[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14528-14530]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the role of the majority 
leader. I have great affection for the majority leader. He is an 
effective leader for his agenda. But with regard to what is happening 
now, we need to fully understand that by utilizing the ability he has 
as a leader and as other members of his party--they have objected to 
calling up amendments and making them pending. When you object to 
making an amendment pending, all you have is a filed amendment. And 
when you file cloture, amendments that are not pending are not entitled 
to be voted on.
  So, in effect, we are at the mercy of the majority leader. He has not 
allowed a full and vigorous offering of amendments and votes on those 
amendments. I know people can sometimes ask for too many votes and 
abuse the process, but we really are dealing with a monstrous bill that 
is very complex and has a loophole here and a loophole there that can 
place the bill in such a situation that it really is not enforceable 
and will not work, and there are a host of problems, a host of 
loopholes in the bill. This bill has been moving forward to passage 
under the railroad system we have here.
  Let me remind everybody how it happened. First, 2 weeks before we had 
our recess, the old bill, last year's bill that the House refused to 
even take up, was brought up without committee hearings this year and 
brought up by the majority leader under rule XIV for consideration and 
debate. So about a week goes by, and then come last Tuesday before our 
recess, Tuesday morning, he plops down on this floor an amendment but 
really a complete substitute. If put in proper bill language, it would 
probably be nearly a thousand pages. It is a substitute, a bill never 
seen before, a bill--except maybe a few days by people who got their 
hands on it--a bill that has never gone through committee was put down, 
and the majority leader indicated he wanted to vote on it that week and 
we were going to have a vote on Friday, and there is was a lot of push 
back. He agreed to put it off.
  We only had a few votes last week. We didn't vote last Friday. We 
didn't have the bill up even on Monday. So for only 3 days the week 
before the recess, we were engaged with actual amendments on this 
legislation. Then we come back, and on Monday of this week, we had a 
few Senators show up, no votes, and a few of us talked a little bit, 
and that was it. So nothing was done Monday. I recall I did offer to 
bring up amendments and asked to bring up amendments and make pending 
amendments last Thursday, last Friday, and Monday of this week.
  I just want to say that we are not moving in a legitimate way. This 
was a completely new bill which was offered as a substitute to last 
year's bill. Senator Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary 
Committee, who supports this legislation, said in retrospect we should 
have gone to committee with it. I say that would have helped to have 
had a little bit of sunshine on it. But as we examine the bill in more 
depth, as we look at it more closely, what we see is that as sunlight 
falls on the mackerel, it begins to smell more and more, I have to tell 
you.
  As it was promoted to me by the White House talking points and by 
Senators who thought it was a good piece of legislation, I had some 
belief that it could be progress over last year. Indeed, I thought 
there was a real potential to make a bill this year that I could 
support and with which we could make progress. But as we have examined 
it, it fails to meet the promises that were contained in those 
principles set forth as they were writing up the bill. It just does 
not. It does not have good enforcement. It does not. The trigger 
mechanism that guarantees enforcement before amnesty is weak and 
ineffectual. The shift to merit-based, skill-based immigration is 
ineffectual, and it puts off for 8 years, and we have people offering 
amendments to weaken that even further. So those were good principles 
that were stated but did not become reality.
  I saw part of the debate on the TV in the cloakroom a few minutes ago 
and people were saying this is going to make the country safe, and we 
need to pass it because it is going to make us safe. Well, let us talk 
about some of the loopholes that are in this legislation still. I have 
listed 20. I think we probably have a lot more than that which we could 
have listed, but I will share some of the weaknesses.
  This is as a result of the fact that individuals in the U.S. Border 
Patrol were not consulted in how to write the bill. If they had been 
consulted, some of these weaknesses wouldn't have been here. It is 
interesting, however, that some of these weaknesses were pointed out 
and complained of, but the drafters refused to listen. Why not?
  For example, loophole No. 5: Legal status must be granted to illegal 
aliens 24 hours after they file an application--must be granted legal 
status--even if the alien has not yet passed all appropriate background 
checks.
  Last year, the bill called for 90 days to complete the background 
checks. Yes, some aspects can be completed within a few minutes or a 
few hours, but a lot of things cannot. What if the person is named John 
Smith? There are a hundred John Smiths. How are you going to check 
those? A thousand John Smiths. I think this is a weakness.

[[Page 14529]]

  In fact, the Border Patrol experts who called a press conference 
yesterday raised that particular point in a number of ways. Kent 
Lundgren, the national chairman of the Association of Former Border 
Patrol Agents, was contemptuous of the bill and said there are ``no 
meaningful criminal or terrorist checks'' in the bill. He said, ``There 
is no way records can be done in 24 hours.''
  Jim Dorcy, an agent with 30 years experience, and who has also moved 
up to inspector general of the Department of Justice, said: ``24-hour 
check is a recipe for disaster.''
  Then he went on to say, ``I call it the al Qaeda Dream Bill.'' That 
was from a TV program I happened to catch last night on C-SPAN, a 
National Press Club presentation by a group of former Border Patrol 
officers, and I am going to quote from them a little more in a minute.
  Look at loophole No. 7. They say this bill will make us safer, but 
under the bill that is before us today, illegal aliens with terrorism 
connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien with 
terrorist connections is not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal 
alien seeking most immigration benefits normally would have to show 
``good moral character.''
  For all its flaws, last year's bill specifically barred aliens with 
terrorism connections from being able to meet the definition of ``good 
moral character.'' How simple is that? And from being eligible for 
amnesty. But this year's bill does neither. This is another example of 
a provision in this year's bill that make it weaker than last year's 
bill, and I am finding this more and more.
  We were told this bill was much better than last year's bill. I even 
told people that I think this is going to be a better bill than last 
year's. I am interested in what is contained in it. But repeatedly I am 
finding provisions like this one that indicate this bill is weaker than 
last year's.
  Additionally, the bill's drafters ignored the Bush administration's 
request that changes be made in the asylum, cancellation of removal, 
and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with 
terrorist connections from receiving relief. Last year's section 204 of 
the bill added the new terrorism bars to good moral character.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
an additional 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Last year's bill added new terrorism bars to the good 
moral character requirement and required that an alien prove they have 
good moral character. Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the 
INA, an illegal alien must have good moral character to receive most of 
the immigration benefits, such as cancellation of removal from being 
here illegally.
  But according to the current law, the law in effect today, an alien 
cannot have good moral character if they are habitual drunkards, get 
the majority of their income from illegal gambling, have given false 
testimony for immigration purposes, have been in jail for 180 days, 
have been convicted of an aggravated felony, or have engaged in 
genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings. Those are some of the 
things that bar you from good moral character. This year's bill, 
however, is completely missing these new terrorism bars, and the bill 
no longer requires good moral character as a prerequisite to amnesty.
  I wonder what this tells us about the mindset of the people who are 
actually putting the pencil to paper and drafting this legislation. 
Surely our Senators didn't fully understand it. But I have to say I am 
particularly troubled, because the Bush administration, as much as they 
have wanted a bill that would be exceedingly generous to immigrants, 
wanted this language strengthened, and the committee, the group that 
wrote the bill, rejected their request, which is hard for me to 
believe.
  Additionally, during the course of the negotiations, the Bush 
administration requested that language be added to the bill to make 
sure that terrorism bars kept aliens from being granted asylum, 
cancellation, and the withholding of removal. Those requests should 
have been included and they were not. So one of the amendments I want 
to see voted on would be to restore the bars--the same or similar 
language we had in last year's bill that they took out over the 
objection of the administration.
  Another example of a weakness in our provisions is some aggravated 
felons who have sexually abused a minor will be eligible for amnesty 
under this bill. A child molester who committed the crime of 
molestation before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting 
amnesty if their conviction document fails to state the age of the 
victim. The bill, after someone raised this problem, corrected this 
problem, but it was only for future child molesters and did not close 
the loophole for current or past child molesters.
  In some States, the sexual abuse of a minor can result in a 
misdemeanor conviction. Those convictions are not always considered an 
aggravated felony for immigration or deportation purposes. This is not 
an uncommon problem. There have been lawsuits and appeals over this 
very issue. This is not uncommon.
  One study, according to these Border Patrol experts at their press 
conference yesterday, indicated a report out of Atlanta found that 
250,000 of the 12 million illegal aliens here may have been involved in 
the sexual abuse of a minor. That is a lot of people. Why should we 
give amnesty and citizenship to those who may have been involved in 
those kinds of criminal violations? Citizenship in the United States 
requires good moral character.
  We don't have to accept everybody who wants to be a citizen. We don't 
have to allow anyone who broke into our country to ever become a 
citizen. If they have broken into our country and are here illegally 
and they ask for amnesty, we have every right to say you don't get it 
if you are a child molester or have terrorist connections.
  Look at loophole No. 8. This one is a bit amazing, I think, for 
anyone, and I find it difficult to believe. I am not making this up. 
This is in the bill on page 289. Instead of ensuring that members of 
violent gangs, such as MS-13, are deported, the bill will allow violent 
gang members to get amnesty as long as they renounce their gang 
membership on their application. It has a question there: Are you a 
member of a gang? If you said yes, the next question is: Do you 
renounce your membership? And if you say yes, I renounce my membership, 
you get to stay and become a citizen. Under this bill, it will not 
prevent amnesty. On page 289, the bill requires that you list gang 
memberships.
  Why do we allow this? If an illegal alien will be a member of a 
violent international gang, such as the Mara Salvatrucha 13, the famous 
MS-13, a violent international gang involved in murders, drugs, and all 
kinds of crimes, why don't we say that blocks him from being eligible 
for amnesty under the bill? Now, if they are a citizen, OK, they get to 
stay in the country. They can be a gang member. But if they are not a 
citizen and they are here illegally and are petitioning to be given 
amnesty, I would say they shouldn't be given it. They should be 
prohibited.
  Obviously, the loyalty to these illegal criminal gangs is such that 
it is contrary to the ideals of American citizenship in which your 
loyalty is to the United States of America. As Kris Kobach, a former 
top attorney at the Department of Justice, stated in a Heritage 
Foundation Web memo, posted after the new substitute bill was 
introduced, titled ``Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines 
The Rule of Law'':

       More than 30,000 illegal alien gang members operate in 33 
     States--30,000 illegal alien gang members operate in 33 
     States--trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting 
     illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority.

  It is one of the top priorities of the Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement organization. That is what they do. The Senate bill would 
end that. I am quoting Mr. Kobach.


[[Page 14530]]

       To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do 
     is note his gang membership and sign a renunciation.

  I ask again, what kind of mindset is at work here? Is our goal to 
please every illegal alien, to make sure every illegal alien gets to 
stay in the country regardless or is it to serve our legitimate 
national interests? I suggest any immigration bill we pass should serve 
our national interest. There is nothing wrong with that. Our 
responsibility is to America, to the people in America. Somehow we have 
gotten that confused.
  There are good people in this body who are more concerned about how 
not to exclude anybody, to make sure everybody who is here gets to 
stay. And somehow, some way, through a maneuver or signing a document 
saying you renounce your gang membership, you will get to stay. It 
raises serious questions in my mind about how this bill was written.
  Let me mention we may have a vote on this, I think tomorrow. This is 
amazing to me. Aliens who have already had their day in court, those 
who have been given and received a final order of removal, who have 
signed a voluntary departure order, or had reinstatement of their final 
orders of removal--that is they got a delay on their final order of 
removal and they got a stay--they are eligible for amnesty under the 
bill.
  The same is true for aliens who have made a false claim to 
citizenship, for those who have engaged in document fraud. More than 
636,000 alien fugitives could be covered by this one loophole--page 285 
of the bill waives the following inadmissibility grounds. It waives 
these grounds that would normally be a basis for inadmissability.
  No. 1, ``Failure to attend a removal proceeding.'' You have been 
released on bail. They said: You are believed to be here illegally. The 
court hearing is going to be 3 weeks from today. We will release you on 
your own recognizance. You just sign a document or post a small bail 
and you show up at the court hearing 3 weeks from today, 2 weeks from 
today, 2 months from today.
  What if they don't show up? What if they didn't show up, they were 
apprehended, ordered to show up in court and didn't show up--amnesty--
OK, that is excluded.
  Another category, ``Final orders of removal for alien smugglers.'' If 
you have been apprehended, you have been ordered removed because you 
were proven to be involved in alien smuggling, smuggling of other 
people into our country--coyotes: You are OK. That is OK. You get to 
stay, too.
  ``Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations or 
deportation orders.'' You have been caught for previous violations. You 
have been ordered deported. You are back again. You are excluded and 
you get to stay. And aliens who have previously been removed--we spend 
a lot of money. We fly people back to Brazil and Honduras and Indonesia 
and China. What if they come again? Do they get amnesty, too? Yes, they 
do.
  This language appears to be in conflict with another statute that 
suggests otherwise. But when you read it, my legal team and I agree 
that the court would clearly rule that this specific language would be 
such that those individuals would get to stay in the country.
  The list goes on. Loophole No. 10. The talking points we were 
provided with that indicated this to be a good bill and that we should 
be supportive of it emphasize that the new bill we have would promote 
greater assimilation of those who come here to our country and greater 
English proficiency--both of which I think are good ideas and we need 
to work on and should be a part of any immigration legislation that is 
passed. I believe that. However, the bill doesn't do it. Illegal aliens 
are not required to demonstrate any proficiency in English for more 
than a decade after they have been granted amnesty.
  You have heard people say we are requiring English. We are not 
requiring it for 10 years. Learning English is not required for illegal 
aliens to receive the probationary benefits or the first 4-year Z visa 
or the second 4-year Z visa.
  The first Z visa renewal, beginning on the second 4-year visa, 
requires only that the alien demonstrate an ``attempt'' to learn 
English by being ``on a waiting list for English classes.'' Passing a 
basic English test is required only for a second renewal, the third 4-
year Z visa, and then the alien only has to pass the test ``prior to 
the expiration of the second extension of Z status,'' 12 years down the 
road.
  The bill's sponsors claim they have to learn English before being 
granted amnesty. That is not true. Nothing in the bill requires the 
illegal alien to have any English skills before receiving probationary 
status, before receiving the first Z visa that lasts for 4 years. Only 
upon filing for renewal of the Z visa up to 6\1/2\ years down the road 
does the illegal alien have to meet any language requirement. At that 
time, the requirement is fulfilled with the most minimal effort: 
``Demonstrating enrollment in'' or being on a ``waiting list for 
English classes.''
  Second, when the alien applies for a second Z visa renewal, which 
would be 8 to 10 years from now, is there any real English requirement. 
At that time, the alien must ``pass the naturalization test.'' It is 
common knowledge that the test is not a real English proficiency test--
it is not. So there is not an emphasis on English. Even then, it is not 
clear that passing the test would be required before the second 
extension of Z visa status is granted. As a matter of fact, on page 295 
the bill states that:

        . . . the alien may make up to three attempts . . . but 
     must satisfy the requirement prior to the expiration of the 
     second extension of Z visa status.

  As the bill is written, there is no real English requirement until 12 
to 14 years down the road, and it is not as strong.
  I don't know why we are so concerned about that. Is it a pandering? 
Is it some attempt to please people who are here illegally? Good 
policy, I submit, the right policy--both for the United States and for 
those here receiving amnesty--would be to encourage them to learn 
English sooner rather than later. How long does it take? Twelve years 
is too long, and I think that is a mistake in the bill.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague, Senator Kyl here. I will be 
pleased to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kyl and Mr. Sessions are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________