[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 38 (Thursday, March 6, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1664-S1669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, yesterday 12 Senators announced their 
intention to file 15 bills that would deal with the broken immigration 
system we have--15 responsible pieces of legislation that would be 
effective, in discrete, separate ways, to close some of the loopholes 
that are making our immigration system not work.
  This is important. It is important for the Senate to undertake this. 
I believe we should follow through, in the wake of last year's defeat 
of the massive amnesty proposal, with what so many Members have 
promised: real reform and real enforcement and border security first. 
That was what we decided last summer, I think, by most observers. We 
decided that amnesty before enforcement was backwards, and we needed 
enforcement first. That is what we talked about, and that is what the 
vote indicated when there was a massive defeat of that comprehensive 
bill.
  Now, the majority leader this morning, to my dismay, called that 
discussion yesterday fanfare. He said he hoped the American people can 
see what is going on here. Let's be frank about what is going on here. 
The majority leader, by those words, indicates to me he has no 
intention of moving forward with enforcement legislation. The leader of 
the Democrats in the Senate has indicated he does not want to go 
forward with it and that he is still in last year's and the year 
before's philosophy that the way to handle immigration is to refuse to 
pass anything that impacts positively enforcement until he is able to 
force through a massive amnesty.
  I will not go into the details of that discussion last year, but it 
was honest and detailed and long. When the debate was over, the 
American people and this Senate voted it down. We rejected it because 
it will not work that way. We must have the enforcement first. There 
are so many loopholes out there.
  It is disappointing. That is, frankly, where we are. Fourteen of his 
colleagues on the Democratic side voted to reject that plan. There were 
only 46 votes for it. You needed 60 to pass it. The suggestion that we 
are going to go back to a comprehensive plan such as that is not sound.
  These bills that have been offered by a fine group of Senators are 
excellent, responsible pieces of legislation. They help control some of 
the problems we have. I am disappointed it looks as though we are going 
to have to work hard to force an opportunity to even get votes on some 
of these critically needed pieces of legislation.
  Of the 15 bills that are in the package that was announced yesterday, 
over half of them have had prior votes in the Senate.

[[Page S1665]]

  Senator DeMint's fence completion bill, S. 2712, has been the subject 
of four votes. The fence completion bill--and we voted on it, voted on 
it, and it wins every time--but you look out here, and all we have is a 
broken virtual fence that will not work, and very few miles of fence, 
very little of the double border. It is not occurring.
  Senator Domenici's bill, to keep the National Guard there longer, has 
been voted on twice.
  My bill requiring mandatory minimums for those who enter the country 
illegally has been voted on twice. It is a pretty tough bill. Somebody 
said we introduced a tough package. It would require 10 days detention 
at a minimum if you come here illegally. How extreme is that? If you 
come back a second time, a longer period. My legislation would also 
establish new worksite enforcement measures. That has been voted on at 
least twice in the Senate.
  Various forms of the Chambliss-Isakson bill, creating effective 
partnerships between law enforcement and the Federal Government in 
State and local agencies, has received numerous votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes. There are a 
number of other bills from Senator Vitter, Senator Inhofe, Senator 
Lamar Alexander, Senator Arlen Specter--and I have his remarks, which I 
will submit for the Record, and all of these things we voted on, many 
of which passed and some of which were in last year's comprehensive 
bill.

  I see my colleague is here, Senator Elizabeth Dole, who is so 
thoughtful on these issues and is a superb Senator and who has given a 
lot of time and interest in trying to do this thing right. I know she 
has a piece of legislation she would like to discuss.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, in the time remaining in the 110th 
Congress, there is still much that can be done to address critical 
pieces of the massively complex immigration issue. As my good friend, 
the Senator from Alabama, who made such kind comments, has related, we 
are offering solutions to demonstrated problems--measures that have 
bipartisan appeal and broad public support.
  I have introduced legislation which would repeal President Bill 
Clinton's Executive order requiring the Federal Government to provide 
services in languages other than English. It is impractical and 
fiscally irresponsible to provide services in the hundreds of languages 
spoken in the United States at an estimated cost of up to $2 billion 
annually. My bill would also help ensure that Federal funds to local 
and State governments are not jeopardized because they provide English-
only services. Moreover, proficiency in English should be encouraged, 
as it is required for citizenship and essential for maximizing 
opportunities in this country.
  My other bill, the Safe Roads Enhancement Act of 2008, would amend 
the Immigration and Nationality Act to make a drunk driving conviction 
a deportable offense for illegal aliens. It also would classify a third 
drunk driving conviction as an aggravated felony and therefore a 
deportable offense for nationals of a foreign country.
  In my State of North Carolina, there have been a number of fatal 
automobile accidents caused by an intoxicated person who was in the 
United States illegally. In several of these incidents, the illegal 
alien has a record of DWI but has been caught and released. For 
families, the pain of losing a loved one is compounded by the knowledge 
that the person responsible for these fatalities was not even in this 
country legally.
  A tragic example occurred in Charlotte last spring when a man 
attempted to cross the street and was struck and killed by a drunk 
driver who then fled the scene. Fortunately, police were able to 
apprehend the driver, an illegal alien with a previous DWI conviction, 
before he could harm anyone else. Cases such as this are not isolated, 
and they are not specific to North Carolina. Across our Nation, similar 
senseless tragedies occur on roads and highways.
  My bill would help ensure that undocumented aliens who have self-
identified themselves by drunk driving are removed. Likewise, 
individuals who abuse their legal status in the United States by 
repeatedly breaking drunk driving laws would lose their privilege of 
living in our country. Sadly, as we have seen repeatedly, we sorely 
need to strengthen immigration laws with regard to drunk driving 
convictions.
  Furthermore, our Government urgently needs to be laser-focused on 
removing undocumented aliens who are self-identifying themselves by 
committing other crimes, such as drug trafficking and gang-related 
activities. Most of us can agree that criminal aliens who are obviously 
here for the wrong reasons should be removed. If we are not safe in our 
own communities and in our own homes, then what else is going to 
matter?
  I am very proud that as a result of my many months working with 
Federal officials and sheriffs across our 100 North Carolina counties, 
ours is the first State in the Nation to have a statewide partnership 
plan for sheriffs to coordinate with ICE, part of the U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security. This plan will ensure that all North Carolina 
sheriffs can readily access, if they choose, the tools such as 287(g) 
to identify and help process undocumented aliens who have self-
identified themselves by committing crimes.
  This plan is being implemented by the steering committee of North 
Carolina sheriffs and adopts a regional approach to ensure statewide 
access to 287(g) databases and other resources to determine the 
immigration status of apprehended individuals. The State is being 
audited as we speak. I welcome the work of my colleagues from Georgia 
for their bill that recognizes that local law enforcement officers are 
on the front lines fighting crime in their communities, and it directs 
additional resources for these types of Federal partnerships that can 
help bring criminal alien problems under control.
  The No. 1 lesson learned from the Senate's failed immigration bill is 
that Americans simply don't have confidence their Government is serious 
about securing our borders and enforcing our laws. Real action, real 
results on this front are long overdue. People don't want promises 
anymore, they want proof. We now have a chance to put the horse before 
the cart and enact the border security and enforcement policies that 
will bring about the political will and support to further address our 
broken immigration system. I urge my colleagues' support of this 
commonsense approach.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina 
and the Senator from Alabama for their leadership on this immigration 
issue. Thanks for a few moments to speak on a bill that I will be 
offering related to the immigration debate that is called the Complete 
Fence Act.
  Last year, I think we took on a noble task of trying to solve the 
immigration problem with one grand bill, but what we have learned in 
the Senate is that it is very difficult to focus on one issue and get a 
bill through without a lot of add-ons for special interests. We are 
certainly seeing it with the consumer product safety bill that we are 
debating now.
  The House passed a bill that was bipartisan and unanimous and was 
supported by consumer groups as well as industry groups. It was a bill 
that was ready for us to take and pass and send to the President. But 
we in the Senate needed to add in a number of special interest 
provisions that have nothing to do with consumer product safety. We 
even discovered last night, as the bill was put into a managers' 
amendment, they had added some new things that apply to one State and 
things that have nothing to do--no germaneness--with consumer product 
safety that we have to deal with.
  Certainly, that is what we ran into on the immigration issue. So much 
was added to the bill, it was like trying to swallow an apple when that 
apple needs to be eaten with a number of different bites.
  That is what we are trying to do with this series of immigration 
bills which recognize that in order to have a real solution to the 
immigration problem in the country, we need to build a platform for 
reform one plank at a time. Even those who were pushing the 
comprehensive bill now realize we need to begin with border control and 
enforcement, the type of enforcement internally that the Senator from 
North

[[Page S1666]]

Carolina was talking about: a worker verification program so employers 
know who is legal and who is not. If we build this system that way, in 
a way the American people can trust, we can get to the point where 
America will trust us to develop new immigration policies, how to deal 
with those who are already here, and how to accept immigrants in the 
future who are needed for our economy.
  But the very first step, as all of us have recognized, is to have 
border control. This body has passed several times legislation that 
would build a 700-mile fence along the border that would support our 
Border Patrol in stopping illegal immigrants. It is not just an issue 
of illegal immigrants themselves; it also involves drug trafficking, it 
involves human trafficking, and it also involves security from 
terrorists who might be smuggling weapons into this country. It is 
essential that we control our borders.
  In 2006, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act which required 700 
miles of fencing, and this is metal fencing--this is not virtual 
fencing; this is metal pedestrian fencing along the southwest border--
and a deadline for 370 miles of this to be completed by the end of this 
year. At this point, only 167 miles of real metal fencing has been 
completed, but we have been assured by the Department of Homeland 
Security that they will meet their goal of 370 miles of fencing before 
the end of this year.
  The bill I am introducing would set a deadline for 2010 for all 700 
miles of pedestrian metal fencing to be completed. This is essential to 
move ahead with the immigration reform process so the American people 
will know we are serious about protecting the border and having a 
workable immigration system.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to urge the Department of Homeland 
Security and comfort the American people with the fact that we are 
serious about completing this fence and to support the Complete Fence 
Act of 2008.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today in support of a piece of 
legislation that my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and I have 
filed. I compliment my friends and colleagues from South Carolina, 
North Carolina, and Alabama for their leadership. I look forward to 
supporting their commonsense measures toward doing what we said we were 
going to do, which is secure the border.
  The one thing we learned last year, as the Senator from North 
Carolina alluded to earlier, during the immigration reform debate is 
the American people don't have confidence in Congress that we are going 
to do what we say we are going to do when it comes to border security. 
There is good reason for that. Credibility on this issue is simply 
lacking, both with the administration, as well as with Congress. Now we 
have an opportunity to come back and take a commonsense approach from a 
legislative perspective on truly securing the border. The legislation 
Senator Isakson and I are introducing does this.
  A lot of people have said: Senator, why don't you just enforce the 
laws that are on the books today? Why don't you get local law 
enforcement officials involved in helping secure the border and in 
dealing with people who are here illegally?
  Well, the fact is, local law enforcement officials have very little 
power when it comes to dealing with folks who are in violation of a 
Federal immigration law, particularly when it comes to being here 
illegally. So what our particular piece of legislation does is, it puts 
the tools in the hands of those folks who are going to have the primary 
contact and are more likely to have the initial contact with folks who 
are here illegally, and that is local law enforcement officials versus 
someone from ICE or any other part of the Federal Government from a law 
enforcement standpoint.

  All of us remember that three of the 9/11 hijackers were stopped on 
routine traffic stops by local law enforcement officials. 
Unfortunately, those local law enforcement officials did not have the 
means whereby they could check to determine whether those individuals 
were in this country legally or illegally. If they would have had the 
input--not access but the input--by the Federal Government into the 
NCIC, which is the national identification tracking mechanism for 
vehicles and drivers of vehicles that is used nationwide, then those 
local law enforcement officials would have known and understood those 
individuals were here illegally. And if they would have had the tools 
otherwise given in this piece of legislation, they could have dealt 
with and detained those individuals.
  So what we seek to do with this commonsense piece of legislation is 
to, first of all, clarify the authority that local governments have in 
the normal course of carrying out their duties to help enforce our 
immigration laws. Secondly, it will expand the National Crime 
Information Centers Immigration Violators File to include those 
individuals who are known to be here illegally, or known to be here 
legally, so they can be cross-referenced in an instant and not have to 
worry about getting incorrect information or making assumptions.
  This piece of legislation expands the 287(g) program, which is a very 
popular program with our law enforcement officials. Three of my 
counties in Georgia are already utilizing this program. What it does 
is, the Federal Government steps in with a county anywhere in the 
country to provide the law enforcement officials in that county with 
training and instructions as to how to deal with folks who are found to 
be violating our immigration laws.
  Lastly, it will compensate State and local entities for immigration-
enforcement-related expenses.
  Madam President, common sense is what we are asking for here when it 
comes to enforcing the border and providing our law enforcement 
officials with the tools necessary to assist in making sure our borders 
are secure.
  With that, I look forward to working with my other colleagues on 
their particular pieces of legislation as we move forward to make sure 
we restore confidence with the American people when it comes to border 
security, and we will be able to truly say we have secured the border, 
and here is how we have done it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
to speak for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to join several of my 
colleagues to continue to focus on the enormous problem facing our 
country of illegal immigration. I am proud to not only rise with these 
colleagues, some of whom have been on the floor this morning, but also 
to actively work with them on important enforcement and other measures 
that we can and must push forward this year to make significant 
improvements, to take significant strides in moving forward to solve 
the problem.
  Yesterday, I announced, along with others, two things--first of all, 
the formation of a brand-new caucus in the Senate, which I organized. I 
am proud to say that now I believe the number is 12 Members have joined 
the caucus. It is the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus. The 
purpose behind the group is exactly as the name implies: to push border 
security and enforcement first as the key, necessary first step in 
solving this enormous problem.
  We have tried the other approach over and over for decades, and that 
is the so-called comprehensive approach. All that has yielded is gaps 
of time--3 to 5 years--and then there is a comprehensive approach that 
was tried and completely rejected by the American people. That approach 
has only led to failure because it doesn't jibe with what the American 
people know is the right approach, which is taking this in steps and 
starting with crucial enforcement, proving to them that Washington is 
going to do what it has never done before--have the political will and 
get real about enforcement.
  Most recently, of course, the American people rejected that approach 
last July when they chimed in and had the Senate view its will to kill 
that last so-called comprehensive bill--a large amnesty bill with which 
they disagreed vehemently. So this is a new approach that can lead to 
progress, achievement, and success--enforcement first.

[[Page S1667]]

  Also, yesterday a broad group of Senators introduced a package of 
bills that moves us in that direction. I have two bills in that 
package, which I will briefly mention.
  The first bill would say that so-called sanctuary cities--local 
jurisdictions that set as official policy that they are not going to 
cooperate in any way with immigration enforcement and with our Federal 
immigration enforcement officials--will not get COPS funding. Instead, 
that COPS funding will go to the rest of the local jurisdictions in the 
country who do work with us in immigration enforcement.
  The second amendment simply says that matricula consular cards issued 
by the Mexican Government to their citizens in this country--
oftentimes, their citizens who are here illegally cannot be accepted by 
U.S. banks, to allow them to do things like open bank accounts and have 
credit cards. That is clearly a vehicle that is used now by millions of 
illegal aliens, allowing them to operate freely and effectively in this 
country. It should end for many reasons, security reasons and for 
enforcement reasons. My bill would do that.
  Again, I am proud to join with a number of Senators in this important 
push toward enforcement first and the formation of our new caucus, the 
Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus, and in introducing this 
important package of bills, which we can move and pass this year.
  I urge all of my colleagues to reject and defy the conventional 
wisdom that we cannot do significant things in a big election year. We 
can and we must because we face significant challenges, and certainly 
illegal immigration is near the top of that list.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Who yields time?
  Mr. VITTER. 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.
  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.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for talking about 
some of the legislation that was announced yesterday in a press 
conference--15 pieces of legislation, offered by 12 Senators, that they 
believe would help create a lawful system of immigration and that they 
would like to discuss and debate and vote on this year.
  My friend, the Democratic leader, said he didn't like it, apparently 
because a number of those Senators gathered and announced at a press 
conference their ideas. He called that ``great fanfare, a press 
event,'' with a little bit of a sniff, I think. And then he said these 
words: ``I hope the American public sees it for what it is.''
  That kind of hurt my feelings. Can we not have a press conference to 
announce legislation that is going to improve America and talk about 
it? Is he suggesting that there is a nefarious plan afoot here? What is 
it that he is not happy about?
  I just suggest that it was a revealing comment by the majority 
leader, with his inside-the-beltway hat on. What was revealed by that 
comment? He is suggesting that we should not bring it up because a lot 
of people in the media and the ``masters of the universe,'' I call 
them, who want to control all this immigration and make it do what they 
want it to do--and they realize the American people do not agree with 
them, but they want to do it anyway. So I think it was a revealing 
comment when the majority leader said that something is afoot here. 
What he is concerned about is that these bills might actually be 
brought up, as Senator Vitter has announced, as a good piece of 
legislation--may actually be brought up and, heavens, they might be 
asked to vote on it with an election coming up; that it is unfair to 
ask the U.S. Senate to vote on legislation that the American people 
would like to see pass, that could help create lawfulness in the 
immigration system, with an election coming up. He hopes the American 
people ``see it for what it is.''
  Well, if the fact that an election is coming up helps our colleagues 
to be more alert to the real need for reform, the real need to end 
unlawfulness in immigration, then so be it; maybe that is a good thing. 
I don't see anything wrong with asking a Senator, who is paid by the 
taxpayers of America a decent wage, a good wage, to vote on important 
pieces of legislation that the public cares about.
  I suppose the majority leader, who would oppose, apparently, the 
legislation--or at least some of it--that we are talking about here 
would prefer that we wait until early next year, after the election, 
and he would have a better chance then of cobbling together the votes 
to kill the reforms that are needed. Maybe that is what he has in his 
mind. But we are entitled as Senators to have votes on bills. 
Hopefully, we will move forward with some good legislation that will 
work.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to discuss the 
Accountability in Immigrant Repatriation Act of 2008, S. 2720.
  This bill addresses the reality that aliens who have been ordered to 
be removed from this country are often released back onto U.S. streets 
due to the refusal of their home countries to repatriate them. 
Moreover, many of these aliens are criminals who have served time in 
our Federal, State, and local jails. As of February 11, 2008, eight 
countries--such as Vietnam, Jamaica, China, India, and Ethiopia--are 
refusing to repatriate a total of over 139,000 aliens. Over 18,000 of 
them are convicted criminals who have been released back into U.S. 
society. Secretary Chertoff testified this week that his counterparts 
in Europe are facing similar problems repatriating dangerous aliens.
  We must increase the pressure on foreign countries to take back the 
aliens that have been ordered deported. The Supreme Court in two 
cases--Zadvydas v. Davis and Clark v. Martinez--adopted a presumption 
that it is only reasonable to continue to detain aliens ordered to be 
deported for up to 6 months. So at the end of that time, if the home 
country steadfastly refuses to repatriate, we are forced to release 
them.
  This is of obvious concern to the citizens of this country, who are 
put at risk by criminal aliens who are released. In Pennsylvania, there 
are 700 to 1,000 undocumented criminal aliens that could end up out on 
our streets if their home countries refuse to take them back when we 
try to deport them. The recidivism rate among this population is 
extremely high. Studies show that the average criminal illegal alien 
was rearrested an estimated six to eight times--most often for drug 
crimes, robbery and assault, and, to a lesser degree, for murder and 
sexual offenses. Moreover, not only does refusal to repatriate often 
put convicted criminals with no right to be here out on the street, but 
drawn-out repatriation negotiations divert scarce Federal resources 
away from identifying and deporting other criminal aliens.
  Therefore, this bill imposes sanctions on countries that refuse to 
repatriate aliens who have been ordered deported. First, the bill 
requires the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress 
every 90 days on the countries which refuse or inhibit repatriation. 
The receipt of this report automatically triggers denial of foreign aid 
as well as suspension of visa issuances to the listed non-cooperative 
countries. This will send a clear signal to those countries unwilling 
to take responsibility for their citizens that they will no longer 
benefit from U.S. largess--in the form of money and visas.
  It also grants standing to enforce the bill to victims of crimes 
committed by nonrepatriated criminal aliens. Current law, which gives 
the administration discretion to deny visas to uncooperative countries, 
has been sorely underutilized. This bill eliminates such discretion.
  Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act directs the 
State Department not to issue visas to nationals of countries 
identified by the Attorney General--now the Secretary of Homeland 
Security--as countries that deny or delay repatriation. Congressional 
intent was clear, and the remedy was potent when applied against Guyana 
several years ago. However, the Congressional Research Service has not 
identified any other instance in which Homeland Security elected to 
issue the triggering notification to the State Department.

[[Page S1668]]

  On February 15, I wrote letters to the Secretaries of State and 
Homeland Security as well as to the Attorney General to find out why 
this authority is seemingly unutilized. On March 4, I reiterated my 
concerns to Secretary Chertoff in person, when he testified before the 
Appropriations Subcommittee. He committed to working with us to find 
ways to extend the 6-month detention in appropriate cases rather than 
simply releasing all deportable aliens. This is a welcome step--one 
that will complement the bill I am introducing
  Foreign relations are complex and there is a need to balance 
competing interests; however, ensuring the public safety is a 
Government's primary duty and must be its first priority. Also, we must 
ensure that prolonged repatriation negotiations do not drain scarce 
resources. It makes little sense to continue admitting persons if we 
cannot be sure that their countries will take them back in the event 
they are ordered removed from this country. Similarly, it makes little 
sense to continue rewarding such countries with U.S. taxpayer dollars 
in the form of foreign aid.
  This bill addresses the problem by imposing sanctions on non-
repatriating countries that refuse to cooperate and take 
responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2008.
     Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
     Secretary of State, Department of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Rice: I am troubled that thousands of 
     deportable aliens who have been convicted of crimes in the 
     United States, sometimes violent crimes, remain in the United 
     States because their native countries refuse to repatriate 
     them. Moreover, most of these aliens are released back into 
     the population, as extended detention is untenable due to a 
     lack of resources and the Supreme Court's Zadvydas decision.
       Many of these recalcitrant nations receive substantial U.S. 
     aid, and their citizens are regularly issued U.S. visas. The 
     Congress has already attempted to address this problem, in 
     section 243(d) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and 
     I am curious as to why it is not utilized to greater effect. 
     According to the statute, upon notification from the Attorney 
     General that a country denies or unreasonably delays 
     repatriation (such notification is now provided by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security), the Secretary of State 
     ``shall'' suspend visa issuances until notified by the 
     Attorney General that the country has accepted the alien.
       This tactic is potent in theory, and was successful in 
     practice when applied against Guyana several years ago. While 
     I appreciate that foreign relations is a delicate affair 
     involving balancing numerous interests, surely public safety 
     in the United States is a priority of the highest order. Not 
     only does refusal to repatriate often put convicted criminals 
     with no right to be here back on the street, but drawn out 
     repatriation negotiations divert scarce federal resources 
     away from identifying and deporting other criminal aliens--as 
     many as 300,000 of whom were incarcerated in 2007 and will be 
     released rather than deported at the conclusion of their 
     sentences.
       It seems incongruous for the United States to continue 
     admitting the citizens of an uncooperative country that 
     refuses to take back those who are convicted criminals. Why 
     then are we not more aggressive in our use of section 243(d) 
     to ensure prompt repatriation, particularly of criminal 
     undocumented aliens? I would appreciate your views on the 
     efficacy of this provision and any obstacles to its 
     utilization.
       I look forward to your response and your thoughts on this 
     important issue. To aid the analysis, I would appreciate it 
     if you could include a list of the notifications you have 
     forwarded to the State Department pursuant to section 243(d) 
     in the last 5 years, any actions upon them (e.g., suspension 
     of non-immigrant visas), and whether they were ultimately 
     successful in securing repatriation.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2008,
     Hon. Michael Chertoff,
     Department of Homeland Security,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary. Chertoff: I am troubled that thousands of 
     deportable aliens who have been convicted of crimes in the 
     United States, sometimes violent crimes, remain in the United 
     States because their native countries refuse to repatriate 
     them. Moreover, most of these aliens are released back into 
     the population, as extended detention is untenable due to a 
     lack of resources and the Supreme Court's Zadvydas decision.
       Many of these recalcitrant nations receive substantial U.S. 
     aid, and their citizens are regularly issued U.S. visas. The 
     Congress has already attempted to address this problem, in 
     section 243(d) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and 
     I am curious as to why it is not utilized to greater effect. 
     According to the statute, upon notification from the Attorney 
     General that a country denies or unreasonably delays 
     repatriation (such notification is now provided by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security), the Secretary of State 
     ``shall'' suspend visa issuances until notified by the 
     Attorney General that the country has accepted the alien.
       This tactic is potent in theory, and was successful in 
     practice when applied against Guyana several years ago. While 
     I appreciate that foreign relations is a delicate affair 
     involving balancing numerous interests, surely public safety 
     in the United States is a priority of the highest order. Not 
     only does refusal to repatriate often put convicted criminals 
     with no right to be here back on the street, but drawn out 
     repatriation negotiations divert scarce federal resources 
     away from identifying and deporting other criminal aliens--as 
     many as 300,000 of whom were incarcerated in 2007 and will be 
     released rather than deported at the conclusion of their 
     sentences.
       It seems incongruous for the United States to continue 
     admitting the citizens of an uncooperative country that 
     refuses to take back those who are convicted criminals. Why 
     then are we not more aggressive in our use of section 243(d) 
     to ensure prompt repatriation, particularly of criminal 
     undocumented aliens? I would appreciate your views on the 
     efficacy of this provision and any obstacles to its 
     utilization.
       In a related development, this week, DHS noticed a proposed 
     rule to prohibit H-2A visas for nationals of countries which 
     refuse to repatriate. This is a welcome step, but why did DHS 
     not instead dispense with time-consuming rulemaking, which 
     ultimately will provide only limited leverage, and simply 
     notify the State Department immediately of the non-
     cooperating countries?
       I look forward to your response and your thoughts on this 
     important issue. To aid the analysis, I would appreciate it 
     if you could include a list of the notifications you have 
     forwarded to the State Department pursuant to section 243(d) 
     in the last 5 years, any actions upon them (e.g., suspension 
     of non-immigrant visas), and whether they were ultimately 
     successful in securing repatriation.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen specter.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2008.
     Hon. Michael B. Mukasey,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General: I am troubled that thousands of 
     deportable aliens who have been convicted of crimes in the 
     United States, sometimes violent crimes, remain in the United 
     States because their native countries refuse to repatriate 
     them. Moreover, most of these aliens are released back into 
     the population, as extended detention is untenable due to a 
     lack of resources and the Supreme Court's Zadvydas decision.
       Many of these recalcitrant nations receive substantial U.S. 
     aid, and their citizens are regularly issued U.S. visas. The 
     Congress has already attempted to address this problem, in 
     section 243(d) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and 
     I am curious as to why it is not utilized to greater effect. 
     According to the statute, upon notification from the Attorney 
     General that a country denies or unreasonably delays 
     repatriation (such notification is now provided by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security), the Secretary of State 
     ``shall'' suspend visa issuances until notified by the 
     Attorney General that the country has accepted the alien.
       This tactic is potent in theory, and was successful in 
     practice when applied against Guyana several years ago. While 
     I appreciate that foreign relations is a delicate affair 
     involving balancing numerous interests, surely public safety 
     in the United States is a priority of the highest order. Not 
     only does refusal to repatriate often put convicted criminals 
     with no right to be here back on the street, but drawn out 
     repatriation negotiations divert scarce federal resources 
     away from identifying and deporting other criminal aliens--as 
     many as 300,000 of whom were incarcerated in 2007 and will be 
     released rather than deported at the conclusion of their 
     sentences.
       It seems incongruous for the United States to continue 
     admitting the citizens of an uncooperative country that 
     refuses to take back those who are convicted criminals. Why 
     then are we not more aggressive in our use of section 243(d) 
     to ensure prompt repatriation, particularly of criminal 
     undocumented aliens? I would appreciate your views on the 
     efficacy of this provision and any obstacles to its 
     utilization.
       I look forward to your response and your thoughts on this 
     important issue. To aid the analysis, I would appreciate it 
     if you could include a list of the notifications that were 
     received pursuant to section 243(d) in the last 5 years, any 
     actions upon them (e.g., suspension of non-immigrant visas), 
     and whether they were ultimately successful in securing 
     repatriation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S1669]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________