Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to address two matters concerning the impeachment of Judge Porteous. As a former Federal prosecutor and State attorney general, I have reviewed and drafted a number of indictments. I do not believe that evidence of acts committed before confirmation should be withheld from consideration in the impeachment process or that it is inappropriate to aggregate claims together. The Constitution does not require that all conduct be committed post Federal appointment nor does it stipulate at all when the conduct must occur. Whether treason or bribery occurs before or after confirmation is not the question, but whether or not it occurred. If this were not so, individuals like Judge Porteous, who are very capable of practicing the art of deception and are confirmed, could not be removed from office. I believe that all four counts against Judge Porteous were well drafted. The Senate has previously stated that ``the House has substantial discretion in determining how to aggregate related alleged acts of misconduct in framing Articles of Impeachment and has historically frequently chosen to aggregate multiple factual allegations in a single impeachment article . . . Judge Porteous engaged in a number of elaborate schemes. Having prosecuted fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering cases, I understand that the facts in these types of cases can be extensive and can build up over a period of years. What we should look at is whether the events are sufficiently related so as not to produce prejudice. Each of these counts told a complete story of wrongdoing that was coherent and was held together logically. Finally, let me say that Judge Porteous's behavior should serve as a reminder to the President of the critical importance of vetting his nominees and as a reminder to this body that a thorough confirmation process is imperative. The process should always emphasize character, integrity, mental and emotional health, and high morals.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CDR Brent Breining, a defense legislative fellow assigned to my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on treaty No. 111-5, the New START Treaty.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to say goodbye to one of the most esteemed members of my staff. Stephen Boyd, an exceptional individual with a deep devotion to the State of Alabama, will be leaving my office to become chief of staff for a new member of the Alabama delegation, Congressman-elect Martha Roby. Stephen came to my office 7 years ago right out of law school. I was immediately impressed not only by his talent but by his tenacity. No matter how difficult the task given him he would pursue it with vigor, and he would not relent until he arrived at a solution. Stephen sees every obstacle as a challenge to overcome. In his first post as my legislative assistant for energy issues, he worked on efforts to establish the Coastal Impact Assistance Program. That program became law through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Stephen also played a significant role in developing the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2006. Early on, Stephen also recognized the need to pursue alternative energy sources in order to diminish our dependence on foreign oil. Through his efforts he brought considerable attention to switchgrass as a renewable energy resource, ultimately leading to switchgrass' potential being recognized in President Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address. One of Stephen's most valuable assets is his ability to anticipate problems and to prepare for the unpredictable. Stephen was the point person for our office response when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. But before that disastrous hurricane hit, Stephen had already implemented an office action plan to make sure we could quickly and efficiently respond to an emergency. In the last 4 years, Stephen has served first as my press secretary, followed by a swift promotion to communications director. He played a key role in overseeing office communications during some of the most difficult and challenging issues our country has faced in a long time-- from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the recent economic crisis, to the disastrous oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. Stephen also made an invaluable contribution in two Supreme Court confirmations, helping deliver a crucial message about preserving the integrity of America's courts--defending them from the corruption of politics and grounding them in the firm bedrock of our Constitution. Given his myriad accomplishments and his stellar service to this office, it is no surprise that Stephen is highly regarded by his colleagues in the Senate. Allow me to share what others have said: Don Stewart, communications director for Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, said, ``Stephen has shown the kind of calm leadership that was needed in one of the most active periods I've ever seen in my time here. He doesn't yell and scream, he just gets it done.'' Josh Holmes, staff director for Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell's Republican Communications Center, said, ``Stephen is one of the rare commodities in Washington who prefers achieving results over personal accolades. He's a consummate professional and effective advocate who has been an absolute pleasure to work with.'' Rick Dearborn, my chief of staff, said, ``I am proud to have worked alongside Stephen Boyd. I have always admired his attention to detail and the great clarity of his perspective. He has a commonsense approach I've witnessed him apply to all manner of complex problems to be solved, issues to be decided or given further thought. So much of what I believe has guided him to excel has been his basic honesty, his strong core integrity and a sincere commitment to serve the people of Alabama on behalf of Senator Sessions through his various roles in our office. Our loss in the Senate is Martha Roby's gain in the House and the second District of Alabama. He now assumes a key position within our staff delegation, as the Congresswoman's new chief of staff. She could not have made a better choice.'' Matt Miner, staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, ``Stephen Boyd has been a tremendous asset to the Judiciary Committee during Senator Sessions' tenure as ranking member. Through two Supreme Court confirmations and numerous national security debates, Stephen's calm and thoughtful work as communications director helped focus the national debate and convey the Republican message. He is one of the most talented people with whom I have worked on Capitol Hill, and I wish him all the best in his next endeavor.'' Brian Benczkowski, former staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee said, ``It was a professional and personal pleasure to work with someone as gifted and hard-working as Stephen Boyd. Stephen has an uncanny ability to analyze any given subject like a top-notch lawyer, while also applying a good dose of Alabama common sense to the problem, and then communicating the result in clear and unmistakable terms. These skills were an invaluable resource for the Senate Judiciary Committee during my tenure, particularly during the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations. If there is a silver lining in his departure from Senator Sessions' staff, it is that he will continue his public service for the people of Alabama. His keen judgment and excellent personal integrity will be an asset to Congresswoman Roby, and I know he will be missed by his colleagues in the Senate.'' Alan Hanson, chief of staff to Senator Richard Shelby, said, ``It is a credit to Stephen's abilities and work ethic that he has so rapidly advanced in his Capitol Hill career. Having worked with him for 3\1/2\ years and known him much longer, I can personally attest that he is a singularly talented and capable jack-of-all-trades. Senator Sessions' loss is truly Congresswoman Roby's gain, and I look forward to witnessing the great things Stephen will accomplish in his new role in the House of Representatives.'' Sarah Haley, press secretary for Senator Sessions, said, ``Stephen Boyd is a man of scrupulous character, sound ethics, and servant leadership. It has been a privilege to work under him. Stephen will be greatly missed by all of us.'' Stephen Miller, press secretary for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, ``Stephen Boyd is a brilliant communicator, operating at a truly elite level. And yet he is the furthest thing from an elitist. Thoughtful, genuine, sincere--these are the traits so familiar to those who know him. I am proud to have had the chance to work with Stephen Boyd. But I am prouder still to call him a friend.'' Ryan Patmintra, press secretary for Senator Jon Kyl, said, ``Stephen's background in both policy and communications made him one of the top-notch Senate communicators on either side of the aisle. His ability to go beyond talking points and walk reporters through our arguments served us well. We were lucky to have him on our team. His presence and expertise will be sorely missed in the Senate.'' Cindy Hayden, who served with Stephen Boyd during her tenure as my chief counsel, said, ``Stephen displays unwavering devotion to Senator Sessions, to the people of Alabama, and to his principles. A talented lawyer and a trusted colleague, Stephen possesses a likeability even his opponents find hard to resist. I am confident his future colleagues will enjoy working with him as much as I did.'' I will miss Stephen. He was always thinking down the road, anticipating programs, and protecting me and the Senate from unwise actions. That kind of attention to detail and good judgment is rare and noteworthy. From the first day he joined my staff, Stephen has been a tremendous asset. He has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues, and has proven himself as a leader. His journey is only beginning, and I wish him all the best in the months and years to come.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to a trusted member of my staff who will be departing the Senate. Melissa Shute has served as my legislative counsel, handling issues involving energy, natural resources, and public lands. I have been fortunate to have a wonderful tradition of outstanding staffers to handle my energy and environmental issues; however, the problem with good staff is that they often get pulled away. Melissa is no exception. She came to me in 2008 after serving as lead counsel to one of our former Members whom I highly regard, Senator Pete Dominici, on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. While on the committee, Melissa was a key player on legislation to increase domestic energy production in the United States. Melissa has developed an expertise in energy and environmental issues and the importance they play in our economy. She is an enthusiastic warrior for the principles we share. Melissa has provided critical counsel to me regarding major issues in nuclear, coal, and renewable fuel research and development. She also took a leading role in helping Alabamians living on the gulf coast during the tragic oil spill. Melissa and my energy team went above and beyond to take the steps necessary to help those impacted by the environmental disaster receive the support and information they need to begin the road of clean-up and recovery. A graduate of the University of Tulsa's College of Law, Melissa has demonstrated a sound legal mind in analyzing legislative proposals that would impact current moratoria on off-shore drilling. She understands that we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and find new ways to tap the rich energy supplies our country has to offer. She has been a great partner as we have worked to reduce the huge wealth transfer from the United States to purchase foreign oil, to reduce pollution, to produce energy at the lowest possible prices, such as nuclear power, and to create jobs in America. It has been a good run. Mr. President, I express my deepest gratitude to Melissa for all of her efforts and leadership, and I wish her well as she moves on to a new chapter in her life.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask to be notified after 4 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the military has a very fine program now that allows people legally and illegally in the United States to join the military and put themselves on a pathway to citizenship. The fact is, in this bill, as it is going to work out in reality, 95 percent, probably 98 percent of the people who take advantage of this amnesty that puts them on a guaranteed path to citizenship will do so by claiming they have a high school degree. They can be up to 30 years of age. They claim they have a high school degree and then do 2 years of community college or even correspondence college work. That is where this huge loophole is and that is why we will have 1 to 2 million people who are going to seek protection under this act. What is this about? The American people understand it. They have tried to tell this Congress, but the Congress and the political leadership refuse to listen. What they are saying is do not continue to reward illegality. Do not continue to provide benefits for people who violated our law, please. The first thing you do is don't reward it. The second thing you want to do is to end the mass illegality that is occurring in our country--600,000 people were arrested last year trying to enter our country illegally at the border--600,000. This is a huge problem. This administration sued Arizona when it tried to do something about it. They have ended workplace raids that would have identified people who were working illegally and provide Americans an opportunity to have a job. This bill will cost $5 billion according to the CBO. It is not going to pay for itself, and it allows people with two misdemeanors--if you only have two misdemeanors you can apply. Many people, if you know much about the law enforcement system in the country, plead to lesser offenses when they really are guilty of more serious offenses. A lot of these misdemeanors are very serious offenses themselves. They will be given the advantage of this act. It is not set up for military, it is not set up for valedictorians and salutatorians, it is not set up for people going to Harvard. It is set up for people who have come into the country, can be brought in illegally as a teenager, they go to high school--they have to be accepted. They get a GED or get a high school degree, and they apply and have a safe harbor in our country indefinitely. I introduced yesterday a chart showing a Google page with a whole long list of places you can order false high school diplomas, false transcripts, false GED certificates. There are no people funded to investigate any of this. People are going to walk in and say: I am 30 years old and I came at age 16. I'm in. Who is going to go out and investigate that? Nobody is. There is no funding to do it, and there is no plan to do it. It is a major loophole. But, fundamentally, I would say this Nation will be prepared, as a nation, to wrestle with and try to do the right thing about people who have been here a long time and who came here as a young person. But let me tell you, not until this country brings the lawlessness to an end, that is what the American people have told us unequivocally. They shut down our switchboards with so many phone calls not too long ago when we tried to pass amnesty here. We do not need to do this. Why don't we do the responsible thing? Finally, let me say this illegality can be ended. It is within our grasp if we have leadership from the top and leadership in the Congress and leadership from the President.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I say we have not had that leadership. What happens 3 years from now when we have another group that has come illegally at age 15 or 16 because they have seen what happens to the ones who came before? Are we then going to say they don't get amnesty? No. We will have lost the moral high ground, the right, responsible effort to have a lawful system in America. We are surrendering to it if we vote for this bill. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the Senator is using my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. All right. I was wrong, I am pleased to say. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few thoughts about the legislation that I understand we will be voting on--at least voting on cloture--later this afternoon, and that is the DREAM Act. One of the major themes of the recent election was an idea revolving around an idea set forth in the Declaration of Independence--the idea that is a bedrock principle of our country--and that is the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Many Americans have believed for some time now that Washington has become disconnected from the people it serves. Indeed, a recent poll found that only one in five Americans believes the government is operating with the consent of the governed. Now, on the heels of a historic midterm election, the Democratic leadership in this lameduck session is, I believe, further eroding those bonds of trust by refusing to listen and moving an amnesty bill that violates a clear American view that border security should be first. The American people are correct in that. It is not negative, mean-spirited. The American people understand, and I think Congress is coming to understand also, that ending the lawlessness at our borders is the first thing that must be done, and at some point after that we can then wrestle with what to do about people here illegally or else we are surrendering to lawlessness. So our Democratic leaders have introduced now four versions of the DREAM Act in just the last 2 months--three in the last 2 or 3 days--a shell game that abuses the process. We have not had hearings on it in 7 years. Meanwhile, the DREAM Act has been proposed as a bill for ambitious youth on a track to graduate from high school or college and join the military. But the truth is far different from that talking point. In reality, the DREAM Act would grant nearly unrestricted amnesty--a guaranteed path to citizenship--to millions of illegal aliens--adults and youth alike. They do not even need a high school diploma. They certainly do not need a college degree. And they do not need to join the military. In fact, the bill's eligibility provisions are so broad that even repeat criminal offenders would fall within its loose requirements and qualify for this masked amnesty. The public has pleaded with Congress time and again to secure the border, but those pleas have been ignored by those who have been pushing this bill. Why aren't we seeing calls for that? Americans want us first to enforce the laws we have, but the bill will reward and encourage the violation of American laws. Americans want Congress to end the lawlessness, but this bill would have us surrender to it. It is a give-up type of approach. Consider the DREAM Act's core features. It is not limited to children first. Illegal aliens as old as 30 or 35, depending on the bill, are eligible on the date of enactment, and they remain eligible to apply at any future age, as the registration window does not close. One does not need a high school diploma, a college degree, or military service. A person here illegally can receive indefinite legal status as long as they have a GED--the alternative to a high school diploma. They can receive that in a foreign language, and they can receive permanent legal status and a guaranteed path to citizenship as long as they then complete 2 years of college or trade school, but their status changes upon application after having a GED. My faithful staff has just discovered and made a copy of this Google page, and it had 273,000 hits. The title of it is ``Fake Diploma,'' and it has places on here that one could obtain a fake diploma, fake degree, fake diplomas. Or how about another one: fake diplomas, fake degrees, fake GEDs, high school diplomas. Buy a GED, high school diploma, college diploma, college transcript, college degrees or high school transcripts at Diploma Company, your online source. It goes on down there: Fake diploma, fake diploma, fast delivery, fake diploma, transcript, birth certificate. So this is not going to be easy to enforce. I would assure you we have insufficient personnel to go out and run down all these matters. One version of the DREAM Act offers illegal aliens instate tuition, for which many Americans are not eligible. All four versions that are now pending provide illegal aliens with Federal education benefits, such as work-study programs, Federal student loans, and access to public colleges. These are already funded. We would like to have more money for these loan programs. But it has to be spread out, and the budget is tight. So more illegal aliens would then be rewarded by these programs. The CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--has said the bill, over time, would add $5 billion to the national debt. But I believe the number is likely to be higher because CBO clearly failed to account for a number of major cost factors with the DREAM Act, including public education costs, chain migration, and fraud. Nor does the CBO take into account what history has proven--that passing amnesty will incentivize even more illegality and lawlessness at the border. I wish it weren't so, but experience teaches us that it is. If you are here illegally, and you have a young brother, a nephew, they can get into our country and get into a high school. They can't deny them if they are here illegally. So they can get a degree or GED, and they are put on a guaranteed path to citizenship. At the point that occurs, they can even make application for their family member to be given a priority--the one who was here illegally to begin with, who brought them here. That is the reality under our immigration procedure. In addition, the CBO assumes a large portion of these individuals will obtain jobs, but there is no job surplus today. Indeed, there is a surplus of labor that can't find employment. So this score does not count unemployed American citizens who can't get jobs because of additional competition. Estimates conservatively say between 1.3 and 2.1 million illegal aliens will be immediately eligible for the DREAM Act's amnesty. But that number will grow significantly, as the bill has no cap or sunset. Moreover, those who do obtain legal status can do the same for their relatives, as I indicated. Many with criminal records will also be eligible for the DREAM Act's amnesty. They simply must have less than three misdemeanor violations-- less than three. Those potentially eligible would include drunk drivers, gang members, even those who have committed certain sexual offenses. Many of those are misdemeanors. And the most recent version of the bill also gives the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to wave ineligibility for even the most severe criminal offenders and those who pose even a threat to national security. Mr. President, I was a Federal prosecutor and State attorney general. I know for a fact that every day, for a host of reasons--maybe a witness didn't show up, maybe the caseload is overwhelming--prosecutors allow people to plead to misdemeanors when the offense they have actually committed is a felony. So allowing a person to have three misdemeanors is a serious loophole and does not suggest that the criminal activity they have been participating in is insignificant or nonconsequential. Surprisingly, those who commit document fraud or who lie to immigration authorities are eligible for the amnesty as well. This is particularly troubling as it contains a potential loophole for high- risk individuals to be placed on a pathway to citizenship. One of the warning signs missed prior to 9/11 was the fraudulent visa applications submitted by the 9/11 hijackers. The DREAM Act even contains a safe harbor provision that would prevent many applicants from being removed as long as their application is pending, even if they have a serious criminal record. This provision would dramatically hinder our Federal authorities and will undoubtedly unleash a torrent of costly litigation. One of the things that has been happening too much is what we call catch-and-release. People are apprehended and placed in jail and then they are released--illegal aliens--and told to report back to the court for a final disposition of their case. Not surprisingly, over 90 percent--I think 94 percent--don't show up. So when we allow these processes to be delayed significantly, it reduces the ability of the law enforcement officials to be able to process cases, and it allows many to be released on bail, whereupon they abscond and do not return. Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. Twelve seconds. I thank the Chair. So, Mr. President, this country needs to end the lawlessness, and after that is done--and it can be done shortly--the American people want us to wrestle with how to handle people who have entered our country illegally. The reverse is not true.

Mr. SESSIONS. They do not want us providing amnesty before the border is secure. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Was there 10 minutes to both sides?

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to have 3 additional minutes before we vote.

Mr. SESSIONS. Just briefly, I would say to my distinguished colleague, Senator Durbin, who I know cares deeply about this issue, I think there is not an injustice today. The law is if you are born here, even from illegal parents, you are a citizen. But if you come into the country or are brought into the country, you are here illegally. That is what the law is. It is not an injustice to enforce the law. No. 2, I would note that millions of people apply and wait for citizenship, but these individuals who came illegally--maybe at age 14, 15, 16--apply and get to the head of the line over people who have waited for a long time. I do not know that that is justice. The military already allows people who are not citizens and people who are illegally in the country to join the military and they are given citizenship. Lots of them achieve citizenship that way. This bill is not necessary to do that. For 10 years, the cost is scored by CBO. It is $5 billion. There is a cost. In addition, for Pell grants--these are grants, not loans students get to go to college--these individuals would be eligible for those as soon as they get in college, after even a GED instead of a high school diploma. This idea that we are already doing enough at the border and we are doing everything that is possible, I would note this administration has not completed the fence Congress authorized. We are not deporting people effectively. They have sued the State of Arizona that tried to help the Federal Government enforce the law. They have refused to make the E-Verify Program permanent. No workplace raids are being conducted. They were stopped soon after this administration took office. So I would say, for a host of reasons, we are not doing what can be done and should be done to bring the lawlessness to an end, and to therefore put us in a position to wrestle, as a nation, with how to deal with people who violated the law and came illegally. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to 25 minutes in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand it is likely the majority leader will seek to bring up the DREAM Act in a day or two. This is a very bad piece of legislation, and it is being presented at a time when we have massive illegality at our borders. One of the fundamental things that separates America from the other nations of the world is our commitment to the rule of law. We enforce our contracts and our statutes. We punish corruption. One of the great advantages this Nation has over others is the degree to which there is integrity in our process here. We protect the rights and privileges of citizenship. We know one of our most unique and valuable characteristics is our legal system. Law is a necessary condition for a free society. Freedom cannot flourish in chaos. Prosperity cannot arise in an uncertain environment. Yet we have allowed our borders to descend into chaos and lawlessness. For decades, we have failed to uphold the rule of law. We have failed to protect the integrity of citizenship in America and the law. Even now, in a post-9/11 world, we still lack control over who comes into our country. Every day, guns, drugs, unknown people, unlawfully pour across our broken border. The consequences of the government's failure are felt keenly by those living in our border States. Ranchers living on U.S. soil must confront the chaos as a reality of daily life. They are denied the peaceable possession of their private property. Phoenix, the capital of Arizona, is now known as one of the kidnapping capitals of the world. Yet it does not have to be this way. With enough will and determined execution of a carefully developed plan, executed by a President and supported by a Congress that has as its serious goal the elimination of this illegality, it will be successful and can be successful in just a few years. It is not impossible. That is what the public wants and this is what our political leaders have obstinately refused to do. Americans are willing--and I am certainly willing--to consider some sort of status for those who have peacefully lived and worked in our country for some extended period of time, but only after we have secured the border. As long as you continue to provide amnesty for people who come into our country and stay here for a period of time, you incentivize further illegality. Well, this is because passage of amnesty bills, such as the DREAM Act, is an immediate reward for the illegal entry, with no serious plan to stop the illegal flow. Indeed, the legislation incentivizes the flow or the entry of people into our country illegally. What does this type of legislation say to the rest of the world and to anyone thinking about coming illegally? It says if you can get in the United States and hang on for a number of years, sooner or later we are going to reward you by forgiving your illegal behavior and putting you on a path to citizenship. That is not the message we need to send. The public will not allow us to repeat the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty. We have discussed that so many times. They will not fall for the ruse that we can have amnesty first and security later. They understand that if we do not secure the border first, we may never secure it at all. We certainly have not done so as of this date. Despite this--and despite historic losses in the recent election--the Democratic leaders of this Congress are now pushing a reckless proposal for mass amnesty known as the DREAM Act. At a time when our Nation is struggling with high unemployment and runaway government spending, the bill would authorize millions of illegal workers and impose an even greater burden on the taxpayers. Making matters worse, those eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty include illegal aliens with criminal records. And all of this is being rushed through a lameduck Congress with no committee review. The Democratic leaders have even introduced four versions of the same bill in just over 2 months--3 in the last 13 days. It has been a shell game that abuses the legislative process. Is it any wonder that the American people have lost faith in this institution? Americans want us to enforce the laws, but we are considering a bill that would reward and encourage their violation. Americans want Congress to end the lawlessness, but this bill would surrender to it. Consider a few of the DREAM Act's most troubling provisions: First, the DREAM Act is not limited to children. Illegal aliens as old as 30 or 35 are eligible on the date of the enactment of the bill. And they remain eligible to apply at any future age, as the registration window does not close. You do not need a high school diploma, a college degree, or military service in order to receive amnesty under the DREAM Act as proposed. Illegal aliens can receive indefinite legal status as long as they have a GED, the alternative to a high school diploma. They can receive permanent legal status and a guaranteed path to citizenship as long as they complete just 2 years of college or trade school. One version of the DREAM Act offers illegal aliens in-State tuition for which many Americans are not eligible. All four versions provide illegal aliens with Federal education benefits, such as work-study programs, Federal student loans, and access to public colleges that are already short on spaces and resources. The Congressional Budget Office is the entity that gives us technical data about legislation. It is a pretty objective group. It is hired by the Democratic leader, the Democratic majority, but I think most of the time they try to do the right thing. They say the bill would add $5 billion to the deficit. But that number really, I have to say, is low. The CBO clearly failed to account for a number of major cost factors associated with implementation of the DREAM Act. Of course, they haven't had much time to make this analysis since the most recent version was introduced just 5 days ago. The CBO fails to account for unemployment, public education cost, chain migration, and fraud. Furthermore, it did not take into account what history has proven: passing amnesty will incentivize even more illegality and lawlessness at the border. In addition, the CBO assumes a large portion of these individuals will obtain jobs, but there is no surplus of job opportunities in American today. Unemployment just went up from 9.6 to 9.8--almost 10 percent. It has remained high for an exceedingly long period of time. The economists are telling us we are going to have to look forward to much higher unemployment than we have been used to in the past. Well, nobody is scoring the fact that many American job seekers will not get a job if large numbers--a million or more--of illegal aliens are converted to legal status and start competing for jobs, and perhaps denying them that job, which may have good benefits and good pay. Conservative estimates say that between 1.3 and 2.1 million illegal aliens will be immediately eligible for this DREAM Act amnesty, but that number will grow significantly as the bill has no cap or sunset to it. Moreover, those who obtain legal status can then petitions for their relatives. Under the DREAM Act, illegal aliens are put on a path to citizenship--first they receive conditional status, then legal permanent resident status, and finally citizenship. After they are naturalized, they can then, through the chain migration process, apply to bring in their relatives. Some of the people they might apply to bring in are likely to be the persons who brought them here illegally. As a result, the number of green cards granted could easily triple what is expected. Many with criminal records will also be eligible for the DREAM Act's amnesty. They simply must have less than three misdemeanor convictions--under the Act, Congress is arbitrarily determining that two misdemeanors is OK while three is not so good. Those potentially eligible would include drunk drivers, gang members, and even those who have committed certain sexual offenses. The most recent version of the bill also gives the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to waive ineligibility for even the most severe criminal offenders and those who pose a threat to our national security. Many such offenses include indecent exposure, DUI, smaller thefts, and drug charges. Some of them are charged as felonies and very routinely reduced to misdemeanors. Two misdemeanor drug convictions won't bar you from being protected under this act and being able to have a guaranteed path to citizenship. Those who commit document fraud or who lie to immigration authorities will be eligible for the bill's amnesty as well. This is particularly troubling as it contains a potential loophole for high-risk individuals placed on the pathway to citizenship. One of the warning signs we missed prior to 9/11 was the fraudulent visa applications submitted by the 9/11 hijackers. This bill would likely make it more difficult to combat immigration fraud from the dangerous regions of the Middle East where we have had an unfortunate history of abuse. This DREAM Act even contains a safe harbor provision--very significant--that would prevent many applicants from being removed as long as their application is pending. If they have a serious criminal record, they would normally be subjected to deportation. This provision could dramatically hinder Federal authorities and will undoubtedly unleash a torrent of costly litigation that will suck up untold hours of our law enforcement personnel's time and ability and resources that ought to be focused on the border. If somebody who has been apprehended for illegally being in the country or committing a serious crime can come into court and assert they have filed a petition under the DREAM Act, they can not be deported. This is really a problem because if a facility does not have enough bed space, what are we supposed to do? Are we now going to have investigators drop what they are doing and go out and try to prove that someone was here before the age of 16? Did they really have a GED or is that a forged document? How many criminal convictions do they have? This all has to be investigated now. It could takes weeks or even months. So what happens? Are we going to keep those individuals in jail instead of deporting them? How much cost is involved in that? All of that is not counted in this process. I just want to say that my experience in law enforcement is that there are not enough people to do those investigations and we are going to have millions of applications. How do we prove somebody came here at age 15 instead of age 18? How do we prove they have been here 5 years? How do we prove they came here 5 years ago and came at age 17 or 15 or 14? Who is going to investigate that and dispute it, if they submit a statement and say they have been here for 5 years? We have to take the time now to investigate all of that? This is not what we need to be doing right now. We have more serious challenges to end the illegal flow. And for people who have been here a long time and who have otherwise been good citizens and have worked hard, we can figure out some way to deal with their future. But I do not believe this is the right step. It is not the right step. In short, I believe the bill will be a disaster. Yet our Democratic leadership remains committed in their push for this amnesty provision. They are again defying the public will and sending the world a message that our Nation is not serious about the integrity of our borders and our laws. American citizenship is the envy of the world, but central to our Nation's greatness is our respect for the rule of law. None of us that I am aware of in this Senate is proposing to in any significant way reduce the number of people who come to our country lawfully. Indeed, there are many provisions to increase the number who come lawfully. But the American people are rightly saying: We have to do something about the illegality. By eroding the respect for law through reckless and irresponsible amnesty provisions, we would do a disservice not only to the 300 million Americans who call this Nation their home but to all those future citizens who are applying and waiting in line to enter our country lawfully. I feel strongly about this. Hopefully, this matter will not be proceeded with. We need to wrestle with how to bring our immigration system under control. We can do that. I have studied it for some time. I truly believe it can be done. Senator McCain from Arizona, who has been to the border a great deal, has said that within a year or two we can end this massive illegality. I have been saying that for a number of years. I truly believe it. But we need to focus on that, not focus on rewards for those who have entered illegally. That is why this legislation should not pass. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS. Did you say recess in 2 minutes?

Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask that the unanimous-consent request allow me to have 5 minutes when the Senator finishes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the President and the Attorney General need a Deputy Attorney General who can function, who has the confidence of the Congress and the American people and will do an excellent, first-rate job. There are questions about this nominee. Every nominee who has been nominated for the Deputy Attorney General or other positions in the Department of Justice by President Bush was not rubber stamped within a day or two. Tim Flanigan, a highly competent nominee, was opposed by Democratic lawmakers aggressively after 9/11. The President withdrew him from consideration and then nominated someone who was promptly confirmed. He did not try to ram it down our throats. Frankly, we have a problem of confidence in the Department of Justice. The Attorney General himself, perhaps following the lead of the President, has indicated on a number of different occasions a lack of commitment to vigorous action to prosecute terrorists who have attacked the country, and he has taken other steps. I would have liked to have seen a Deputy Attorney General nominee who was not in that mold but who was more of a career prosecutor who would have helped bring some balance and input from a more traditional view of the role of the Attorney General as someone who prosecutes criminals, protects the United States, defends law-abiding Americans from terrorists and criminals who attack them. That was the approach I took when I was attorney general. I hired people who were proven prosecutors. But Mr. Cole, for example, right after 9/11, indicated his belief that these attacks were not acts of war but instead were criminal acts; he wrote this in an article: For all of the rhetoric about war, the September 11th attacks were criminal acts of terrorism against the civilian population. I do not agree with that. The American people do not agree with that. Why does the President want to appoint somebody who thinks 9/11 was a criminal act and not an act of war? I think it is a big deal, so that is one of the reasons we have raised it. Is he going to bring some balance to Attorney General Holder or are they going to move even further left in their approach to these issues? I would also note he was given a highly paid position as an independent monitor of AIG. This is the big insurance company whose credit default swaps and insurance dealings really triggered this entire collapse of the economic system. He was in the company at the time as a government monitor, and he did not blow the whistle on what was going on throughout this period of time. It is argued that he wasn't precisely there to monitor. Sue Reisinger of Corporate Counsel wrote this about his handling of that matter: It is as though Cole were spackling cracks in the compliance walls and never noticed that AIG's financial foundation was crumbling beneath his feet.

Mr. SESSIONS. One more point. Beatrice Edwards of the Government Accountability Project criticized Cole for failing to ``detect an atmosphere of . . . laissez-faire compliance of the company.'' So he has been criticized for a big, important role he had. Those were just some of the concerns held in committee. And I wish the President had nominated somebody like Larry Thompson, who was Department Attorney General under President Bush, and whom everybody respected and would have been confirmed like a knife through hot butter.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will object--I would first thank my colleague, Senator Leahy, for the courtesy as he has moved forward with this. He is a relentless chairman pushing for these nominees. I respect his responsibility and his belief that this nominee needs to move forward, and, frankly, it is about time--we need to fish or cut bait on it. I do not think an indefinite delay is good for the country. This nomination does have controversy. Most of the nominations the President has submitted did clear unanimously in our committee, but this nomination resulted in all the Republicans on the committee voting against it. But I now understand that our two leaders, Senators Reid and McConnell, are working at this moment to try to figure which nominees should move before we recess--and hopefully before too many days--and perhaps this nominee will be in that group. But until those talks are complete, I would object.