[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8241-S8243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


.


                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will make some remarks on an amendment 
I have offered--S.A. 1140--along with Senators Hatch and Grassley that 
is dealing with the appropriation of $5 million, with that amount 
equally divided between two purposes. One, facilitating the Department 
of Homeland Security entering into memorandums of understanding with 
States and localities under section 287(G) of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act. That is, the ability to enter into memorandums or 
agreements with States and localities in order that they may 
participate in a positive way in helping enforce the immigration laws 
of the United States. And, two, reimbursing States and localities for 
the costs they incur in training their law enforcement officers under 
these memorandums of understanding. Reimbursement would be permitted 
for expenses such as those related to travel and transportation to the 
training location, subsistence payments or per diem allowance and costs 
for securing temporary replacements for law enforcement personnel who 
are participating in the Federal training.
  I am pleased Senators Hatch and Grassley have cosponsored the 
amendment. I hope each of my colleagues will carefully consider it and 
vote for its passage.
  The amendment is needed to confront two issues currently prohibiting 
the nationwide advancement of agreements under INA section 287(G). This 
is a provision in the Immigration Code that provides for cooperative 
agreements to be entered into--it is a section that is not being 
adequately utilized.
  First, there is a lack of Department of Homeland Security personnel 
tasked with negotiating and overseeing the entry into 287(G) training 
agreements with the States. There is also a shortage of DHS resources 
and trainers to conduct State and local training courses in a timely 
manner, including annual refresher courses for States such as Alabama 
that have already entered into 287(G) MOU.
  Second, States that enter into MOUs must currently absorb the cost 
related to pulling their law enforcement officers off duty and sending 
them to an intensive 5- to 6-week training course. They are extensively 
trained under these agreements. If a State does not have the money to 
pay for these extended leaves of absence or to hire replacements for 
the law enforcement officers wanting to receive immigration enforcement 
training, then costs related to the training under the MOU can prohibit 
States from being able to participate.
  If costs are prohibitive, many States will simply choose to go 
forward in the realm of immigration law enforcement either without 
training, or generally not participate in any meaningful way.
  Immigration training for State and local officers is important to 
many of my colleagues. I hope they will recognize that this amendment 
is the way to show their support for such training.
  In the realm of immigration law enforcement, the State of Alabama 
struggled for years to achieve effective cooperation between Federal 
enforcement entities and our State and local law enforcement officers. 
All too often I heard the same story from our Alabama sheriffs and 
police chiefs: We call Immigration and Naturalization Service when we 
arrest an illegal alien, and they say they do not have the time to pick 
them up. They tell us to let them go. They have told me, on occasion, 
that INS told local officers unless they had 15 or 18 individuals at 
one time, don't bother to call them.
  As a result, Alabama requested that additional Federal immigration 
agents be assigned to the State, Alabama advocated that extra 
immigration detention bedspace be established in the state, and Alabama 
requested the Immigration and Naturalization Service be responsive to 
requests that illegal aliens be taken into Federal custody. Though some 
progress was made, most of the requests were only partially met, at 
best.

  To address the problems, I arranged for an Immigration and Customs 
enforcement officer to travel to the State of Alabama for 2 weeks to 
train all of our State troopers on cooperation with the Federal 
Government in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. State 
troopers reviewed fake documents, were taught about different 
categories of aliens, legal and illegal, and were shown how to use a 
computer database at the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), a 
database that had been used only three times in the State of Alabama 
the year before the training because the officers simply did not know 
how to use it.
  In September of 2003, Alabama followed in the footsteps of the State 
of Florida and became the second State in the Nation to enter into an 
INA 287(G) agreement with the Federal Government. This law has been on 
the books

[[Page S8242]]

for over a decade, but was not used until after 9-11. It is a tragedy 
we fail to take now advantage of the opportunity this law provides. 
That agreement allowed for a select group of 21 Alabama State troopers 
to receive extensive immigration enforcement training and gave them the 
authority to perform immigration and enforcement functions which 
resulted in their active communication with the Federal immigration 
agents stationed in the State--these agreements ought to be done 
routinely in every State in America.
  After the MOU was negotiated and signed, the Department of Homeland 
Security sent personnel to Alabama to train the first class for a 5-
week period. I thought 2 weeks was more than sufficient to my way of 
thinking. A deputy sheriff or city police officer can arrest a Senator 
for committing crimes in his community, but I suppose we have to have a 
5-week training before they can arrest somebody who is not a citizen 
for violation of our immigration laws.
  They were trained in how to identify fraudulent immigration 
documents, and in how to work together with federal agents to enforce 
immigration laws. I strongly believe that the MOU has been the most 
important step in Alabama in the realm of immigration enforcement. As a 
result of the MOU, Alabama State troopers have performed close to 200 
criminal and illegal alien apprehensions, largely of aliens involved 
with document fraud, drug trafficking, and human smuggling, and have 
seized close to $750,000 in drug, document and human trafficking 
related cash.
  Because of the MOU, new Federal immigration agents have been assigned 
to the State of Alabama, dramatically increasing the Federal 
immigration enforcement presence in the State. This February, DHS 
announced the Alabama MOU would not only be continued but would be 
expanded, a second class of 25 State troopers is scheduled to be 
trained by DHS this October. The MOU Alabama entered into has added to 
the knowledge and resources available to Alabama's Department of Public 
Safety and has changed the level of cooperation we receive from the 
Federal immigration enforcement entities on a daily basis.
  I am certain the State of Alabama will seek to continue the agreement 
for many years to come. I am hopeful other States will follow the lead 
of Alabama so that they, too, can benefit from the cooperative 
partnerships fostered by 287(G) MOUs.
  Why is this important? It is important for one reason. We have just 
over 2,000 federal agents nationwide who are not on the borders of our 
country and charged with the responsibility of apprehending and 
enforcing immigration laws throughout the heartland of America.
  There is no way those 2,000 officers can ever adequately patrol our 
streets for immigration violators and do a good job of handling these 
problems. But we have 750,000 State and local law enforcement officers 
who are on our streets and in our communities every single day, 
apprehending people for DUIs, apprehending people during fights, 
apprehending people for other activities that bring them to the notice 
of law enforcement. In the course of that, they often discover these 
people are here illegally. They, as a result, should be subject to the 
enforcement of immigration laws by the State and local officers that 
discover them. If we have any respect for law in this country at all 
that is what should happen, but that is not occurring.
  So how do we get to that point? They tell us they have to have all 
this training to be qualified. OK, let's give them training. I do not 
know that we need a full 5 weeks for every officer out there, but I 
think it is quite helpful that some of these officers have a good and 
sincere training to be more effective. If we train them and clarify 
their authority, we will have thousands of new officers patrolling our 
streets all over America at no cost to the Federal Government, watching 
out on our streets and in our communities for those who violate our 
laws. That is what we ought to be doing if we are serious at all about 
enforcing the laws of this country. I think the American people are. I 
think those of us in Congress need to get serious about it.
  I think MOUs under 287(G) of the INA are a good place to start and 
need to be expanded. Under these MOUs, officers receive good training. 
The program creates good cooperation between local law enforcement and 
Federal agents. They learn how each others' systems work, and they 
develop memoranda as to what will happen if somebody is apprehended, 
whom they should call, how they should be detained, how long they 
should be detained, where they should be taken, and who is going to be 
compensated for that effort.
  In conclusion, I think this amendment will make it financially 
attractive for more States to participate in these agreements. After 
all, they are helping enforce Federal immigration law. Why shouldn't we 
assist them in paying for the training we want them to receive? State 
and local police forces can make a difference in these efforts. I am 
excited we will perhaps be moving forward with this amendment. It will 
make a big difference.
  I understand the managers are not here tonight and will not call up 
the amendment or attempt to do so, but I have talked with the manager 
and, hopefully, we can make some progress on that.
  Mr. President, I will share briefly that also tomorrow I expect to 
call up the S. 629, the mass transportation bill I have offered and 
believe strongly in. We had a hearing on it in the Judiciary Committee. 
I will seek unanimous consent to call up and to adopt S. 629. I 
understand there may be an objection. There is not an objection on the 
Republican side. There may be an objection on the Democratic side, 
although it did come out of our Judiciary Committee with bipartisan 
support. I am hopeful we can move this important bill forward.
  We have seen now in Spain and in London that there are people who 
desire to attack our mass transit transportation systems. What the 
Department of Justice tells us is that we have gaps and loopholes in 
our current laws that deal with those that would attack our mass 
transit systems, and that those laws need to be tightened up. If we do 
so, it will help the investigators and prosecutors be more effective in 
prosecuting those who may seek to do us harm.
  I think it is time to move on that legislation. After all, we have 
been working on it for over a year. I think everybody has had good 
opportunity to review it. I think it is in every way professional and 
fair and ought to be passed. I look forward to moving it. If there is 
some objection from Members, and they would like to share that with me, 
perhaps we can solve those difficulties and reach an accord and move 
this important piece of legislation forward. We absolutely do not need 
to have an attack on our mass transportation system in America and not 
have the tools for our prosecutors and investigators to prosecute it 
adequately. That bill, as I noted, the mass transportation bill, is S. 
629. It is not an amendment to the appropriations bill on the floor 
tomorrow, but a piece of legislation that I expect to be offering.
  Finally, Mr. President, I will also be offering tomorrow and would be 
calling up an amendment to this appropriations bill that deals with 
making sure our Federal officials enter into the National Crime 
Information Center the names and identifying factors of people who have 
absconded after having been arrested for illegal immigration. That 
amendment is S.A. 1139.
  We have hundreds of thousands of absconders, people who have been 
apprehended in our country for being here illegally. Amazingly, this is 
what happens: They are apprehended, they are given a date for a 
deportation hearing, and they are released on bail prior to that 
hearing. Or sometimes they have the hearing and are to be deported on a 
given date, and they are released on bail at that time, with the order 
to show up for deportation.
  For those who have been ordered deported and released on bail, to 
show up for deportation, we now have learned that over 87 percent of 
them do not show up to be deported and in some counties over 90 percent 
never show up for their initial hearings, these percentages really make 
a mockery of the law. It has to be discouraging to the agents who have 
gone out and worked these cases, just to see them released on bail, and 
nobody even enters their names in the National Crime Information Center 
database.

[[Page S8243]]

  What is the National Crime Information Center database? This is the 
database that every police officer in America accesses when they 
apprehend someone to see if the person is wanted anywhere in the 
country. If you had a DUI in Washington State, and you did not show up 
for your trial, and they catch you in Mobile, AL, and you are entered 
in the NCIC because of your DUI in Washington State, the officers in 
Mobile will hold you, and send you back to Washington State for your 
trial. But if you jump bail and do not show up for your immigration 
hearing or for your deportation proceeding, you are not treated the 
same way, your information is not currently being entered into the 
NCIC.

  So I have been raising this and talking about it for quite some time 
now, and I have raised it with top officials in the Department of 
Homeland Security, and they say they are working on it and trying to 
enter the names faster. I know they as of December of last year they 
only had about 15,000 names entered into the Immigration Violators File 
of the NCIC which is really pathetically small. We ought to have them 
all of the absconder immigration violator files entered in there. This 
amendment would provide $1 million to make sure those names are entered 
into the system.
  Tomorrow we will proceed, hopefully, to call that amendment up and I 
will seek to have it made a part of the appropriations bill that is 
moving forward.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for your time tonight.

                          ____________________