[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 43 (Wednesday, April 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3603-S3604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION AND THE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
                                  BILL

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very troubled that on this Defense 
supplemental bill, designed to provide the resources necessary for our 
soldiers in the field to defend themselves and execute the policy of 
the United States of America against a hostile force, we are now moving 
into a prolonged and contentious debate over one of the issues that all 
of us must admit is critically divisive and contentious and important 
in our country; and that is, the immigration question.
  As we all know, the 9/11 Commission made several recommendations 
involving security issues affecting this country, particularly in 
identification and better control over those who would come into our 
country, particularly those trying to come in illegally. That was 
debated in the intelligence bill. Then an agreement was reached. The 
House decided to put in that REAL ID language, designed to be 
consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission for security 
purposes--not an immigration bill, security bill language, their 
version of it. This Senate has not put any such language in the bill at 
this time.
  I will say this. That is one thing. I, as a prosecutor, and somebody 
who has served on the Judiciary Committee--and we have wrestled with 
this for some time--have come to the very firm conclusion that the 
Sensenbrenner language is important for our security. We need to do 
something like this. We have waited too long, I believe. That is my 
view.
  But now on this floor I am advised we are going to have the Mikulski 
immigration bill offered, and then we are going to have the Craig-
Kennedy AgJOBS bill, which is a bill breathtaking in its scope, an 
absolute legislative approval of amnesty in an incredible scope, and 
absolutely contrary to the very generous but liberal position President 
Bush has taken with regard to immigration. That is going to be run 
through on this Defense supplemental, and we are going to have to vote 
on it.
  The committees have not studied it. We have not looked at all the 
alternatives that might be considered or other legislation that I am 
interested in, such as legislation that would empower our local law 
enforcement to be better participants in this entire activity. All of 
that will be swept away, and we will come through with a bill where we 
give a million-plus people, who are here in our country illegally--they 
would be granted temporary resident status, by proving that they worked 
at least 100 hours illegally. And then, if they worked 2,060 hours 
during a period of 6 years, they then are adjusted to legal permanent 
residents, what most people call green card holders, a status that is a 
guaranteed track or pass to citizenship, and they can bring their 
families with them.
  This bill will take 1 million people, and it will put them on a 
guaranteed track to citizenship, people who have come here illegally.
  Now, what about the people who have followed these H-1B, H-2B visa 
programs who have worked here legally? Can they get advantage of this 
track? Do they get put on a process by which they become citizens? No. 
It is only the people who are here illegally.
  This is a bad principle. It is a matter of very serious import for 
law. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. It hurts me to see the 
indifference by which our Nation has handled our legal system regarding 
immigration.
  Should we allow more people to come here under legitimate conditions? 
Absolutely. I am for that, legally. I am prepared to discuss that. But 
I am not for a plan that guarantees amnesty for people who have come 
here illegally and not providing the benefits to those who may be 
talented, maybe have the skills we need right now, those who do not 
have connections to criminal or terrorist groups. We ought to be 
working on that angle of it.

  I am a team player and I want to see things done right, in this 
Senate. I want to see our leadership succeed. I want to see good policy 
executed. But we are not going to take this issue lightly. I suggest 
that it would be an abdication of our responsibility as Senators if we 
allow this to be rammed through, attached to a bill, without the 
American people knowing what we are doing. They need to know this. It 
is going to take some time for them to learn what is being considered 
here. Senators need to learn what is in this bill. They don't know yet.
  This AgJOBS bill had 60-something cosponsors last year. Now I 
understand it is down to 45. Why? People are reading this thing. It is 
bad law, bad policy. You tell me--this will be the second time we have 
passed an amnesty bill, if AgJOBS were to become law. Passing another 
amnesty bill would do nothing more than send the signal to those around 
the world who would like to come to the United States that the best way 
to become a citizen is to come in illegally and hang on; they will 
never do anything to you, and eventually there will be another amnesty 
out there? That is why we are concerned about it.
  Yes, there are hardship cases. Yes, we want to be fair to everybody. 
We want to be more than fair. We want to be generous. But we have to be 
careful if we have any respect for law. Sometimes people think in this 
body--maybe they have never had to deal with it as I have--that laws 
don't have much import. They do. They are important. They make 
statements. A society

[[Page S3604]]

that cannot set rules and enforce those rules is not a healthy society. 
If you would like to know why America is the greatest, most productive, 
most free country in the history of the world, it is our commitment to 
the rule of law.
  This process is undermining respect for law in a way that I have not 
seen before, maybe since Prohibition. I think we can improve 
immigration law. We can be generous with people and try to help them 
and their families and create something. But it is going to take a good 
while. It is going to take some hard work.
  I for one am not going quietly on this bill. We are going to take 
time. We are going to have debate. We are going to delay this important 
defense supplemental bill now to go off on this tangent. But I hope and 
pray that somehow our leadership and those who are interested in these 
issues can find a way to put this off for now. Let this bill get 
passed.
  Let's talk about this issue as part of a comprehensive debate. If we 
did that, we would be serving our constituents a lot better than what 
we are doing today.
  If we go forward and we ram this through without the kind of 
hearings, debate, taking testimony, studying data, do all that kinds of 
stuff, our constituents are not going to be happy with us. As a matter 
of fact, I think they are going to rightly be upset with us. It is a 
tactic that should not be done on a matter of this importance.
  I wanted to make that comment. I know at some point we will be moving 
forward with the bill. Hopefully the leadership can work with those who 
are interested in these issues and create a mechanism at some point in 
the future where it can be fully debated. I am not prepared to allow 
such a tremendously significant piece of legislation as the AgJOBS bill 
to go through without a full debate. Every minute that is available to 
this Senate to debate it should be put on it. The American people need 
to know what is happening on the floor of the Senate right now. Maybe 
when we have a vote, we will have the right outcome.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________