[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20258-20261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to address the 2,000-page, 
trillion-dollar-plus, year-end omnibus spending bill--drafted behind 
closed doors, away from public view, with only a limited number of 
people involved. Members of the Senate and Members of the House were 
unaware of what deals were being cut and what decisions were being 
made. I believe it contains provisions that will cause material harm to 
American workers--I just do--and to matters involving this legislation 
that I have worked on for years. I am very disappointed. Actually, I am 
deeply disappointed.
  This bill contains dramatic changes to Federal immigration law that 
would increase, by as much as four-fold, the number of low-wage foreign 
workers provided to employers under the controversial H-2B visa 
program. It has been a matter of controversy for a number of years. It 
has been added to this bill without hearings and without an open 
process in the Senate. These foreign workers are brought in exclusively 
to fill blue-collar, low-wage, nonfarm jobs--not agricultural jobs--in 
hotels and in restaurants and on construction sites, in amusement 
parks, landscaping, truck driving, and in many other occupations--jobs 
being sought by millions of Americans around this country. Millions are 
taking those jobs every day.
  When we go into hotels and restaurants, are not Americans doing those 
jobs? H-2B workers are supposed to be here to fill seasonal jobs that 
Americans allegedly ``won't do.'' That is what they say--those who want 
more, cheaper labor.
  Even those they are supposed to be temporary positions, foreign H-2B 
workers are allowed to bring their spouses and their children with 
them--which, of course, results in costs being incurred by local 
communities, hospitals, and schools across the country. Although the 
alien's spouse and children are not supposed to work in the United 
States, I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this 
administration has any intention--or previous ones, for that matter--to 
do anything to stop them from working if they want to, nor will they be 
deported if they violate the terms of their employment, nor will they 
be removed if they overstay the visa they have been given.
  Hotels have good jobs. Construction has good jobs. As to landscaping, 
there is a group that does my lawn in Alabama. Three African-American 
men come out and work on our lawn in a fairly short period of time, 
using good equipment. The head person is in his 40s and had 20 years in 
the Army. What do people mean that Americans won't do this work?
  At a time of record immigration, we do not appreciate the scope of 
it. We already have the highest number of foreign-born individuals in 
American history. We are not against immigration. Immigration is a 
positive thing--properly conducted. Good people come into America. But 
we are at record levels both in total numbers and, in a few years, the 
highest percentage of foreign-born in America will be reached, and it 
will continue thereafter. So is it any wonder that 83 percent of the 
electorate wants immigration either frozen or reduced?
  The Republican-led Congress is about to deliver the President a 
fourfold increase in one of the most controversial foreign worker 
programs we have. In fact, it is a much larger version of a proposal 
that was contained in the Gang of 8 comprehensive immigration bill that 
was rejected by the American people and the House of Representatives 
just 2 years ago. The result is higher unemployment and lower wages for 
Americans. The free market controls--more labor, lower wage; more 
labor, less job opportunity. It is indisputable.
  The Economic Policy Institute has noted: ``Wages were stagnant or 
declining for workers in all of the top 15 H-2B occupations between 
2004 and 2014,'' and ``unemployment rates increased in all but one of 
the top 15 H-2B occupations between 2004 and 2014, and all 15 
occupations averaged a very high unemployment rate . . . Flat and 
declining wages, coupled with such high unemployment rates over such a 
long period of time, suggests a loose labor market and an over-supply 
of workers rather than an under supply.''
  I think that is a fact. Our free market friends ought to understand 
that.
  It is worth noting that the civilian labor force participation rate 
is currently at around 62.5 percent, a low that we have not seen in 
nearly four decades. Labor participation rate means the percentage of 
workers in the working ages that actually have a job. It is the lowest 
rate we have had in four decades.
  Nevertheless, despite this low labor force participation rate, this 
provision in the omnibus bill would exempt from the statutory limit, 
which is now 66,000 H-2B workers a year--any worker who was present in 
the United States during the three previous years. Thus, instead of 
66,000 foreign workers, the bill would allow up to 264,000 foreign 
workers to be present in the United States on H-2B visas. That is over 
a quarter of a million low-wage, low-skilled workers brought in to 
occupy blue-collar jobs. That may be good for certain businesses that 
now have a large number of workers, because they don't have to raise 
wages and change working conditions and raise benefits to attract and 
keep workers. They can just bring in people from abroad who are 
thankful to get any good cash-income job at lower wages.
  This is bad for struggling American workers trying to get by and take 
care of their families. It is particularly bad, as economist after 
economist has shown, for minorities, including African Americans and 
Hispanics, and recent immigrants who are here lawfully looking to try 
to get a little better wage with a little better retirement and health 
care benefits. This is going to help them? Give me a break.
  On top of this provision, this omnibus bill approves, without any 
conditions--the President's request for increased refugee admissions, 
allowing him to bring in as many refugees as he wants. He can do that. 
It is hard to believe, but he is allowed to do so. He simply has to 
notify Congress of how many he intends to admit. He can bring them from 
anywhere he wants and allow them access to unlimited welfare and 
entitlements at the taxpayers' expense, which is not scored as a cost.
  At the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest that I 
chair, we had an official from Health and Human Services who testified 
that 75 percent of the refugees are self-sustaining within 180 days. 
But my staff helped me to ask the follow-up question. What we found was 
that means Health and Human Services is no longer giving them refugee 
money, but that other kinds of welfare don't count against them. But 93 
percent, we know, of immigrants from the Middle East between 2009 and 
2013 are on food stamps, and 73 percent are on Medicaid or health care 
programs. And they may be there the rest of their lives.
  This is not being scored. This is why a country that is smart seeks 
to bring in people who have the greatest chance of being successful.
  Sure, some will do well, and many are wonderful people, and we have a 
tradition of that. I am just saying that we have a President with 
unlimited powers who has an agenda, and he is passing on the costs that 
are going to be to the detriment of working Americans for decades to 
come.
  So the risks associated with the refugee admissions program are 
significant.
  With respect to Syria, FBI Director James Comey repeatedly said that 
we simply do not have the ability to vet refugees from Syria. 
Testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security in October, 
he said:


[[Page 20259]]

       We can only query against that which we have collected. So 
     if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a 
     way that would get their identity or their interests 
     reflected in our database, we can query our database until 
     the cows come home, but we are not going to. There will be 
     nothing to show up because we have no record on that person.

  Well, that is absolutely correct. Of course, that is correct. But 
they tried to tell us in Committee that we are going to do biometric 
checks. So I proceeded to ask repeatedly, and finally, after the most 
difficult time, they acknowledged they have no database in Syria to 
check biometrics against. It is not like the United States: If you are 
caught by the police, they take your fingerprints, and they can tell 
whether you were convicted in Maine, Alabama, or California. It is in 
the computer system. They don't have that in Syria. So that was a 
misrepresentation, an attempt to mislead and create false confidence in 
the American people that we have an ability to vet people coming here 
from Syria--an ability we don't have. The FBI Director honestly and 
directly stated that.
  Any claims made by others that refugees in the United States never 
engage in acts of terrorism are demonstrably false. Just a few weeks 
ago, I identified a list of at least 12 individuals who were admitted 
to the United States as refugees, but who have been implicated in 
terrorism in the last year alone.
  We found out there may be more, and probably they are under 
investigation right now. In fact, the FBI has said there is a terrorism 
investigation in every single State in America. These terrorists, for 
example, are from Somalia, Bosnia, Kenya and Uzbekistan. They came in 
different stages in their lives. Some were admitted as children, others 
as adults. Yet they all turn their backs on this country after being 
welcomed here as refugees.
  This is not made up. It is a real problem. The American people want 
some action. They would like to see Congress and this Administration 
respond, especially, and they are rightly angered and upset with their 
elected representatives and their President for not taking sufficient 
action.
  I, along with my colleague Senator Shelby and others in the House, 
asked for inclusion of specific language in this omnibus bill that 
would protect the interests of the American people, that would reassert 
the constitutional role of Congress in establishing a uniform system of 
immigration, that would require the identification of offsetting cuts 
in Federal spending to pay for the refugee admission program. But none 
of that was included in the omnibus bill.
  I doubt they ever spent a minute looking at a letter from two 
Senators. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the 
National Interest, I sent appropriators a list of several dozen 
provisions for inclusion in our funding bills to improve immigration 
enforcement and to block Presidential overreach and lawlessness, 
including among other things, provisions to defund sanctuary cities.
  Why should we be funding and providing Federal law enforcement money 
to cities that won't cooperate with the Federal Government in its most 
basic responsibility of respect and comity between these various 
Federal and State agencies. It goes on every day. But we are being 
blocked in sanctuary city after sanctuary city.
  Also, I asked the appropriators to prevent visas from being issued to 
nationals of countries that refuse to take back their criminals. This 
is important. My former colleague Senator Specter offered a bill for a 
number of things. It would bar admission for certain visas for 
nationals of countries that won't take back their people who have been 
in the United States. It is a fundamental principle of immigration law 
worldwide that if you admit a person from a foreign country, when their 
visa is up, they go home. Their visa is up if they commit a crime, and 
they are to be sent back home; they are to be deported.
  But country after country is refusing to take back their convicted 
criminals. I guess they figure: ``Why don't you keep our criminals for 
us?'' But that is not what the law is, and we are stuck with them in 
jails. We have to pay for their housing. After 6 months, absent certain 
circumstances, the Supreme Court says they generally have to be 
released. It's possible that if an alien files a habeas petition that 
the government will have to go to court and have hearing with a judge. 
This is driving up costs, using incredible amounts of hours. We 
shouldn't tolerate it one minute. There is no reason that this 
government shouldn't act--which the law will now allow and directly 
says they should do--to refuse to issue visas to a country that won't 
take back their criminals. They refuse to do it. There is additional 
legislation that would force that, and we could have done it in this 
bill. It should have bipartisan support.
  I also asked for language in the bill to defund the unlawful, 
improper Executive amnesty. The President's actions are unlawful. We 
don't have to fund his unlawful activity. There is no duty on behalf of 
Congress to acquiesce and provide money to people to work in a big 
building in Crystal City to process millions of people in the country 
illegally for amnesty because the President now says: ``I am just going 
to let them stay.'' It has been blocked for the most part by a Federal 
court, but there is nothing in the bill to expressly defund it.
  I asked for legislation to protect American workers against abuses in 
the H-1B program. This is where Southern California Edison had a 
program. They brought in 500 foreign workers from India in some sort of 
contract deal, had the American workers who had been at Edison doing 
computer work for years train the new workers, and then ended up 
terminating the Americans and replacing them with those from abroad. 
How can anyone say there was a shortage of workers? The same was done 
by Disney. Senator Nelson of Florida and I introduced legislation to 
fix that. I have introduced legislation with Senator Cruz and supported 
legislation from Senator Grassley to fix this program. None of that has 
been included in this bill. Why not?
  I asked for an expansion of the 287(g) program that allows Federal 
law enforcement officials and officers to assist with enforcing our 
immigration law. This was a good program. It had been on the books. 
President Bush finally began to expand it. They train local law 
officers for weeks at a time, and they become extensions of Federal law 
enforcement officers to help identify and process people who are 
unlawfully in the country and who have been apprehended--a very good 
program that had good results. This Obama Administration has 
eviscerated it. It is less than half of what it was. It should have 
been expanded all over America, if you actually want the law enforced 
in this country. But if you don't want the law enforced in America, you 
kill a program like 287(g). Did the appropriators put in the omnibus 
bill anything to deal with that abuse? No.
  We put in language that would prevent illegal aliens from receiving 
tax credits. This is unbelievable. The Treasury Inspector General for 
Tax Administration from President Obama's own Treasury Department has 
done an analysis of this and urged that it be fixed. People come to 
America illegally, with children somewhere around the world. They don't 
have a Social Security number. They use an ITIN identification 
document--which was intended for executives. They use that, and they 
file a tax return. They don't pay taxes because their income is low, 
but they get a tax credit based on children that are not even in the 
country.
  How abusive is that? I understand this was rejected and was not in 
the omnibus bill because President Obama didn't want it. So he gets to 
dictate what is in a congressional bill that I think would have 90-
percent support by the American people if they understood how 
significant it was? That is a different figure, but it is an abusive, 
improper tax credit.
  So all of these provisions were rejected by the bill supporters.
  But industry's request for more foreign workers was granted--
unconditionally approved. So I asked about this provision. I heard it 
might be under consideration, so I asked about

[[Page 20260]]

it. I said: ``The American people don't want a fourfold increase in 
immigration. I know there are some special interests pushing for this. 
I have heard that. Tell me it is not so.'' I was told it wasn't so. But 
last night--this morning at 2 a.m.--when the bill was produced, it was 
in there. So I am not happy about it, colleagues. I don't see how we 
can operate around here if we can't rely on representations.
  Because of this bill, sanctuary cities will continue to get Federal 
funds, the Obama Administration can continue issuing visas to countries 
that refuse to repatriate their criminal aliens, and the President's 
Executive amnesty continues.
  Meanwhile, the tax bill that will be moved with the omnibus bill 
makes permanent the Additional Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income 
Tax Credit, but it does nothing to block their future distribution to 
illegal aliens. A tax credit to a person who doesn't pay taxes is a 
check from the government. It is not a tax deduction; it is a direct 
payment. It scores as a welfare benefit. This means more illegal aliens 
will continue to get tax credits. It should be stopped.
  As I feared, the ultimate effect--and I have expressed concern about 
this for some months now--is that this bill will fund the President's 
entire lawless immigration agenda. The only real bill we have to 
provide an opportunity to legislate and fix some of these things is a 
big omnibus bill. And what does it do? It funds essentially the 
President's entire agenda.
  In fact, the omnibus spending bill will ensure that at least--for 
example, we have had discussions about the Middle East. People argue 
that we are not letting in enough people from the Middle East, and that 
we shouldn't talk about a pause. But under this bill it would ensure 
that at least 170,000 green cards--that means permanent residency with 
a guaranteed path to citizenship--and refugee and asylee approvals will 
be issued to migrants from Muslim countries just over the next 12 
months. We are very generous about this, and it is very difficult to 
know if we are managing this properly, except that we know it is not 
being safely monitored, and the FBI Director has told us so.
  This bill even fails to address substantial problems with the EB-5 
investment visa program, problems that some of my colleagues have 
worked for months to resolve. The problems with this program have been 
documented by the Government Accountability Office and the Department 
of Homeland Security Inspector General, not the least of which are 
issues related to fraud and national security. We can fix that program. 
We need to do it. This would have been a good opportunity.
  For years the American people have suffered under the lawless, 
dangerous, and wage-reducing immigration policies of this 
administration. They sent us here to Washington to protect their 
interests, to protect the people's interests, to ensure the defense of 
their families, and to advance the common good--the public interest. 
They did not send us here to bow down to the President's lawless 
immigration policies, nor to line the pockets of special interests in 
big business. That is not what we are here for.
  Whom do we represent?
  This bill explains why Republican and Democratic voters are in open 
rebellion, as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said recently--
open rebellion. They elected people whom they believed were going to 
take action to protect their security, their jobs, and their wages. And 
what do they get? A bill that is worse than current law. It goes in the 
opposite direction--no wonder people are upset.
  This legislation represents a further disenfranchisement of the 
American voter. What does a vote mean in this country? At a time when 
hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens are on our streets, criminal 
aliens are killing innocent Americans, numerous foreign-born 
individuals are implicated in terrorism, tens of thousands of aliens 
from Central America continue to stream across our southern border, 
countless Americans are being replaced by foreign workers and forced to 
train their replacements, and millions of Americans are just struggling 
to get by, this Congress has chosen to make things worse.
  We need to remember whom we represent and whom our duty is to. Our 
duty is to voters, the American people, not the interests of 
businesses, activist groups, and that kind of thing.
  I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. I have been very 
firm about my statements here, but I am very unhappy about this bill. I 
do not believe this is the kind of legislation we should be moving. It 
was not moved in the normal process on the floor of the Senate, where 
amendments could be offered and a bill could be studied over months of 
time before final passage, perhaps. So with regret and a good deal of 
frustration, I urge my colleagues to oppose and reject this proposal.
  I would also just mention one more thing, and then I will wrap up. 
Senator Shelby and I wrote a letter to the Appropriations Committee on 
November 16, asking for Congress to assume its constitutional duty 
ensuring immigration laws are uniform by approving the number of 
refugees who come to America, and not leave that as an open-ended power 
given to the President, who can execute it in an arbitrary manner.
  We also said that no benefits should be provided to future refugees 
until the Congressional Budget Office submits a score--a simple report 
on the cost of this program. How long would it take? Not that long. 
Don't we need to have a score, a cost number?
  We also asked that no refugees be admitted until the Department of 
Homeland Security submits a report on terrorist and criminal refugees.
  None of those provisions were included in any of the legislation 
before us. I think all of those are logical.
  I also previously wrote letters asking for other provisions, such as 
prohibiting funds for lawsuits against States that are trying to help 
enforce immigration laws, to bar funds for attorneys for illegal aliens 
through these grant programs that are being utilized. Fundamentally, it 
has never been the responsibility of the Federal Government to prepare 
and provide free attorneys for people who have entered the country 
illegally. It never has been the law.
  I also asked that no funds be provided for sanctuary cities.
  I asked for language that prohibited funds for Executive amnesty 
policies; that prohibited funds for the DACA Program; that there would 
be no spending of funds in the Immigration Examinations Fee Account for 
anything other than naturalization and immigration benefits provided by 
Congress.
  I asked for language that would bar funds for salaries of political 
appointees or other employees who direct employees to violate the law. 
Why should we be paying people who direct their own subordinates to 
violate fundamental provisions of immigration law?
  I asked for language that would prevent funds from being used to 
grant ``prosecutorial discretion'' to aliens in removal proceedings, no 
funds for an extension of Temporary Protected Status unless approved by 
Congress, and no funds to continue the Administration's abuse of the 
parole authority. We shouldn't be funding these abusive practices that 
undermine the certainty of immigration laws.
  I asked for language to prohibit funds to grant H-1B visas to 
companies that have replaced American workers. I asked for restrictions 
on the issuance of Employment Authorization Documents, and that no 
funds be used to add new countries to the Visa Waiver Program until 
implementation of a biometric exit system.
  This bill does direct some money to a biometric exit system, which, 
if this Administration would act, would begin to do something 
significant. But they have resisted what the 9/11 Commission has said 
we must have. When people come into the country, they are checked in, 
they are fingerprinted, and they are biometrically identified, but 
nobody checks if they left. So you can come into America on a visa and 
never go home. This is why almost half of the people illegally in 
America today came lawfully on a visa. They just didn't return when 
they were supposed to.

[[Page 20261]]

  I asked for money to establish--notably, there has been an advocacy 
unit in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the past to protect 
illegal immigrants and give them all kinds of additional rights--an 
advocacy unit for victims of immigrant crimes.
  I asked for others, too.
  I would just say that I, and others, have raised a series of 
important issues that need to be fixed, and would receive, if 
understood by the American people, 90 percent support. Senator 
Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee--of which my Subcommittee 
on Immigration and the National Interest, is a part--has also been 
active in these things. It is a deep disappointment that this last 
piece of legislation that could make some improvement in a number of 
these issues will do nothing of significance, but it will increase by 
four-fold the number of low-skilled, low-wage workers allowed to enter 
this country from 66,000 to 264,000. They will pull down wages and 
reduce the job prospects of struggling Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________