[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 83 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6392-S6393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to express some thoughts about 
the earlier statement of the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, that he 
was not going to attempt to bring this bill up for a vote this week. I 
think that is the only right choice that could have been made. He has 
been talking about bringing it up this week and actually getting a vote 
on Friday on a bill that we only got the paperwork on Saturday morning 
at 2 a.m. It hasn't been substituted yet, to my knowledge.
  This is a piece of legislation of enormous complexity which has not 
gone through the proper committee--the Judiciary Committee. It was 
written by a group of people who claim they have reached an agreement. 
The agreement is that on both sides, they are saying nobody can offer 
an amendment that goes to what they consider the core of it because 
they will all band together and vote against it. So I guess that means 
if anybody has a different view about how immigration should be 
handled, the people I really love and respect, whom I affectionately 
call ``masters of the universe,'' are just going to all get together 
and vote no. So I am not sure what the purpose of having votes is. But 
presumably, the rest of us, now that we have had a chance to read it, 
will be able to at least nibble around the edges and offer a few 
amendments that might make it a little better, and I look forward to 
that opportunity.
  I think it is very important that this bill was not rammed through 
this week and no attempt was made to do that. I think it would have 
poisoned the atmosphere. It would have been a very bad scene had that 
occurred. So now we are talking about 2 weeks of debate. There is no 
doubt in my mind that this Senate could spend a month easily on this 
bill--maybe more. It is a critically important piece of legislation. It 
has much impact on our whole economy, our culture, and our rule of law. 
We could do better with it if we spend time on it. So I hope we are not 
in a situation where the leadership--the conferee group which has been 
meeting--is going to lock together and just vote down anything that 
displeases them or one side or the other says this is important and 
shouldn't be amended. So I am worried about that. We will see how it 
goes.
  I hope the American people will take the opportunity to study the 
legislation. It does have some good things in it. It does have 
provisions in it that are quite superior to the bill I referred to as 
fatally flawed last year. But the cloture vote we just took was to move 
to last year's bill, and unless I am mistaken, we have not seen the new 
bill that is supposed to be substituted. We haven't seen anything other 
than a draft of the former bill. It has not been put in legislative 
language, even in the smaller print in the draft version that has been 
floated since Saturday. It is 326 pages, but in normal bill language, 
it will turn out to be probably 800, maybe 1,000 pages with each one of 
the clauses and phrases. Based on our history of dealing with 
immigration, it has to be read carefully because experts seem to have 
the ability--some of these lawyers, particularly--to slip in phrases 
that can have significance far beyond what might appear to be the case 
when you first read it. So it needs to be studied carefully.
  A lot of people wanted to ram this through before the Memorial Day 
recess.
  I am glad Senator Reid has abandoned that and will allow the American 
people the opportunity to have an extra week to look at it.
  I thank my colleagues who have worked on the bill. They are good 
people. They have it in their heads that they want to fix immigration, 
and it is time for a comprehensive fix of immigration. There are tough 
decisions to be made. But I get a little bit worried when time after 
time I hear people say: Well, there is a lot in it I don't like,

[[Page S6393]]

but you know, you just have to live with it. I am not sure we ought to 
live with anything that doesn't make sense. I am not sure we ought to 
live with anything that is bad policy. Why do we have to do that? 
Because this group has met and they said no serious amendments can be 
changed--adopted that would alter the core of the bill, the basic 
philosophy of it, I worry about that. We are troubled that a number of 
things don't quite reach the promised principles that have been floated 
as part of this discussion.
  The trigger is in the bill, but I think it is far too weak. The 
temporary guest worker program is preferable to last year's, but it is 
very unsettling to me. I have an odd feeling that this temporary worker 
program that is in the bill is not going to work. We should not pass 
anything that won't work. It needs to be done in a better way.
  The hoped-for move to a more merit-based system, a point system like 
Canada does, is troubling because no significant move in that direction 
appears to be on the horizon for 8 years. It is 8 years before the 
point system will really take effect. So I am worried about that.
  These are fundamental. Will the workplace system be effective? We 
need to study that language because if it is not done right, it won't 
work. I will have an opportunity to talk more about this.
  I thank my staff and a lot of other staff who have worked their 
hearts out Saturday, Sunday, and into the night last night and all 
morning today, trying to read and digest this bill to see what it 
really means so we can do a better job of serving our constituents.
  Finally, the guiding principle, the overarching goal of an 
immigration bill, must be to serve the national interest. It is not to 
serve special interests, groups of special interests, businesses, or 
immigration advocacy groups. It is to serve the national interests, and 
that means a principled approach that creates a lawful system that 
serves our economy and our society.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________