[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2177-S2180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            STIMULUS PACKAGE

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will share a few remarks about the 
stimulus package that we understand is making its way here after going 
through conference. I believe there may be some opportunity to change 
what is in it. I hope so because one of the most disappointing aspects 
of the process we have been going through is that I was denied a vote 
on an amendment that would simply say that every business that gets 
contracts out of this job stimulus package will have to use the very 
simple-to-operate E-verify system that over one hundred thousand 
American corporations are using voluntarily.
  With that system, you simply punch in the Social Security number of a 
job applicant in order to verify work eligibility. Employers run the 
social security number through the system and they receive information 
as to whether this individual has a legitimate Social

[[Page S2178]]

Security number. It accurately identifies quite a number of people 
illegally in the country who are passing themselves off as being legal. 
In fact, we have had testimony over the years that there are quite a 
number of individuals who have used the same social security number; 
possibly thousands who have used the same Social Security number. Until 
the E-Verify program, nobody checked.
  This system has successfully been set up. President Bush was somewhat 
reluctant but moved forward with it, and the system is up and running. 
It was supposed to be fully implemented for every business in America. 
It is available to every business in America today on a voluntarily 
basis. Last year, the Bush Administration issued Executive Order 12989, 
which would require all Federal Government contractors and 
subcontractors to use E-Verify.
  It is not an unusual idea. It is a popular idea in the House, the 
Senate and with the American people. Out of all the potential applicant 
queries made, E-Verify only identifies about 3 percent a year who are 
apparently not legally in the country and should not be getting a job. 
We are passing a bill, a huge piece of legislation that, frankly, is 
less stimulative and less job creative than we would like it to be.
  Gary Becker and one of his partners, a Nobel Prize economist, in the 
Wall Street Journal yesterday wrote a big piece in which he questioned 
how many jobs would actually be created and how stimulative this 
package is. It has too much in it that is not stimulative. He said you 
would normally hope to get 1.5 percent of GDP of stimulation for every 
dollar spent. In his opinion, because of the way it is written, it 
would be less than 1 percent. Not good.
  The idea was to create jobs, but not for people illegally in the 
country; for Americans, legal Americans. These include citizens, green 
cardholders and legal workers in America. They should all be eligible 
for jobs created under this bill, but not illegally here should not.
  The House unanimously accepted 2 E-Verify amendments. The House 
passed legislation by Congressman Calvert of California that said the 
E-verify system, which will expire this spring, will be extended for 4 
years. In addition to being accepted in their stimulus bill, that 
language passed the House 407 to 2 last July. Unfortunately, the 
Democrat majority blocked the Senate from voting on it in the last 
Congress.
  Congressman Kingston offered an amendment that every contractor who 
gets money under the stimulus bill should use E-verify to try to ensure 
the people who are hired, those who get jobs, are lawful Americans.
  How much simpler can it be than that? How much more common sense can 
we have in a bill than that? That was accepted as part of the final 
package. When the vote was held in the House, I guess all but 11 
Democrats voted for both of those provisions.
  They are kind of proud of themselves. They are telling their 
constituents: I voted to make sure, as best we could--it is not a 
perfect system--but as best we could, that contractors would use E-
verify and prohibit some of the people who should not be getting jobs 
from doing so.
  Then when I offered an identical amendment in the Senate, it was 
never allowed to be brought up for a vote. I have been through this 
process for some time. I have seen how things work. I am beginning to 
see what might be afoot. I know that the majority leader, Senator Reid, 
whom I respect so much, who has such a difficult job--I don't see how 
anybody can handle it--but he has to make decisions. He has made one 
with which I don't agree.
  Somewhere along the way, the leadership decided they would not allow 
the Senate to vote on this amendment, although they claimed everybody 
gets votes on their amendments. They would not allow a vote on it.
  Why was this significant? My amendment, supported by Senator Ben 
Nelson, one of the people who helped arrange this final settlement, a 
Democratic Senator, an experienced Governor--was the same as the 
language included in the House version of this bill. Under our rules, 
if the Senate passes legislation that has the same language as the 
House, it should remain in the final bill. It should not be taken out. 
If it was validated by both Houses of Congress, it should not be 
altered by the conferees. But if one body does not have the language in 
their version of the bill, then the conferees have a choice. They can 
either take the House language that had the E-verify provisions in it, 
or they could take the Senate language that did not.
  Let me tell you why I was pretty worried about it. Under this 
maneuver, this is what happened. The House Members all get to claim 
they voted for it, and the Senate Members never have to say they voted 
against it. If anybody complains about it not being in the bill, any 
Member of the Senate can say: I would have voted for it; I just didn't 
get the vote. That works a lot of times, and it is not good because I 
truly believe that if this amendment had been voted on in the Senate, 
it would have received very large bipartisan support.
  I don't think there is any doubt in my mind that many Senators would 
take the position that E-verify, an essential system for creating a 
lawful system of immigration, should be extended. I think very few 
Senators would take the position that somebody getting money under this 
jobs package, this stimulus package paid for by the American taxpayers, 
shouldn't have to hire those who are not lawfully in the country.
  I am disappointed. I think the American people should be 
disappointed.
  I want to go back a little bit further and discuss it some more 
because I firmly believe that one reason the American people distrust 
Congress and that we have such a low approval rating is this very kind 
of manipulation and chicanery.
  Back when the effort was made to move the comprehensive immigration 
bill in the Judiciary Committee, it would have given, I think it is 
fair to say, amnesty to those here illegally, while only promising a 
lot of enforcement measures in the future. During markup in the 
Judiciary Committee, I offered several amendments to tighten up 
enforcement. I was a little bit surprised because amendments I had 
offered before were accepted, amendments to extend the fence, to add to 
the number of investigators, and to add necessary detention space so 
people could be deported if they were apprehended.
  Two years ago, we were apprehending 1.1 million people a year 
attempting to enter the country illegally. We arrested that many people 
at the border and we had a lot of things we needed to do.
  It finally dawned on me what was happening. This is what happened in 
1986. Why did the 1986 amnesty bill ultimately fail? The amnesty bill 
in 1986 gave legal status and a path to citizenship for millions--it 
turned out to be more than estimated--but it promised enforcement. What 
I want you to know is the amnesty provisions become law at once. But 
the enforcement was merely a promise. Unless the money for enforcement 
is actually appropriated by the appropriators, no additional Border 
Patrol agents get added, no fence and barriers get built, no detention 
spaces get added, no systems, such as E-verify, get set up. That is why 
it failed before, and I saw that we were heading down the same path 
again in 2006 and 2007.
  Those of us who questioned the legislation and demanded that we have 
confidence in the enforcement provisions did not receive those 
assurances. And that is why the American people made their voice heard 
and the bill ended up going down in flames with an overwhelming vote 
against it. This was a far different outcome than people had been 
projecting even a few months before.
  I remember how we handled the amendment I offered on defensive 
barriers at the border. It was obvious that at the California border, 
barriers were working. We wanted to extend that barrier. I introduced 
an amendment to authorize the construction of barriers of various 
kinds--some vehicles, some fixed--and it would pass with 86 votes. But 
when the appropriations bills came back, where we actually disburse the 
money to fund these programs, the money for the barriers was not 
included. So we began to have a serious discussion on the floor of the 
Senate about that kind of duplicity, I felt, where we would vote 
overwhelmingly to take an action and then when came time to put up the 
money to make it happen, we would vote it down, and everybody would 
say: I voted to build a

[[Page S2179]]

fence. It is not my fault. It just didn't happen.
  I want to say, this is what is happening with these E-Verify 
provisions. The American people need to know it. This was a very 
reasonable and restrained provision. It is common sense, if there is 
any such thing as common sense associated with the way this stimulus 
bill was handled. It tries to help Americans get jobs. Unemployment is 
up to 7.6 percent now. Unfortunately, I think it may go up more. Why in 
the world would we not take this reasonable, simple step to try to 
ensure that the $800 billion we are spending goes to American citizens 
or those lawfully in our country? It does not create police. It does 
not create enforcement. It does not create a bureaucracy. It simply 
extends the already successful program and says every employer ought to 
use this simple E-verify system, a 2-minute computer check to find out 
if the person is likely to be illegal or legal.
  I could not imagine why we would not do that, but now I understand. I 
saw one publication, an inside trade publication that said the chicken 
processors and the Chamber of Commerce, big business Chamber of 
Commerce, had written the leaders and asked them not to pass my 
amendment. They didn't write to me. They didn't write to other Members. 
Somebody is talking in secret. Somewhere, somehow this plan was 
developed to keep this provision from becoming part of this law. And it 
is not right. I protested. Three or four times I came to this floor, 
and I asked that this language either be put in the bill or that, at 
the very least, the Senate be allowed to vote on it. I expressed my 
concern that this very thing was happening. But the leadership in the 
Senate has the power to pick and choose the amendments they allow to be 
voted on, and they didn't want this one to be voted on. They didn't 
want it because they didn't want the language in the bill, I conclude. 
What else could I conclude because if we had had a vote, it would have 
passed, I am convinced.

  Senator Ben Nelson and I supported it. We had a whole lot of Members 
on the Democratic side who did not go for this last comprehensive 
immigration bill. This is just a tiny step compared to that historic 
vote. I believe virtually all of our Members would have believed this 
was a reasonable amendment, and, overwhelmingly, I am confident a 
strong majority would have voted for it and it would have been in the 
bill.
  So that is the kind of thing we are doing. If people are unhappy with 
their Congress and the process we have ongoing, then they need to do 
like they did back during the immigration debate and send letters and 
make phone calls. That apparently made a tremendous difference then.
  You may ask: Well, why did the conference not include the House-
passed language; isn't there a process? Well, the Senate conference was 
very small, and the Senate conferees were a majority of Democrats 
selected by the majority leader. In the House they have a majority 
appointed by the Speaker. That means basically the Speaker and the 
majority leader control what comes out of the conference. They pick the 
people who run it and vote on it and they get to decide. So somewhere 
along the way the Speaker and the majority leader agreed to take this 
language out. It should not have happened. It should have been in this 
bill, and I am very sorry it was not.
  Mr. President, I will just say that will be one of the reasons I will 
oppose this bill. I am very disappointed we didn't have the free 
ability this great Senate is so famous for to have a vote on a clearly 
relevant, germane amendment. It was already in the House bill. That 
guarantees it to be a germane amendment. It would be germane under any 
circumstances, I believe. I am deeply disappointed we didn't have a 
right to vote on that.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and 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, to follow up on my earlier remarks about 
E-Verify, I would note it is ironic that it appears the final version 
of this legislation will result in a huge expansion of Government, but 
it also could result in termination of a key program, and that is the 
E-Verify Program. It has been proven to be successful. People like it--
on a bipartisan basis they like it--and it will terminate this spring 
if we don't do something about it.
  According to both Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation, and 
Steven Camarota from the Center for Immigration Studies--Mr. Rector was 
the architect of welfare reform and one of the best minds in the 
country on these issues--this legislation we are talking about passing 
today or tomorrow could result in several hundred thousand jobs being 
given to illegal immigrants--several hundred thousand.
  The version of the stimulus bill that passed the Senate contained 
$104 billion in construction spending, including highways, schools, and 
public housing. Only about $30 billion is for highways--a little over 3 
percent of the bill's value, just for perspective--but it would total 
about $104 billion for infrastructure and construction. Government 
estimates suggest this spending could create about 2 million new 
construction jobs.
  Consistent with other research, the Center for Immigration Studies 
has previously estimated that 15 percent of construction workers are 
illegal immigrants, which means about 300,000 of the construction jobs 
created by the Senate stimulus plan could go to those who are not 
lawfully in the country.
  The E-Verify--formerly called the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility 
Verification Program--is an online system operated jointly by the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. 
Participating employers can check the work status of new hires online 
by comparing information from the employee's submitted I-9 form against 
the Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases. More 
than 107,000 employers voluntarily are using that system today, and 
happily so.
  E-Verify is free--it doesn't cost the employer anything--it is 
voluntary, and the best means available for determining employment 
eligibility for new hires and the validity of their Social Security 
number. According to the Department of Homeland Security, 96.1 percent 
of employees are cleared automatically, and growth continues at a rate 
of 2,000 additional businesses using the system each week.
  Now, this 96 percent, I know, is for all employees and all companies, 
and I am sure there might be a higher number with construction workers. 
As of February 2, 2009, there have been over 2.5 million inquiries 
through the system. In 2008, there were more than 6.6 million inquiries 
run. The number is really going up.
  An employer who verifies work authorization under the E-Verify system 
has an advantage. That employer has created a rebuttable presumption 
that they have taken reasonable steps to make sure they are not filling 
their employment rolls with illegals. If the investigators come out and 
find someone who is illegal, they can say: Well, I ran the number on 
your system, and if it had been bad, I wouldn't have hired them and I 
can show you where that cleared your system. So it protects the 
employer from any false charges.
  So Senator Ben Nelson and I wrote a letter to Senators Reid and 
McConnell asking that this legislation include provisions to require E-
Verify for the jobs created under this proposal.
  As an aside, there is another problem, and we might as well talk 
about it. I was very worried and concerned because, on January 28 of 
this year, President Obama pushed back the implementation of Executive 
Order No. 12989, executed by President Bush, which would require all 
Federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify. In other words, 
those who are doing work now on military bases and roads and other 
things would be required to use a successful system that has long been 
planned and being phased in. Now, the implementation date has been 
pushed back to May 21.
  So are we now seeing some sort of serious movement to undermine one 
of the most effective, least intrusive systems we have ever developed, 
the cornerstone of Homeland Security's enforcement efforts? I don't 
know. When

[[Page S2180]]

you add that decision to what has happened on the floor of the Senate, 
my concerns are increasing.
  Recently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the 
unemployment rate in January had gotten to 7.6 percent, including 
598,000 jobs lost in January. This is the highest unemployment rate in 
17 years. We know and expect it will go higher--hopefully, not a whole 
lot higher, but certainly those trends are not good.
  Immigration by illegal immigrants and other poorly educated aliens 
has a serious and depressing effect on the standard of living of low-
skilled, hard-working Americans, and I will tell you that is a fact. 
The United States Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late 
civil rights pioneer, Barbara Jordan, found that immigration of 
unskilled immigrants comes at a cost to unskilled U.S. workers. I don't 
think there is any doubt about that.
  The Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that such 
immigration has reduced the wage of the average native-born worker in a 
low-skilled occupation by 12 percent or $2,000 a year. It may not 
impact people in universities and Senators, but hard-working Americans 
are having to compete against persons who are willing to work for so 
much less and who often are being taken advantage of.
  I just give this aside: I talked to the CEO of a company--a family 
company. They do right-of-way clearing and other type work of that kind 
for utilities in States and counties. He said they have had good 
employees. They have hired them for many years. They pay retirement and 
health care benefits and competitive wages. All of a sudden, just a few 
years ago, they started losing bid after bid after bid. They could not 
understand how the competitor could bid so low. They began to look into 
it, and it appears, quite clear to him, the reason a company from Texas 
was able to outbid him was because they were paying their employees 
much less, and he believes many of them were illegally in the country. 
Now, how did that help his employees? He may be forced to go out of 
business simply because he was obeying the law.
  In addition, a Harvard economist, Professor George Borjas, who has 
written a book on this subject--himself a Cuban refugee; at a young age 
he came from Cuba--has estimated that immigration in recent decades has 
reduced the wages of native-born workers without a high school degree 
by 8.2 percent.
  Doris Meissner, former head of INS--the immigration service--under 
President Clinton, wrote this in February of this year:

       Mandatory employer verification must be at the center of 
     legislation to combat illegal immigration. The E-Verify 
     system provides a valuable tool for employers who are trying 
     to comply with the law. E-Verify also provides an opportunity 
     to determine the best electronic means to implement 
     verification requirements. The administration should support 
     reauthorization of E-Verify and expand the program.

  That is Doris Meissner, who is certainly a moderate on immigration 
issues. She served under President Clinton and said just recently this 
is a key thing for us to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair, and I would suggest finally that 
these are very important issues for American citizens. We need to speak 
out clearly on them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we are in a period of morning business, 
up to 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________