said, in 5 years, we are not going to be adding to the debt anymore. He knew exactly what he was saying. He knew exactly what he wanted the American people to hear. There is no ambiguity about it, and it was utterly false. February 13, 2011, on ABC, he said: This budget has a lot of pain, [but] it does the job, it cuts the deficit in half by the end of the President's first term . . . It's going to take us a lot of hard work just to take us to the point where we're not adding to the debt. There is not one year that they are not adding to the debt. In the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth years of the budget that Jack Lew presented, when you look at his real numbers, the deficit was going up each year. So it was not a fix to our debt problem. Then he says this on the White House blog, February 13, 2011: Like every family, we have to tighten our belts and live within our means while we're investing in the things that we need to have a strong and secure future . . . We know that you have to stabilize where we're going before you can move on and solve the rest of the problem. This budget does that. So it is going to stabilize us and move us forward. Well, as I say, that was not well received. The New York Times wrote this on February 5, 2011. That was his op-ed. I won't go into the editorials, but a whole list of those were critical of Mr. Lew. I would just say this, we are in a difficult financial position. We need honesty, we need a budget that is truthful, we need the regular order so the Budget Committee does its work, and then it comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate--this will be first time in over a thousand days--it guarantees 50 hours of debate, it can't be filibustered, it can be passed with a simple majority, we will know what is in it, and people can offer amendments. That is what should have been happening for a long time that has not been happening. That is what the law requires, and that should be completed by April 15 of this year. As we go forward, I am confident that we will be better served by public discussion of our debt, not secret meetings. I have been critical of them. I had hoped that some of them would ripen into some good solutions, but all we have had is temporary ``kick the can down the road'' maneuvers, and nothing substantial has been done to change the debt course of America. By the way, when Mr. Erskine Bowles, whom President Obama appointed to head his fiscal commission, saw this budget in 2011, he said it goes nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare. Everybody knew this budget wouldn't do the job, and that is why it was never brought through the process, and that is why it wasn't brought to the floor for a full budget analysis in committee and in debate on the floor. So as we go forward, I will be meeting with our new chairman, Senator Murray. She is a great, tough advocate for her values, but she is a good person to work with. I have told her we will try to work with her, but we are going to talk about the great issues of our time, the difficulties we face, and see if we can't make this system work better and try to put this country on a sound financial footing. We can do it. We can get this country on a sound path. It is not impossible, but anybody who thinks it will be easy is wrong. This is going to take some hard work. As we do that in a bipartisan, open way in the committee, on the floor of the Senate, the American people will be able to digest the difficulty of some of our challenges, and so will our Members in Congress. In the end, that, I think, leaves us in the best position to reach the kind of agreement, compromise, solution, that can put us on the right path, because everybody is going to have to swallow a little bit. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I am so pleased to see that Senator Conrad is here, that I could follow him. I had another subject I wanted to speak about, an important subject. But it is very important for all Americans to know how well he has served. Senator Conrad is one of the very small group of people in this country who understands the debt challenges we face. He has been on the debt commission. He has been the budget chairman. He staked his first election on dealing with these issues, as he has explained to us. I truly believe if he had a little more support, maybe, from his caucus and others, his vision could have been a real part of the solution we would make to this debt crisis. We are not that far apart when you consider the true challenges this Nation faces financially. I remember a little over 2 years ago now, when the Senator called the debt commission cochairman, Erskine Bowles before the budget committee. He gave a speech and written testimony, which said this Nation has never faced a more predictable financial crisis. I remember the Senator asked the cochairman when we might have this financial crisis if we don't change our ways. He replied, it could be 2 years, as close as 2 years. That was 2 years ago, over 2 years ago now. I think, Senator Conrad, we have maybe gotten a little overconfident. People were telling us we were on an unsustainable course, we were facing a potential crisis, the Rogoff and Reinhart book came out and said that our debt reaches 90 percent of GDP, and all that was discussed and we had a lot of excitement about it, and we did not act. We did not act in a significant way. In times gone by, maybe people thought the crisis is never going to happen, but I think the Senator agrees the potential for it to happen is just as real, if not more so, than it was 2 years ago. I want to say this. We did not always agree. The Senator didn't always agree with my views and I understand that. But the Senator allowed the minority on the committee to have its voice heard, to ask our questions, and the Senator called some great hearings. We had some of the best minds in the country provide testimony before the budget committee. The Senator allowed and called the administration witnesses and we were able to examine them about how they were managing the country's money. The Senator allowed that to happen in the great tradition of the Senate where we have open debate and honest questioning. The Senator was always a perfect gentleman, and always able, as I think the Presiding Officer would acknowledge, to give a little levity to a tense situation. The Senator has a great sense of humor that really endeared him to me. So I will say to Senator Conrad, thank you for your service. I believe every member of the budget committee, Republican and Democrat, appreciated the Senator's leadership. I know they did. I know the staff also respected the Senator's leadership. We had a great time working with the Senator's professional team. The Senator served his country exceedingly well dealing with the greatest issue we face today, our financial debt situation. I hope and I am confident the Senator will remain active, that he will not be silent, that he will provide continual input and advice to the Members of Congress as we wrestle with these tough issues.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will repeat my admiration and affection for the Senator from North Dakota and appreciation for his leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield briefly for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Alabama.

Mr. SESSIONS. I know the Senator does.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for his advocacy, but I do believe that final vote to change the rule was by a two-thirds vote. If you get a two-thirds vote, you can impose your will--when we do it. The question is, Can you change the rule by a simple majority? I would say the Constitution does not say what the vote level should be, and it may be possible lawfully to ignore the Senate rule that says it takes a two-thirds vote to change the rules on the first day of session. It may be possible legally to do that. But I would urge my colleagues not to do that. Just for short-term political gain, we are going to change the historic rules of the Senate, changing the rules of debate in this kind of way? It would be a dangerous alteration of the nature of the Senate, as so many of our more seasoned colleagues have warned us. I will just urge you not to do that. I will say to both of my fine colleagues that an offer has been made, one I think I am not real happy with, by Senator McConnell. Negotiations are under way now to try to resolve some of the difficulties that are ongoing. But I would urge you to pull back and not pull the trigger on what has been called the nuclear option--to use a simple majority to change the rules of the Senate--which could change the very nature of how we do business and the qualities of the Senate that make it different from the House. That is my concern there. So the filling of the tree--one more thing I would like to say about that. I had a chart on it. I think Trent Lott used filling the tree eleven times; Bill Frist, fifteen; it was used one or two times by previous majority leaders. But it has grown, and Senator Reid has filled the tree 70 times already. Basically, without going into details, filling the amendment tree allows the majority leader to block amendments. Historically, there was no limit on amendments in the Senate. If a Senator had an amendment, he came to the floor and offered the amendment, and he would try to be courteous and not abuse his power, but he got a vote on the issues he believed were important. We should not limit that. We should not have the majority leader rejecting certain amendments because he does not like them. Really the reason he rejects them is they are often tough amendments, uncomfortable votes for the Members of his conference, and he does not want a vote on a tough issue. So, he blocks it from ever being voted on to protect the Members from that. I heard Senator Merkley--I see him on the floor--talk about his vision for a more open Senate. I have heard him talk about how he conducted himself as the speaker of the house in his home State and how it was more vigorous in debate, in open debate. In sum, my colleagues, this is what has happened: The biggest change by far, the thing that is causing the angst in the Senate and disrupting the Senate--other than the majority's fundamental determination to avoid responsibility and avoid voting on the tough issues of this country; and that is a big one, and I have detailed that--but the fundamental thing is, this majority leader is consistently using the device of filling the tree to block the free flow of amendments, to reject certain amendments he does not like, and control the Senate in a way that is contrary to our history, contrary to our tradition, and contrary to the public interest. We are having too much of the majority leader bringing up bills like this last fiscal cliff legislation. I warned months ago we were going to end up at the 11th hour and 59th minute. I wrote in the Wall Street Journal a month ago, they are waiting until the 11th hour, the 59th minute to bring up the bill so you have no amendments, you do not even get to read the thing--do not even get to read it. You get a summary of it--have to vote yes or no--or we go over the cliff. That is not the way this business ought to be done. So I urge my good, vigorous colleagues, who believe in debate and openness, not to shut off debate, not to move in that direction, to focus on an open process by which these matters are debated openly and the American people can determine whom they agree with. They might not like what I have to say. They might vote me out of office. I am sure it would make a lot of people happy.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to say some things that are pretty hard right now. I say them out of affection and concern for the Senate of the United States and for the way we are conducting the people's business. I believe they ought to be heard and all of us ought to think about them. Some of our new Members have not been involved in a Senate that functioned differently than the one in which we are participating today. They do not know how a real Senate should operate. We have gradually, and at a very accelerated pace in more recent years, made some very unwise choices about how we do the people's business. This has been the most dysfunctional Senate in history. The majority has abused and altered the powers and duties of the Senate more than at any time in history, to the detriment of the institution and to the detriment of the public interest. That is a hard thing to say, but I truly believe something very unfortunate has been occurring and people have not talked about it. I would also criticize the Republicans a bit here because we are supposed to be the loyal opposition. The majority always has pressures on it to advance an agenda and the loyal opposition has the duty to advocate for its views and make sure the institution is handled in a way that protects the institution as the majority seeks to advance its agenda. Frankly, I do not think we have done a good enough job at that. But I would say the majority is using tactics--I refer to them as postmodern tactics--to advance an agenda. And in so doing has done damage to the institution. Our leader, Senator Reid, will not acknowledge a single error in his aggressive leadership and movement of legislation. He simply blames all the problems on Republicans who, he says, are obstructing his vision, his goals, and the agenda that he and his team want to advance. Not satisfied that these actions have brought the Senate to one of its lowest levels of public respect in history, if not the lowest, the majority party is now demanding even more power. The majority leader and the majority are threatening to violate the rules of the Senate and change the rules of the Senate so they can grab even more power. I would say the majority leader himself has obtained more power than any leader in history, and now it appears that he is asking for more. We don't like to talk about this. We are reluctant to talk about what is happening and be as critical as I am today, but in fact we have been silent too long. The bottom line is that this issue is not just about politics. This issue is about the historic role of the Senate and our constitutional order. This Senate is not functioning as it should, and that is for sure; we all may agree on that. The question is, Why? Perhaps it was due to the 2010 election when the Democrats took a shellacking and lost six Senate seats. At that point there seemed to be a doubling down of the desire and ability of the majority leadership to dominate this institution. Actual Senate rules and actual codified law--and certainly the traditions of the Senate--were eroded. They were changed and run over. The Republicans who fought back were called obstructionists. I don't know, but maybe when someone has been in power for a long time--as the leadership and the Democratic side has--they begin to think they are entitled to get all these things done. They believe they are entitled to bring up bills and not have Senators offer amendments so they can slow down the train and pick and choose what amendments the opposition can offer and how long they can debate. Maybe this goes in their mind in a way that when they get in that cocoon of power, everybody becomes an obstructionist when they simply insist on the rules of the Senate. I always thought one of Senator Reid's charms--the old Harry Reid I knew--was that he could actively and aggressively talk politically and stick it to the opposition. He always got to the point. Sometimes I could admire his skills. He could do it with a smile. We all tolerate a little political license and a certain amount of political exaggeration in the world we live in, but I thought Senator Reid would not seek to advance powers beyond what he understood were the limits of the majority in the Senate because he has been in the minority, and he has operated there. He had to fight for his rights to have full minority rights. So I am a little baffled. I am not sure I understand this new Senator Reid, and I am not sure all of the decisions he is making are good. Now we are talking about a nuclear option that would break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate. That is a very dangerous thing, and I do not believe it is necessary. Let me describe what is happening. I want to make a complaint about how this Senate has been operating. I said it is dysfunctional. The majority has said the reason it is dysfunctional is because Republicans object too much and they are obstructionists. Let me point out some of the things that are actually occurring. First, I would dispute that. I don't believe it is accurate that Republicans object too much and are obstructionists. I don't believe Republicans are any more vigorous in their defense of their ideas than the Democrats were when they were in the minority when I came to the Senate 16 years ago. I know they were not. So it is the little constraints that we operate under every day, such as rules, tradition, actual statutory law that controls how we conduct our business that are being eroded, gone around, and run over. These are the things that make the institution what it is. A person has to be able to accept the fact that those who disagree with them have at least some power and a right to have their voices and ideas heard and their amendments brought up. That is one of the great traditions of the Senate. So I say--sort of metaphorically--I am going to tack on the walls of the Senate a few charges. I don't take pleasure in this, but it is time to tell the truth about it. First, to a degree unknown in the history of the Senate, the majority leader has used his power under rule XIV to bring bills straight to the floor without normal committee process. They are violating and avoiding the process that goes on in committee where Members offer amendments, have debates, call expert witnesses, and consider these things. It may take weeks or months, but finally a bill ripens and it is then brought to the floor. The majority leader does have the power under rule XIV to bring a bill to the floor without having had that committee process. The committee process is public, the debate is transcribed, and the amendments in the committee are voted on and recorded. It holds the Senators accountable so the public and their constituents know what they have done, how a bill is progressing, and at the end of the day whether they think they like it or not. For example, this last-minute fiscal cliff tax legislation didn't go through the committee process. It was a big, important piece of legislation. We have a finance committee that is supposed to debate and decide tax issues. That did not occur with this bill. Additionally, no amendments were allowed to this bill--because it was brought directly to the floor by the majority leader. It is a very bad process. We are too often using midnight-hour votes to ram through big, historic legislation that has never been fully debated. We didn't even have an opportunity to fully read the legislation the night before last. That is not the way to run the Senate. What we know now from a preliminary estimate from the Congressional Research Service is that 58 percent of the bills which came to the floor of the Senate did not come through committee during this Congress. Nearly 60 percent of the legislation was not brought through traditional Senate committee procedures, and that is not good. Second, the majority leader and the majority were quick to block President Bush's recess appointment attempts. Some of them were dubious; some of them were probably OK. They had the majority. They have done nothing to defend the Senate's historic and constitutional role when President Obama made a much more blatant recess appointment. The institution itself was weakened by this act. The Senate has to defend its legitimate confirmation powers, and there is a limit on the President's ability to initiate recess appointments. The majority leader--righteous to defend it against President Bush-- who is now the leader of this institution, has allowed President Obama to weaken the confirmation process. That goes beyond just the politics of the moment. Maybe it furthers a long-term agenda, but clearly does harm to the long-term interest of the Senate. Third, the majority has directly violated the formal role of the Senate and plain statutory law that requires the Senate to produce a budget every year. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 sets up a public legislative process--a public process--by which both the House and Senate must openly confront the Nation's fiscal challenges every year and lay out a plan. For 3 years the majority in this Senate has refused to comply with the law simply to avoid public accountability. The majority leader said it would be foolish to have a budget. Those are his words. Senator Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, was clearly uneasy about this. Senator Conrad was determined--at least in his committee, which I serve on with him--to bring up a budget. We were going to discuss it, mark it up, and then it would be up to the majority leader whether he would ever bring it to the floor because he didn't bring it to the floor the year before. We have now gone 3 years without bringing a budget to the floor. Apparently, the majority had a caucus within a day of the Budget Committee markup occurring. My staff had studied it, made amendments, and we were going to offer ideas to the budget. But the markup was canceled. Only a shell of this matter went forward. There were no votes, no formal budget process or budget offered. That is directly contrary to the statute of the United States. The Budget Act requires an open process with committee votes, floor votes, and 50 hours of debate in which Senators who propose or oppose a budget have to do so publicly and with accountably. People should be able to offer amendments so we can have a vote on them. Senator Reid was thinking it was foolish to have his Members actually have to vote on concrete budget proposals. He didn't want them to do so. Apparently, the previous election had not gone well enough, and he wanted to protect his Members from those votes. That is what he meant by being foolish. It was foolish politically for the Democratic Party, but certainly we know it was not foolish for the American people that the Senate would actually discuss the financial future of our country and bring up a budget. A budget can be passed with a simple majority. Republicans cannot filibuster a budget. They get to offer amendments-- for a change around here--but they don't get to filibuster it. They get an up-or-down vote--50 votes--after 50 hours of debate. The leader violated plain statutory law, which requires us to have a budget by April 15 because he didn't want his Members to be accountable, but he blames Republicans for being obstructionists. Fourth, for the first time in history, the Senate has abdicated the most fundamental requirement of Congress: responsible management of the money that the American people send here. We violated that requirement. Not a single appropriations bill was brought to the floor this year-- not 1. That is the first time in history. We researched this--there has never been a time in history when not a single appropriations bill was brought up before the Senate. Frequently we don't get them all done, so then a continuing resolution has to be passed to keep the government from being shut down. Congress is supposed to pass the appropriations bills telling the President, and all his Cabinet people, how much money they have to spend in the next fiscal year that begins October 1 of every year. The President cannot spend any money Congress has not appropriated. That is a fundamental requirement of the Senate. That is not just an idle idea, it is a fundamental requirement. So we get to the end of the year and nothing has been done so we passed a continuing resolution, a CR. We stacked 13 bills--1,000-plus pages of spending--in one continuing resolution, and we just funded the government with no amendments, no debate, and no discussion for 6 months. That is no way to run a government. Each one of those bills is supposed to be brought up: defense, highways, education, health care. People who have amendments are supposed to bring up ways to save money or spend more money on each one of those bills, and we are supposed to vote on them. For the first time in history we did not do that. Perhaps this was a clever political maneuver. It avoided public debate and public accountability because we had an election coming up in November and we don't want to vote before an election. Another example is the Defense Authorization Bill. The fiscal year concluded this year without us passing the Defense Bill. The Senate has passed the Defense Bill for 50 consecutive years. Yet, just a few weeks ago, well after the elections, we were finally able to pass the Defense bill. The House has sent over a budget that lays out a firm financial course for America. They voted on that budget in public. They were prepared to defend and explain their budget. It would have changed the debt course of America. But what did the Senate do? Nothing. Did Republicans filibuster the budget? Did they block a budget from being brought up? No. Republicans demanded that we go through the process. We pleaded with them to have a budget hearing in the committee. We asked them to bring up the budget and noted that they have the power to pass a budget with a simple majority. That is a burden a majority party has, really--to bring up a budget and pass it. It is not easy. It is a challenge. But it is the first time we have ever gone 3 years--or maybe the first time ever we have gone through the situation in which they refused to even bring up a budget. We have had budgets fail in the past, but we haven't had one, to my knowledge, where we just go for years and refuse to even bring one up. In that secret Budget Control Act deal, we set spending limits on most of the discretionary spending caps, but that is not a budget. There were no amendments. There were no public discussions, no committee hearings, no floor debate, no 50 hours to deal with the great issues of our time. One more point. The majority leader has been trigger-happy in filing cloture motions. We have altered the way the Senate operates. We have to plead with somebody to be able to get an amendment in the Senate today. It is amazing. This goes against the history of this institution. The two great guarantees in the Senate, as Robert Byrd, the great majority leader and historian of the Senate, has said, are the right to debate and the right to amend. Those are fundamental. We are seeing an erosion of both. So what does this cloture motion do? Senator Reid said: I am going to bring up a certain bill, and the Republicans can have five amendments. Well, we have 15 amendments we want to debate--maybe more--on a bill. Somebody reminded me that the Panama Canal bill had 80 votes to give away the Panama Canal. It eventually got two-thirds votes and passed. It went through weeks of debate and lots of amendments. That is what the Senate is about. Now they say no amendments. So that begins to cause a problem. The majority leader says: You have to filibuster. You won't agree to my limited number of amendments. You are obstructing. I am going to file the bill and immediately file cloture to end debate. So 30 hours goes by, has the vote to end debate, and says: All this time, the Republicans have been filibustering. The Republicans are obstructing.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield for a question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Constitution does trump the Senate rules. But I would ask my colleague if he is aware of any kind of history of the Republic where we didn't follow the existing Senate rules, which say we should have a two-thirds vote before we change the rules.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use as much time as I may consume.