[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9473-9475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think most of my colleagues may not 
yet be aware, and would probably be shocked to learn, that late 
Thursday afternoon during the Appropriations Committee markup, 110 
pages of controversial immigration provisions were added to the war 
supplemental package in the form of four very significant Senate 
amendments to the House messages. It has been less than a year since 
the resounding defeat of the Senate immigration bill on June 28 of last 
year, where cloture failed by a vote of 46 to 53. The proponents of 
that legislation hoped to get 60 votes, and we walked down there in 
front of the American people and only 46 voted for it and 53 voted 
against it.
  Yet the amnesty proponents--those who want to enact legislation that 
legalizes their status and forgives criminal activity, as opposed to 
creating a lawful system of immigration--are obviously continuing their 
determined effort to override the will of the American people and 
legalize the illegal alien population, without Congress acting to 
fulfill its responsibility to secure the border and create a lawful 
system of immigration.
  That is what it is all about. This is a determined effort to push 
through the amnesty and the legalization status for people who have 
entered this country illegally subsequent to our 1986 bill, in which we 
said we would never have amnesty again, and they continue to seek ways 
to do that. So now they are seeking to attach their plan to a bill that 
provides necessary funds for our soldiers in Iraq. The 110 pages of 
immigration provisions now hidden in the supplemental war bill are 
offered in the

[[Page 9474]]

 form of several amendments. Together, these amendments would legalize 
approximately 3 million illegal alien workers and their family members. 
They called it AgJOBS light. It is very bad policy, bad legislation, 
and should not become law. I don't think most of the Senators know 
this, and I ask that you pay attention to this. It would increase by up 
to fivefold the number of low-skilled temporary workers who will come 
to the United States over the next 3 years--5 times the current legal 
rate of 66,000 workers under that H-2B program.
  Some way, we have been allowing more in under that program. Yes, when 
the economy was booming, we did get up to about 120-some-odd-thousand. 
This was on that basis even to be at least 2\1/2\ times the highest 
amount we have ever admitted under H-2B, at a time when people are 
being laid off. I understand the experts expect maybe today or tomorrow 
a higher unemployment rate to be demonstrated in our country. So why 
are we going to increase 2\1/2\ times the immigration under that bill?
  It would also increase the number of employment-based green cards 
that will be given out over the next few years by 218,000. It is called 
green card recapture. I note that a green card, in effect, gives 
permanent legal status to a person who has a green card, and a 
guaranteed path to citizenship, as long as they don't have some felony 
offense. It would reauthorize the Foreign Investor Visa Program. That 
program probably deserves consideration for renewal and 
reauthorization. I just thought we certainly have not discussed it in 
the Judiciary Committee, where I think it is supposed to be coming 
forward. No hearings have been held on it. It was stuck in while the 
appropriators were considering funding our military men and women in 
Iraq and in other places. It was stuck into that without any real 
debate.
  The merits of each of these provisions, I suggest, are worthy of 
discussion. I have proposed--and I think Senator Saxby Chambliss has 
agreed with me--a genuine temporary AgJOBS worker program that I think 
could be the foundation for improvement in this area. But that has been 
flatly rejected by those in the West, who seem to be obsessed with a 
program that guarantees people a permanent residence in America, and 
maybe even a pathway to citizenship--those who came here illegally. We 
have not had hearings on this in the Judiciary Committee, the committee 
of jurisdiction, of which I am a member.
  I guess the question is, why would they do this? I think it is like 
we have had time and again--and I hate to say it. It is an effort to 
bury major alterations in our policy of immigration in legislation that 
is rushed through the floor of the Congress, without full consideration 
by the Senators and a full evaluation by the American people. That has 
been the problem. They tried to bring up the bill last summer in 1 
week. We were able to demand and have some votes and some amendments 
and discussion. When the American people found out what was in it, they 
put an end to it. So many phone calls came in, the entire Senate 
switchboard shut down. That is when votes started changing from aye to 
nay.
  I think it is distressing, and it is one reason there is a lack of 
public confidence in the Congress, because we say one thing in public, 
and we say something else in committee meetings when, apparently, 
people are not looking so closely.
  Last summer, the words were: We got the message, America. We 
understand now that you do want a legal system of border security 
first, before we go through an amnesty proposal. That was what we 
talked about. That was what I think everybody on both sides seemed to 
agree was the message of that debate. It was the right answer. That is 
what the American people instinctively favored. The American people 
were fundamentally correct on that all along. It was Congress that was 
out of step with morality, law, and propriety. The American people 
spoke to them last summer, and I thought we had gotten the message. But 
oh, no, here we come again.
  You don't see any amendments slipped into these appropriations bills 
that would actually help us improve the legal system in America, that 
would actually help this country establish a system of immigration that 
is generous and fair and serves the national interests. Those are not 
introduced. It is always a way to do a back-door amnesty.
  Let me say this. We provide each year over a million green cards to 
people who want to become American citizens. A green card gives them a 
guaranteed permanent residence in America. It puts them on a path to 
citizenship if they avoid any serious difficulties in the next several 
years and answer a few English and history questions. This is a 
generous nation. We have temporary worker programs that work pretty 
well. But why is it we seem to be incapable of going on and closing the 
loop and creating a lawful system that actually works? It is 
frustrating to me. This is not acceptable. This is not an acceptable 
way to do business. We do not need to have the war supplemental tied up 
in this kind of controversial debate. I hope my colleagues will see 
what they can do to make sure our troops are funded in a way that does 
not create an AgJOBS lite legislation that is fundamentally 
unacceptable.
  What does this AgJOBS do? It is 101 pages. It passed by a 17-to-12 
vote. It would grant 3 million illegal aliens--1.35 million workers, 
plus approximately 1.62 million family members--a 5-year amnesty, or if 
you would rather call it so, a 5-year legalization to live and work in 
the United States. For almost all legal purposes, the amendment 
requires that these legalized illegal aliens be treated as lawful 
permanent residents. They get basically the same status as green card 
holders do, except they do not have guaranteed permanency.
  Illegal aliens who qualify for the 5-year amnesty are those--get 
this; this is all it takes to qualify, that you perform agricultural 
employment for 863 hours or 150 days, 3 months' worth of work, have 
earned $7,000 from agricultural employment over the course of a 4-year 
period, anytime from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2007. That is 
just last year. This is just last December 31.
  It is particularly galling to me--just think about this--this Nation 
says it is serious about controlling illegal entry into America. Every 
Senator I know has repeatedly said: I am for a legal system; I am not 
for illegal entry into America, I don't approve of that. But we would 
propose legislation--get this--that if you came in last July, and you 
were able to break through the border barriers that have been put up, 
the fences, or avoided the National Guard and got into our country 
illegally, you will be given a 5-year legal status in America. See what 
this is as a matter of consistency and morality? It is an undermining 
respect of law at its most basic level. It indicates we have not gotten 
the message from the American people.
  There is no requirement in this amendment that the illegal alien 
prove they paid their taxes on the wages they obtained when they were 
here. Examples of who would qualify for this legalization includes any 
illegal alien who arrived as of the end of 2007 and earned $7,000 in 
agriculture that year. Mr. President, $7,000; what is that, 3 or 4 
months?
  Also covered are illegal aliens who arrived as recently as July of 
2007 and worked 150 days in agriculture before 2008. It covers illegal 
aliens who arrived years ago and earned a mere $1,750 for a 4-year 
period in agricultural employment. They will qualify. It covers aliens 
who arrived illegally years ago and worked a mere 37.5 days in 
agriculture a year for 4 years. It will not matter that for the other 
327 days a year, they were not working at all or they were competing 
illegally and improperly with American workers for other jobs that 
might be available in the economy.
  I have seen these bills time and time again. We point out these 
loopholes in the legislation. But I just want to tell you, Mr. 
President, I am pretty well convinced now, having seen it time and time 
again, that this is no drafting error. This was a deliberate attempt to

[[Page 9475]]

provide a huge number of persons the opportunity to obtain legal 
status, even though they had a most peripheral connection to 
agricultural labor.
  It also allows spouses and children to receive 5-year visas, allowing 
them to live and work--and work--in the United States. Illegal aliens 
whose spouses and children are not already illegally present in the 
United States would be encouraged under this amendment to come to the 
United States. They would be encouraged to bring them to the United 
States because the application period does not start for 7 months after 
enactment.
  Spouses and children who are in the United States by the time the 
illegal alien applies for and receives this amnesty will also qualify. 
Do you see? So a person makes the application, and he has a powerful 
incentive to bring in his family.
  Astonishingly, if the spouse or child is caught crossing the border 
illegally--we have to think about this in terms of our commitment to 
the rule of law. I ask my colleagues to think about it. If a spouse or 
a child is caught crossing the border trying to come into America 
illegally in violation of our laws, the bill actually prohibits them 
from being deported, as long as they make a claim they are eligible for 
this amnesty also.
  Spouses will be given permission to work in the United States in any 
job, not just AgJOBS, even if they were not previously working. The 
amendment's flaws are not cured by the fact that the visa sunsets in 5 
years. They say: Don't worry, it is only a 5-year amnesty, a 5-year 
legalization. I can ask seriously, I say to my colleagues and friends 
in the Senate, what will Congress do 5 years from now when a person has 
now brought their family here for 5 years, they have had 5 years in the 
school and it will become far more painful to confront their 
circumstance than if we had not created this legal status to begin 
with?
  A real temporary worker program, which I think we can establish and 
is important for America, would allow workers to come for less than a 
year, but without their families, and to work for a period of time but 
will return home. That is a temporary worker program, and we could make 
that feasible. But, no, that is not what this is. It is 5 years with 
your family, digging and putting down roots, and it is not going to be 
anything Congress wants to wrestle with to ask them then to leave 
America. They will have quite a number of arguments why they should 
stay.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert Byrd, 
was correct when he stated in the committee markup: ``This amounts to 
amnesty.''
  Although the amendment stopped short of giving all illegal aliens who 
get the 5-year amnesty visa an automatic pathway to citizenship, it 
specifically--get this. This really must be a great lobbying group. We 
need to find out who lobbies for these people. It stopped short of 
getting most of the illegal aliens who get the amnesty visa an 
automatic pathway to citizenship, but it specifically creates a pathway 
to citizenship for sheepherders, goat herders, and dairy workers.
  Why were they picked out, please tell me? Does this make sense? They 
would get a 3-year visa which converts to a green card, which is a 
permanent resident status, and with the right within a few years to 
apply for citizenship.
  It is most distressing, and most distressing to me at the most 
fundamental level. We have to think about this. This is just another 
attempt to take action that will eviscerate the rule of law, will 
eviscerate the respect we have gradually been gaining. And we could 
have done it a lot more, but we have made some progress in convincing 
the world that our border is not open, that it is a lawful system, and 
if they want to come to America, they must come lawfully.
  I think this is bad national policy because it undermines respect for 
law. It says to the rest of the world: Yes, we say we have the National 
Guard there, we say we are building fences, we say we put more Border 
Patrol agents down on the border, but we really don't care. If you can 
just get in and work here a few days, then you are guaranteed to stay 
with your family, if you can get them in. Even after you apply for this 
5-year amnesty, you can bring your family, and then maybe we will talk 
about what will happen to you 5 years from now.
  I note also that one of the key points that ought not to be dismissed 
by the American people is that there is not one provision--not one 
provision--in this AgJOBS lite to further enforcement--not one--but 
everything there is about ignoring and erasing the consequences that 
naturally flow from violating the laws of America. That is most 
distressing.
  I will take a minute to encourage my colleagues to be aware of the H-
2B returning worker provisions that have been made a part of the war 
supplemental, also that have no business being part of that bill. It 
allows any person who has worked in the United States as an H-2B 
worker--that is a low-skilled, nonagricultural foreign worker--in the 
past 3 years to return for another year without counting against the 
66,000 annual numerical cap.
  The exemption would last through 2011, which is important, and the 
result could easily be a very large increase in the number of low-
skilled workers who enter the United States over the next 3 years, and 
these are not agricultural workers. They will be competing for jobs 
with American workers.
  Under the current law, a total of 198,000 workers will enter the 
United States on H-2B visas over the next 3 years, 66,000 per year. If 
this amendment becomes law, the number of low-skilled foreign workers 
invited into the United States will soar. Up to 300,000 H-2B workers 
will enter the United States in fiscal year 2009 alone, up to 366,000 
will enter in 2010, and up to 432,000 will enter in fiscal year 2011, 
for a total of up to 1 million workers entering over the next 3 years. 
That is more than a fivefold increase over the number expected under 
current law. These workers will be competing with American workers in 
construction, food production, manufacturing industries, and any other 
industries of that nature in a time when we have a softening economy 
and job market.
  Some say we have expanded those numbers to 66,000 and we have gotten 
up to 120,000 some-odd workers, so this is not such a huge increase. It 
is about 2\1/2\ times in a time when the unemployment rate is going up 
in America.
  How did this get in? Did we have any hearings on it? Was the American 
community asked whether they think it is healthy? Did we have any 
experts talk about what an impact it might have on wages? No, it was 
just slipped in.
  Hopefully, somehow we can move the war supplemental in a way that 
does not create a debate over immigration in the Senate. I don't think 
it is the right thing to do. This legislation should not be attached to 
it. I oppose the AgJOBS lite as vigorously as possible, and I believe 
the H-2B returning worker number is far larger than it needs to be. I 
have discussed trying to work out something of a reasonable nature 
previously, but I was surprised to see this broad piece of legislation 
be attached to the war supplemental.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

                          ____________________