[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4218-4220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted 
out a historic and monumental immigration bill. The work was intense 
and fast, and we spent less than, perhaps, half a day dealing with the 
entire area of the bill that is referred to as guest workers or what to 
do with those who are here today illegally--perhaps 11 million to 20 
million individuals.
  I have reached a conclusion, having been in law enforcement for the 
most part of my professional career, that the enforcement provisions 
are not going to be adequate--although there are some good ones there, 
some steps forward--and our approach to those who are here and those 
who wish to come here in the future has been poorly thought out and 
unprincipled.
  I strongly believe that America has a tremendous opportunity to fix a 
broken immigration system. The system as it operates today makes a 
mockery of law, and we all know that. It rewards bad behavior. It 
places bureaucratic hurdles and delays in front of those who want to do 
the right thing in coming here.
  The list of the ways the current system does not work, frankly, is 
almost endless. We have had hearings and discussions, and you have read 
in the newspapers so many of the things that are disturbing about why 
our system does not work. Our failure to develop a lawful system has 
had a number of perverse consequences. But one little-noted consequence 
is that many Americans, even those in this Senate, have come to believe 
that it cannot be fixed, that it is hopeless, that we cannot get 
control of our borders, that it is just a natural thing we should 
accept, that we go through the motions of doing something about it, but 
it really will never be fixed.
  But the good news is that is not true. The failure of our current 
system is the result of identifiable defects, defects that can be 
fixed. It is not impossible. Fixing these deficiencies is not all that 
difficult. Although it will cost real money, it is affordable. So what 
we really need is the will to do it, the belief and the will and the 
determination to go forward and make this system work.
  T.J. Bonner, who heads the National Border Control Council and who 
has repeatedly expressed the frustrations of our Border Patrol agents--
he represents them--told us, at our Judiciary Committee, how to make 
the system work. He said: First, control the borders. Second: Workplace 
enforcement needs to be effectually carried out; that is, to make sure 
people who are not legal do not get jobs because the jobs are the 
magnets. A third and connected step is to make our entry and exit 
system biometric and easier to use. That is part of the concept that 
would be necessary to move us to an effective legal system.
  Such actions, in my view, based on my study and the hearings I have 
attended, will allow us to quickly reach the magic ``tipping point.'' 
That is the point where those who want to come to this country will 
receive a clear message. And that message is this: It makes far more 
sense to enter our country legally rather than illegally.
  Now, at this time, the opposite is true. Those who desire to enter 
America would rather pay a fee to some transporter, some ``coyote,'' to 
cross illegally rather than enter lawfully. The situation is so bad 
that while we apprehended 1.1 million last year entering our country 
illegally--think of that, 1.1 million--the number who have arrived 
successfully has surged to almost 12 million, according to the best 
estimates. Many say more. How bad is that? That is not good. This is 
not a policy which we can take pride in or have any confidence in, that 
we have almost as many people illegally as legally coming.
  So what do we do to fix it? You say: Sessions, what are you going to 
do about it? What do you propose? There are some steps we can do. 
Unfortunately, because the system has been broken for so long, we are 
going to have to work very hard at first to get to that tipping point, 
to tip from illegality to legality.
  But you see what happens when that occurs, when you reach that 
tipping point? Then the stress on the agents, who are out arresting 
thousands every night, is so much less because they have fewer to 
apprehend. You have fewer in our deportation centers. You have much 
less of a problem for those who are deported--other than Mexicans, who 
cannot readily be deported to their country--because fewer are coming 
because they know if they come they are likely to be apprehended and 
they will be immediately sent back to whatever country they came from.
  It begins to work in a way that a lot of people do not think is 
possible, but it is absolutely possible, and that is, once we make 
clear you are not going to successfully be able to enter our country 
illegally, that you must wait in line to come legally, we will have far 
fewer people come here. Right now the word is out that we are open for 
anyone who desires to come, even if they don't desire to come legally. 
That is what is causing so much problem.
  One of the things we learned in the 1986 amnesty was not to give 
amnesty again. You want to do the right thing, and we are going to do 
the right thing about the people who have come here illegally. We need 
to spend some time on it. We need to care about every single one of 
them. They are human beings with dreams and hopes, creatures of our 
Heavenly Father. Each one of them is entitled to respect, but they are 
not entitled to the same benefits a lawful entrant into our country 
has. Who would suggest that? I don't think that is a principled 
approach we can defend.
  We learned in 1986 that we should not give amnesty. It failed. No 
serious commentator believes the amnesty of 1986 worked. It was widely 
held to encourage illegal entry. There was a commission appointed by 
the Congress, a bipartisan commission, 6 years after 1986 to review 
what happened when the legislation passed that created amnesty at that 
time. They said it failed. It should not be done again.
  By any standard of the definition of the word ``amnesty,'' the bill 
that came out of committee is that. That is a loaded word. I don't want 
to be a demagogue with the word ``amnesty.'' But if amnesty has any 
meaning, it is that people who came illegally are given an opportunity 
to receive every single benefit, including citizenship, as a result of 
their illegal act. That is how we have always meant it. That is what 
was done in 1986. That is what was determined to be a failure.
  Secondly, we must deal with and eliminate, as T.J. Bonner said, the 
magnet of jobs for illegals. It will not be hard to stop the hiring of 
illegals by requiring biometric identifiers of foreign workers. It will 
be easy. Most businesses will comply with what they understand to be 
the plain law. If they are told they should require identification and 
it should be checked through the computer system that is being set up 
and will be set up to determine whether this is a lawful applicant, 
they will do so. It will not be easy to prosecute those cases. We have 
learned, however, that in 2004, only three cases of fines were assessed 
against an employer for bringing people into the country or hiring 
people who were here illegally. So it has never been enforced. It is a 
mockery of the law. You have it on the books, but nobody has ever 
enforced it.
  Businesses will comply. We will not have to prosecute all of them. As 
soon as they realize this is not the policy of the United States 
anymore, that the policy of the United States is you should check your 
workers before you hire them and make sure they are here legally, they 
will do so. All of a sudden, this magnet can be eliminated. Again, 
therefore, if you want to come to the United States to work lawfully, 
you are tipped into the idea of waiting in line, take your time, come 
and have your background check done to make sure you don't have 
terrorist connections and don't have a criminal record, those kinds of 
things, and then you can come in.
  Border enforcement is not easy. We have 1,900 miles on the border. 
People

[[Page 4219]]

say we should not have a fence; it is something deeply wrong with that. 
I don't find anything wrong with that. I always heard the slogan ``good 
fences make good neighbors.'' It certainly has worked in San Diego. But 
in the most busy areas where illegal entry is occurring, that is a 
perfectly normal and natural thing. If we don't do that, it is an 
indication that we lack the will to see the matter through.
  The House has a bill that deals with this issue. It proposes up to 
700 miles of fencing in the worst areas. It has worked in the San Diego 
area. It can work here. So it is a test. Are we committed to the 
enforcement question?
  The committee bill did deal with some important steps on enforcement, 
however. It had some important steps. I don't want to diminish that. I 
have used a metaphor to say, unfortunately, that it is like making an 
8-foot leap across a 10-foot ravine. We are almost there, but we are 
not there. If we do a few more things, including barriers, including 
biometrics, including workplace enforcement and detention, not having 
anymore catch-and-release programs, those kinds of things, we could get 
there more quickly and more easily than most people think. We have made 
progress, but we are not there yet.
  I have discovered, as a former attorney general and prosecutor, U.S. 
attorney, from my local police officers in Alabama that they are not 
welcomed to even voluntarily contribute their abilities in immigration 
enforcement. For example, there is a clear message told to local law 
enforcement--and I meet with groups of law enforcement officers 
whenever I am in the State and enjoy that. I ask them how their drug 
laws are going, what are they seeing on the streets, what problems do 
they have. And I usually ask them about immigration. The standard 
answer is, they have been told by the immigration enforcement officers 
that unless they have 15 people illegally they have apprehended, don't 
bother to call. They won't come and pick them up. They are not 
interested. What does that say about our intention to have a lawful 
system as opposed to an unlawful one?
  I saw the front page of the Washington Times a few days ago. It had 
an article about an officer in the Midwest or the West who apprehended 
15 illegal aliens. He called the immigration people and they said: 
Don't bother. Don't call us.
  This has been going on for years. It is the standard policy out 
there. So this indicates to me we are not serious about having a lawful 
system.
  It is absolutely possible for us to reverse this trend, to allow 
large numbers of people to come to our country to work, people who we 
know are not connected to terrorism or are not criminal elements, drug 
gangs and organizations of that kind. We absolutely can do that. But I 
am afraid the legislation we have moved forward does not do so. We are 
going to have some discussion about the majority leader's bill, the 
Frist bill. It is more focused on the enforcement question. It does not 
attempt to settle the huge, difficult human issue of how to handle in a 
humane and lawful way those who are already here unlawfully. That is a 
big deal, and we will have to spend some time on that. But I don't 
understand the purpose of it. We will spend a day or so on that and 
then apparently go to the committee bill.
  It came out of committee with a pretty large vote, six ``no'' votes 
on the committee. The Judiciary Committee has produced their 
legislation. It is on the floor now, and it will be the main part of 
the debate as we go forward. The only thing about which I will express 
concern to my colleagues is that we haven't read it yet. I see the 
Presiding Officer, such an extraordinarily valuable member of our 
committee who cares about this issue deeply. We haven't even seen it 
printed yet. We passed amendments, and we agreed to amendments on the 
floor. We passed the agriculture jobs bill that was up here a year or 
so ago that got blocked. We passed it in a 5-minute discussion. I think 
it was maybe 50 or 100 pages. This bill is over 300 pages. We 
substituted the Kennedy-McCain bill for the chairman's mark and passed 
that. Who has read that?
  Then they said: Well, it wasn't quite the same as everything you have 
heard about our bill. We have made improvements on it. What 
improvements? What does it say?
  I urge my colleagues to not announce too quickly that they are in 
support of the legislation that came out of our committee because they 
don't know what is in it yet. I don't know what is in it, and I am on 
the committee.
  We are dealing with one of the most momentous challenges of our time. 
We need to do it in the right way. We can do it in the right way. What 
I believe we should do is follow the lead of the House of 
Representatives. People say that is a harsh bill. It is not a harsh 
bill. It is a bill designed to make the legal system work. What is 
harsh about that? Unless you believe lawlessness is the appropriate way 
to handle business in America, unless you don't respect the rule of 
law. It is not harsh to create a legal system. They have concluded that 
the proper response to the crisis we face, with due respect to the 
concerns of the American people, is to, first, demonstrate that we can 
create an immigration system that actually works. That is what the 
House decided to do. That is what they focused on, and that is what 
they passed. They did not attempt, with a few hours debate, to deal 
with the colossal issue of human concerns of those who are here and to 
develop an architecture for who we want to allow to come in in the 
future and under what conditions.
  That is what we should do. That is what most of our hearings in the 
committee have been focused on. Then we will have some credibility with 
the American people.
  Let me share a couple of additional thoughts about matters I believe 
are important. The Judiciary bill--I don't want to call it Chairman 
Specter's mark because it was so altered and changed. It had quite a 
bit of difference. But the bill that came out of committee did a number 
of different things. One, it would immediately legalize the 12 to, some 
say, 20 million people who are here illegally. It would give them a 
green card in a relatively short period. It would then put them on an 
automatic path to citizenship. Once they become a citizen, they are 
able to bring in family members and even brothers and sisters, mothers 
and fathers. It would double the number of legal visas, I think, to 
400,000. Each one of those would not be as though you have a visa to 
come in. These visas are not just to come in to work for 6 months or a 
year and go back to your home country. This 400,000 will allow you to 
stay up to 6 years and then allow you, at the end of 4 years, to apply 
for a green card. And once you get that permanent green card, you can 
apply for citizenship. So it will be about another 400,000.
  We think, conservatively speaking, this bill would add 30 million 
people to our Nation in the next 10 years. We ought to spend some time 
talking about that. That is a big deal. That is a 10-percent increase 
in our population, and we ought to be thinking about what is in it. We 
spent very little time and we have spent very little national 
discussion in which the American people have had an opportunity to 
listen on this issue. It is hugely important. We want to do the right 
thing about it.
  Let me share this: The enforcement mechanisms we passed in 
committee--many of which are good, some of which failed that were 
needed--are only a promise.
  This is why the American people have a right to be cynical, they have 
a right to be nervous, they have a right to watch this Congress like a 
hawk because that is what happened in 1986. Once you pass the guest 
worker part of the bill--which is what it is being called, and I am not 
sure that is a very good description of it--that becomes law; the 
people become legalized; they put in for citizenship, and we double the 
number of people coming, et cetera, and that becomes our law right now.
  What about the enforcement? We authorized UAV, the virtual fence. 
Virtual reality is all that is. That UAV is to see if somebody is out 
there, but that is of very little value if you don't have somebody go 
out and pick them up. Anyway, we increase the bed spaces and increase 
some Border Patrol officers by authorization. All the Judiciary 
Committee bill can do is authorize

[[Page 4220]]

those actions to be made. They have no ability whatsoever to fund them 
and to make sure they get carried out.
  What we learned after 1986 is that Congress hasn't funded the things 
necessary to make the border secure, and the Presidents--every one of 
them since that time--seem to have little interest in making sure it 
gets enforced. They don't come before Congress and say we have a 
problem at the border; we need more money, more agents, more detention 
space, and more barriers. They let it go. So this is a dangerous thing. 
I am not going to vote for any bill that is a ``let me see one hand and 
not the other.'' In other words, we are going to have one vote that 
will be a permanent decision about how to deal with those who are here 
illegally. But we will not be able to have any guarantee that the 
enforcement system is going to be made workable. That is why the House 
believes they should complete the enforcement mechanisms first, which 
is a good principle that we should be concerned about.
  The stress on our system is going to be incredible. Some in the 
immigration system say, when they think what this will mean, they 
cannot imagine how this will ever work. They have a huge backlog on 
applications to come into the country. Our immigration service is 
expected to make some background checks to make sure we are not 
allowing criminals and terrorists to come into the country. If we more 
than double the number that are allowed to apply and enter, then their 
workload is going to be incredibly heavy. It is not working now. We can 
do better.
  Finally, a lot of people have been unhappy with President Bush. They 
say he has been too much for amnesty. They say he is not serious about 
the border, and they have complained about that and so have I. I felt 
that he has not been sufficiently concerned about creating a legal 
system that works. But I have to tell you, the bill that came out of 
committee is way past that. Please know that, Senators. I heard Scott 
McClellan on the radio today, from the press conference he gave 
yesterday, and he stated the principles of the President. One of them 
is that those who come here illegally are not put on an automatic path 
to citizenship. That is what the President defines as amnesty. That is 
what he says he is not for.
  But that is what this bill does. The bill puts the people who came 
here unlawfully on an automatic path to citizenship. If that is not 
amnesty, what is? The President does not support what is here. It is 
beyond what he wants to do. He has a very generous idea about 
immigration. He wants to do the right thing. All of us do, but we 
cannot defend the principle of granting amnesty because we know what 
happened in 1986. It did not work. The independent commissions have 
said that.
  I will conclude by urging my colleagues to recognize how important 
this issue is to get right, how important it is that we do the right 
thing, so that 10 years from now, 20 years from now, we can be proud of 
what we did. And we can get there; we absolutely can. But this bill is 
not the vehicle to do it. We should not pass it in its present form. I 
say that with the caveat that nobody has seen the bill we will have on 
the floor. It hasn't even been printed yet. That is a pretty sad case, 
if you want to know the truth. It was so complex and rushed through our 
committee in such a hasty way.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues for giving me a 
chance to share these thoughts. I urge each and every one of them to 
spend some time on this issue. Let's study this legislation and let's 
don't be stampeded by politics or protests or that kind of thing. Let's 
try to do the right thing and make sure that whatever we do is 
something we can be proud of and our children can be proud of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Does the Senator from Alabama 
yield back the majority's time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 40 seconds.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have a half hour 
in morning business for the Democrats; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, and 29 minutes 15 seconds 
remain.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair to notify me after I have used 12 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.

                          ____________________