[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9219-9221]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I earlier reported on some points in 
speeches I had made about some of the promises from the Gang of 8 
concerning the legislation they have offered and why they are not 
fulfilled in their bill; for example, the triggers, and the merit-based 
movement they claim is significant in their legislation. I believe both 
of those are inaccurate.
  Today I wanted to point out how government officials are refusing to 
enforce our current law and the unease that causes all of us. This bill 
does not fix that problem but gives even more power and discretion to 
the political appointees to waive, moderate, and get around the 
enforcement requirements of this new bill. These are the requirements 
of enforcement that our bill's sponsors say are important and must 
happen, but the bill does not require it to happen in many different 
places.
  The story I will be telling is effective to explain why, despite the 
pleas from the American people for 30 years, lawlessness continues to 
rise in the immigration area and why we now have 11 million people here 
illegally.
  Senator Durbin earlier made a reference to the DREAM Act that he has 
worked hard on. It does present, for the most part, some of the most 
sympathetic claims for some sort of legalization in the country. The 
reason Congress rejected his legislation is because it overreached, in 
my opinion, which is not necessarily to say that it would have passed 
had it been more narrowly drafted.
  It did not pass, but the President of the United States did it 
anyway. The President of the United States just did it anyway. He 
issued a directive to Federal law enforcement officers: Don't enforce 
this law, this law, and this law. Instead, do it as we tell you to.
  That comes from the President to the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
to John Morton, and all the supervisors down to the officers.
  Officers are up in arms about this. The ICE officers who enforce 
these laws have voted no confidence in Mr. John Morton. Today Mr. 
Morton announced his resignation after quite a long time being the 
center of this controversy. ICE officers said they had no confidence in 
him. He basically spent his time promoting amnesty, meeting with 
special-interest groups, not helping them do their job, and directing 
them not to do what the law plainly required them to do. It put them in 
an untenable position of having to follow their boss's political 
direction and violate their oath to follow the law.
  Indeed, and amazingly, the law enforcement officers filed a lawsuit 
against Secretary Napolitano and Mr. Morton. They are claiming they are 
being forced to violate the law.
  The judge has allowed this case to go forward, and it is being 
reviewed. It is in court right now. I never heard, as a federal 
prosecutor of nearly 15 years, of such a thing where the officers are 
suing their supervisors who won't let them follow plain law. This is 
the problem we are dealing with.
  Over a year ago, as Senator Durbin mentioned earlier, the Obama 
administration implemented a backdoor amnesty for an estimated 1.7 
million, a Pew estimate, illegal immigrants through a program called 
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the DACA Program. It covers 
aliens who entered the country illegally when they were under the age 
of 16 and not older than 31 as of June 15, 2012.
  Congress dealt with legislation to that effect and rejected it. It 
did not pass it. According to the published Department of Homeland 
Security guidelines, each DACA applicant is required to submit 
biographic and biometric information along with other information to 
prove they are eligible for the program.
  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, is to process 
the applications. In a little under a year, USCIS has approved an 
astonishing 291,859 applicants. On May 20, Kevin Palinkas, president of 
the National Citizenship and Immigration Service Council, the union 
representing the 12,000 USCIS adjudication officers who were supposed 
to adjudicate these matters, issued a press release reporting ``a 99.5 
percent approval rating for all illegal alien applications for legal 
status filed under the Obama administration's new deferred action for 
childhood arrivals, DACA, policies.''
  He reported a 99.5-percent approval. He attributed the exceptionally 
high approval rate to policies implemented by the Department of 
Homeland Security leadership that essentially made it impossible to 
make any real effort to eliminate fraud or identify dangerous criminal 
aliens.

[[Page 9220]]

  He goes on to say:

       DHS and USCIS leadership have intentionally established an 
     application process for DACA applicants that bypasses 
     traditional in-person investigatory interviews with trained 
     USCIS adjudications officers. These practices were put in 
     place to stop proper screening and enforcement.

  He is saying the new policies that eliminate the interviews ``were 
put in place to stop proper screening and enforcement, and guarantee 
that applications will be rubber-stamped for approval, a practice that 
virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at 
risk.''
  That is a pretty gutsy thing to say for a person who works in the 
Department of Homeland Security about his supervisors. I am sure he 
gave great thought to that.
  This press statement goes on to say:

       The attitude of USCIS management--

       These are the political appointees.

       is not that the agency serves the American public or the 
     laws of the United States, or public safety and national 
     security, but instead that the agency serves illegal aliens 
     and the attorneys which represent them. While we believe in 
     treating all people with respect, we are concerned that this 
     agency tasked with such a vital security mission is too 
     greatly influenced by special interest groups--to the point 
     that it no longer properly performs its mission.

  That is a strong statement. It should be something we listen to as we 
evaluate whether we need to give more discretion to these supervisors 
when we pass a new bill.
  Mr. Palinkas sent a letter to Congress on June 5 of this year, a few 
weeks ago, reiterating his concerns in light of S. 744.
  He wrote and said this bill ``would lead to the rubber-stamping of 
millions of applications for both amnesty and future admissions, 
putting the public safety and the taxpayer at risk.''
  He further stated:

       In addition to the impossible time constraints imposed on 
     each and every adjudicator to complete our assigned 
     workloads, we are currently lacking the manpower, training, 
     and office space to accomplish our mission and achieve what 
     our jobs demand. These challenges cry out for reconsideration 
     of S. 744 in its present form.

  A few days ago, a report released by Judicial Watch revealed that 
documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act confirm all 
of Mr. Palinkas' concerns. The documents reveal the administration has 
abandoned official background check procedures in order to keep up with 
the hundreds of thousands of amnesty applications under the program.
  For example, according to a September 17, 2012, e-mail from Associate 
Regional Director for Operations Gary Garman, field offices could 
expect the benefits center to conduct just ``lean & light'' background 
checks with only random samples of modified cases being sent to the 
field for verification.
  It goes on to say about the inadequacy of the applications submitted 
for amnesty under the ``lean & light'' system, St. Paul Field Director 
Sharon Cooley e-mailed staffers in October of last year with the 
following observation:

       As you are already aware the [applications] will not be as 
     complete and interview ready as we are used to seeing. This 
     is a temporary situation--I just can't tell you when things 
     will revert back to the way things used to be.

  That is the kind of situation we are in today. Then, on November 9, 
2012, last November, the entire agency was directed to halt all 
background checks. It is unknown how long USCIS stopped conducting 
background checks, but apparently they did. They may still be approving 
applications without background checks.
  We must conduct background checks to protect against public safety 
and national security threats. We can say that we want to move people 
out of the shadows, but if we don't complete the necessary background 
checks, those who are criminals or terrorists would be out of the 
shadows, and hiding in broad daylight with the absolute protection of 
legal immigration status. We should not transform them from the shadows 
to legal status without some sort of serious analysis of who they are, 
as the USCIS adjudicators and ICE officers tell us.
  If nobody is checking, nobody is digging into it, then this will 
become a common thing. They will just submit some false documentation, 
nobody will look at it, and they are home free. That is not the way we 
should be doing this. It is the kind of sliding, slipping away from 
real enforcement that has helped put us in the fix we are in today.
  This is troubling because the bill of the Gang of 8 gives Secretary 
Napolitano the discretion to determine the specifics of the amnesty 
application process for the entire 11 million people who will be given 
legal status in the country, including the responsibility or the 
discretion to determine the specific information required of the 
applicant; the form of the application, paper or electronic--and 
electronic ought to be a big part of it because we can immediately 
check with the National Crime Information Center on criminal 
backgrounds. It would be easier whether any applicant is actually going 
to be interviewed or not.
  It also requires the Secretary to collect biometric, biographic, and 
other data the Secretary deems appropriate for use in conducting 
``national security and enforcement clearances,'' which is left 
undefined.
  Knowing the administration is so determined to accelerate these other 
clearances, we can assume they would not be following strictly any of 
the law as it would be passed. This is why our law enforcement officers 
are concerned about the bill. This is what is causing them angst.
  If the administration does not currently do even minimum interviews 
under the DACA Program they are not going to do it in the future when 
we have 11 million people being cleared. These clearances should 
include checks against Federal and State law enforcement databases, 
both biometric and biographic, including the Department of Homeland 
Security and FBI databases, the consolidated watch list, and 
``lookout,'' and the biometric immigration databases. They are there to 
identify people who may be in violation of the law, have warrants out 
for their arrest for murder, drug dealing, or robbery, and are on a 
terrorist watch list. That is why we have these systems.
  I offered an amendment during the Judiciary Committee markup that 
would have mandated those checks as well as allowed for electronic 
filing of applications so that information could be easily checked 
against the law enforcement electronic data bases. It would have 
required in-person interviews where national security or public safety 
concerns arise, not interviewing everybody--although we really probably 
should interview everybody. But my amendment just said for those where 
national security or public safety concerns arise.
  Under this legislation, the Secretary doesn't have to interview a 
single amnesty applicant. But my amendment was rejected. This is a 
quote from the bill's lead sponsor, Senator Schumer, when talking about 
requiring such safeguards being unacceptable because they would ``slow 
things down dramatically. It will be impossible--it could take a year, 
18 months, 2 years before this would be effectuated. We hope that most 
folks could get in[to] within 6 months.''
  So I would say this is the plan: We say we have an effective 
background check system for all those who are going to be applying to 
be put on a guaranteed path to citizenship. We say to the American 
people we have a system, while failing to require any of that in any 
effective way.
  Mr. President, I don't know, do we have a time limit on these 
remarks? I see some of my colleagues here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed for 3 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  A quick turnaround of applications seems to be far more important to 
the Gang of 8 than the issue of identifying people who may be a threat 
to public safety--criminals who may have warrants out for them and who 
may have been arrested or served time for felonies. We need to know 
that. They are not supposed to be given status if they have been 
convicted of a felony.

[[Page 9221]]

  This is despite what we learned from the 1986 amnesty. The failure to 
conduct adequate background checks in 1986 and vet for national 
security threats enabled both criminals and terrorists to be legalized. 
A 2009 report by the Homeland Security Institute, prepared at the 
request of the USCIS Ombudsman in anticipation of immigration reform 
concluded:

       The potential volume of new cases generated by immigration 
     reform legislation could overwhelm USCIS capabilities and 
     capacities.

  I think that is true. The report also warned:

       It is important to recognize that every ineligible illegal 
     immigrant who comes across the border during the preparation 
     and implementation phases of any new legalization program 
     intending to apply for legal status entails yet another 
     possible fraudulent application for a limited number of 
     adjudicators to weed out.

  In other words, we are going to have people coming right now--the 
immigration flow has picked up dramatically--once they hear amnesty is 
afoot. If we don't have any ability to do the kind of fundamental 
checking here, everybody will be successful and fraudulent applications 
will be cleared in large numbers.
  The bill does not require the Secretary to interview a single amnesty 
applicant, including those who might pose a national security risk. 
Even the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill mandated in-person 
interviews, with terrorism concerns being one of the reasons. The 1986 
amnesty required face-to-face interviews, but no routine interviews are 
being conducted under the President's DACA Program--his amnesty for 
those who came here as teenagers--and there is no reason to expect 
there will be anything done in this program either, which is 22 times 
larger.
  Interviews are very important. Not interviewing applicants for 
admission to the country facilitated the 9/11 hijackers, hundreds of 
terrorists who have entered the country since the 1990s, and most 
recently was a contributing factor to the Boston Marathon terrorist 
attack. The 9/11 Commission concluded that:

       There were opportunities to stop both World Trade Center 
     pilots in secondary interviews at the border. That did not 
     happen. We also know that not having a fifth man on the 
     Pennsylvania flight mattered as well. Al-Kahtani's turn-
     around at Orlando International Airport after an extensive 
     secondary interview meant there were only four hijackers on 
     the flight headed for either the White House or the Capitol. 
     That plane was overrun by the passengers who knew their plane 
     was headed for disaster, and gave their lives to stop the 
     hijackers. This one secondary interview prompted by two 
     astute border inspectors in Orlando determined how many 
     hijackers the passengers had to fight on Flight 93.

  Press reports indicate that Boston bomber Tamarlan Tsarneav was 
watchlisted, but because of a ``downgrade'' on the watchlist, he was 
not placed in a secondary interview when he returned from six months in 
Russia in 2011. If Tsarneav had been interviewed, and even slightly 
questioned about where he had been and why, knowing he was already 
watchlisted, then he could well have been further interviewed by the 
FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. Because the bill does not require 
basic checks, the bill will continue to allow terrorists and criminals 
to exploit weaknesses in our immigration system and use it to gain 
legal status.
  Indeed, the bill specifically permits the Secretary to streamline 
applications for adjustment of status of those who were recipients of 
the administration's DACA initiative. In fact, in the Justice 
Department's brief recently filed in Crane v. Napolitano, in which ICE 
agents have sued DHS leadership over policies that they believe require 
them to violate the law and their oath, the Obama administration made 
clear that it believes it ``inherently'' has almost unbridled 
discretion in the matter of immigration enforcement. It even argued 
that the federal court has no jurisdiction to review or question DHS's 
decisions. The court disagreed.
  This bill surrenders to the executive branch's overreach. In fact, 
many provisions inexplicably weaken the law with regard to future 
illegal immigration and we are going to talk more about that as this 
debate continues. If this bill is going to secure the border and end 
illegal immigration ``once and for all'' as its sponsors say it will, 
these provision that weaken law enforcement must be removed.
  The American people rightly expect their government to enforce the 
laws enacted by Congress and keep its promises. But given this 
administration's refusal to enforce the laws currently on the books, 
the American people have no reason to believe that the loopholes, 
waivers and discretion granted to the administration will not be used, 
as they are being used now, to reduce enforcement and public safety.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

                          ____________________