[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 88 (Monday, June 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6974-S6975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          IRAQ AND IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would just say to my friend, Senator 
Reid, the able Democratic majority leader in the Senate, that I hope we 
don't continue in a debate about the Iraq situation in ways that are 
destructive to our Nation but that we can conduct the debate in a 
positive way.
  For example, I know there has been an intelligence report that has 
been produced, but it also had within it projections of things of a 
positive nature, some of which occurred and some of which didn't. It 
had within it projections of things of a negative nature that did not 
occur. Even with regard to its prediction of violence and persistent 
violence and sectarian strife that could occur that report predicted it 
would be phasing down after 3 or 4 years. So predictions are 
predictions.
  I don't think those possibilities were not discussed in the debate 
leading up to our giving authorization to the President to conduct this 
war. To suggest that this intelligence report was some sort of smoking 
gun that raised issues nobody had even discussed, and that somehow the 
President misled the public, is wrong and it hurts the President of the 
United States, whoever he or she may be; and who, right now, we assume 
will be traveling the world and meeting with leaders of foreign 
nations. To make those kind of accusations is not healthy, in my view, 
and not responsible.
  Now, we had a vote week before last, fortunately, to provide funding 
through the emergency supplemental for our soldiers, sailor, airmen and 
marines in Iraq. That was too long in my view, but we did it. And we 
voted to send General Petraeus to execute the surge that the President 
has called for, and that was the funding that we approved week before 
last to fund that surge. He is to give us a report in September on how 
the situation is in Iraq, and we are all watching with a great deal of 
anxiety because we are concerned about what is happening in Iraq. We 
know the United States has only limited ability to affect what we would 
like to occur there. We have done a great deal to help that nation 
establish itself, and we want to continue to utilize our resources 
wisely, but this was a surge and we need to evaluate the situation in 
September.
  What I would urge my colleagues on the other side to do, even though 
they may be concerned about it, in the debate on the Defense 
authorization bill, and perhaps the Defense appropriations bill that 
will occur later on this summer, we ought not to utilize rhetoric and 
language that undermines what our soldiers are doing right now, what we 
directed them to do, and what we have funded them to do, and that is to 
help create stability and more security for the people of Iraq. We 
ought not to debate in such a way that it makes it harder for them to 
succeed.
  Don't we all want that to occur? Don't we all want to see a stable, 
decent Iraq occur? They have had elections, but they are having a very 
difficult time bringing that country together in a stable fashion, as 
we all know. So I would encourage my colleagues, in the course of the 
debate, that we conduct ourselves in such a way that we don't place at 
greater risk our soldiers and that we don't make our foreign policy 
that we have in a bipartisan way authorized more difficult to achieve 
and provide any ability for the enemy to think that they are able to 
prevail by lack of resolve on our part.
  I want to spend a few minutes talking about the immigration bill that 
is before us. I think it is a critically important piece of 
legislation. The American people are concerned about it. They are 
following it quite closely. They know we have a difficult time in Iraq, 
and they do not expect an easy solution there. They know we have 
difficulties with energy prices and other difficulties, and they want 
us to do what we can in that regard.
  With regard to immigration, they are rightly of the view that we can 
do something about it. We can create a lawful system of immigration 
that serves our national interest if we desire to do so. If we, as a 
Congress and the executive branch, want this to happen, we can make it 
happen. Don't let anybody suggest otherwise. It is not impossible. It 
is absolutely possible, and we ought to be working on that. That is 
what they have asked us to do, and I hope we will.
  Let me just mention the debate so far has been sporadic and 
desultory. Members have not had a chance to be very engaged in the 
matter. We were off last week for Memorial Day, but the week before 
that we were in debate on the bill. The week before that, the old bill, 
last year's failed bill, was introduced and sat on the calendar until 
Tuesday morning of the week before the recess. They then plopped down a 
complete substitute, a completely new bill last Tuesday.
  On Monday, we talked about immigration. I talked about it at some 
length, but there were no Senators here, really. The only vote we had 
was on the motion to proceed to the new bill. We had a mere six roll 
call votes last week, and we didn't do anything Friday even though we 
were in session. A few hardy souls, myself included, came down and 
spoke, but nobody was here to really listen. There were no votes, and 
most Senators had already gone home for the recess.
  Here we are again, now on the Monday after recess, with very few 
Senators here and no votes scheduled for today. All of these days 
though, even though we did not do anything, are going to be counted, 
you see, as time we spend analyzing and amending the immigration bill 
that is before us.
  I suggest that at this painfully slow pace of amendments, the bill 
can't be done this week, that we need a great deal more time on this 
bill before final passage.
  The way the bill was brought up was that our colleague, Senator Reid, 
under rule XIV, just introduced it and immediately brought it up. It 
did not go to committee. It was brought straight to the floor. It 
really had only been written over the weekend, and, bam, here it was on 
the floor. Senator Reid really wanted to pass it the first week it was 
on the floor, but there was a lot of push-back on that, and now we are 
into this week of debate.
  I see from his comments today that the majority leader seems to think 
the bill can pass this week. I suggest it cannot. There is no way it 
can be done in a week. I think 100 amendments have been filed. To get 
one brought up, though, is not easy. You have to basically get the 
consent of the majority leader to get an amendment brought up and made 
pending. So there are not nearly so many pending as there are problems 
that need to be fixed.
  There are flaws in the legislation. I am going to talk about those at 
some length. I will be talking about at least 20 serious flaws in this 
legislation, but I do not want that to suggest that flaws alone are the 
only problems with the legislation. In this bill, we do not have a 
principled approach to the future flow of immigrants into America, that 
is not a loophole, that is a major flaw. We have not thought through 
philosophically what we want to do about immigration. We have not made 
the real commitment I had hoped we would to a more merit-based, skill-
based immigration system. I am concerned about all of that. I think the 
American people are too.
  The administration and Senator Kennedy and the others who promoted 
the legislation talked about some principles as a part of talking 
points they handed out as the foundation for immigration legislation 
they would be offering. I first say to my colleagues, the bill does not 
meet the promises contained in those talking points and those 
principles. It just simply does not. If it did, we would be in much 
better shape than we are today, because many of those principles were 
sound. It contains, as I will note, a host of fundamental, serious 
defects and flaws that make the legislation not one that ought to be 
passed now.
  Finally, I still do not believe the White House and the Congress have 
heard the American people. They still think we can pass a piece of 
legislation here on the floor of the Congress, and we can push it 
through and get it off

[[Page S6975]]

our plate, and it will be some years before the American people find 
out this will not work either, anymore than it did in 1986, and it will 
be up to the next President, or the next President, and they will be 
the ones who will have to answer for it, but we will not pay a price. 
That is just the way they think it is going to be.
  Although I believe the American people deeply and strongly and 
intelligently are committed to a lawful immigration system that is 
compassionate and will work, I am not sure the leadership in the 
Congress is, or the White House. Indeed, we have not had a President 
committed to enforcement of immigration laws in the last 40 years.
  Those are the fundamental questions I have.
  Let me talk about some of the loopholes. With regard to the trigger, 
in 1986, amnesty was given. No one disputed it. They said it would be 
the last amnesty we ever had and that enforcement would occur. Promises 
were made about enforcement. Those promises for enforcement in the 
future were never kept. That was the problem. We had 3 million people 
claim amnesty in 1986; today we have, they say, 12 million prepared to 
claim amnesty in the United States today. What happened? The promised 
enforcement did not occur, so more people came illegally.
  Some will say you cannot really enforce immigration law. Of course 
you can enforce immigration law; we just have not been willing to do 
the things necessary to do that. I reject that concept. But this time 
bill supporters are saying if we give amnesty, we are going to try to 
ensure the enforcement does occur and we are going to do that by having 
a trigger mechanism. This enforcement mechanism will say if you do not 
comply with the requirements of Border Patrol agents and fencing and 
other matters, if you do not comply with those, Mr. President, the 
amnesty does not occur.
  That idea made some sense. People believed that was a good idea. I 
think I originally suggested it in committee last year. Senator Isakson 
offered a full amendment on the floor in the last year's debate--that 
amendment was defeated, so last year's bill did not include a guarantee 
to have any enforcement first. Why would the trigger fail last year? 
Why would it fail? Does that suggest some people are not serious about 
enforcement? I think it does.
  But look at this trigger this year. The guys who were promoting the 
bill last year opposed a trigger, no trigger they said--but this year 
they say we will accept one, they are telling the American people not 
to worry we are going to have a trigger this bill.
  I want to briefly mention some things about it. The amnesty benefits 
simply do not wait, under this trigger, for the enforcement to occur. 
After the filing of an application by a person here illegally, under 
this legislation, and waiting for only 24 hours, illegal aliens will 
immediately receive probationary benefits. They will be lawfully in the 
United States, complete with the ability to legally live and work in 
the United States, to travel outside the United States and to return, 
and to have their own Social Security card. That is what happens within 
24 hours.
  Astonishingly, if the trigger requirements are never met--that is 
these requirements that are supposed to be met first--and green card 
applications or permanent residents' applications are never approved by 
the Department of Homeland Security, the probationary benefits granted 
to the illegal alien population never expire, the cards issued to the 
population are never revoked, and they will be able to stay in the 
country indefinitely, forever maybe. After this bill passes, the 
Department of Homeland Security has 180 days to begin accepting Z visa 
amnesty applications. They will accept them for 1 year and can extend 
to accept them for another year and so forth.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say to my colleague Senator Bingaman, there is not 30 
minutes but an hour equally divided. I will be pleased to yield to the 
Senator at this time and thank him for his amendment to contain the 
guest worker--the temporary worker program that was in the bill as 
introduced earlier, before we recessed. His amendment, as he knows--
although I am not sure a lot of people know--brought the new temporary 
guest worker program from 400,000 a year to 200,000 a year. Some think 
that is all it is. But if you read the bill carefully, you knew it was 
400,000 for the first year and they got to stay for 2 years; another 
400,000 for the second year with an accelerator clause in it, and for 
both years a certain number got to bring in family members, so in 2 
years there would have been almost a million people in the country 
under that new temporary worker program--far more than it appeared on 
the surface. I am glad the amendment of Senator Bingaman was agreed to. 
I think it brought the numbers more in line.
  I am pleased to yield the floor at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.

                          ____________________