Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe 15 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Sheriff James Hayes, who passed away on a recent hunting trip. Sheriff Hayes's law enforcement career began at the Etowah County Sheriff's Office in 1972 as a deputy sheriff. In 1986, he was elected sheriff and was subsequently reelected to five more terms, distinguishing him as the longest-serving sheriff in Etowah County history. He was a graduate of the Hokes Bluff High School Class of 1965, and a member of the only undefeated football team in school history in 1964. Sheriff Hayes was a pillar of the law enforcement community, not only in Etowah County, but in the entire State of Alabama and the Nation. In 1994, he carried the distinguished title of president of the Alabama Sheriff's Association, serving both our State and sheriffs across the Nation with distinction. In the course of his career, Sheriff Hayes served on committees and boards throughout Etowah County and the State of Alabama. His unfailing leadership, and his unwavering love of public service, are examples for us all. During the course of my Senate career, Sheriff Hayes worked closely with me and my staff to bring about positive change in Alabama. The accomplishment that I am perhaps most grateful to Sheriff Hayes for involves his vision for an immigration detention facility in the State of Alabama. In March of 1998, Sheriff Hayes started pursuing the expansion of the Etowah County Detention Facility. He had a vision for a long-term contract with the Federal Immigration Service, one that would increase the bed capacity in the State, and one that would serve to ensure that Federal immigration laws were more effectively enforced within the borders of our State. It is common knowledge that without bed space, you cannot arrest and deport illegal aliens. With the help of our office, he secured a 15-year agreement with the Immigration Service and an $8.4 million expansion grant. This grant added over 300 detention beds, more than doubling the number in the existing facility. When the Immigration Service turned over control of the facility to its New Orleans Field Office after September 11, 2001, Sheriff Hayes further demonstrated his commitment to a successful immigration enforcement system in Alabama by initiating a movement to return oversight for the Etowah County Federal Detention Facility to Immigration Services' Atlanta Field Office. He firmly believed that the beds would be used more effectively under the direction of the Atlanta Field Office, which was hundreds of miles closer and wanted to use the facility for short term, instead of long-term, immigration detainees. Just 2 weeks before his death, I received notification from the Immigration Service that his multiple year-long effort was not in vain. DHS had fully evaluated his position, and had decided to grant his request. My office was able to communicate the good news that his persistence had been met with success to Sheriff Hayes just before his passing. I am confident that Sheriff Hayes' diligent efforts over the last several years have ensured a more effective Federal partnership with law enforcement in Alabama for years to come. As I read the recent newspaper articles and messages reacting to Sheriff Hayes's death, I was touched to realize that the appreciation of Etowah County's citizens for Sheriff Hayes's unrelenting public service is only surpassed by their love for him as a husband, father, grandfather, brother and friend who will be missed tremendously. Alabama was indeed lucky to claim him as one of her own. So, in closing, I want to let Sheriff Hayes' family know how much I appreciate his service, his professionalism, and his dedication to the people of Etowah County and the State of Alabama. I know that words cannot adequately express the loss being felt right now in Etowah County, but we can all be assured that Etowah County and our State are better places because of Sheriff Hayes' leadership. Let his life be a example for those of us who continue to serve in public office.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt from the remarks by President George W. Bush at the Presidential Medal of Freedom presentation at the White House on November 5, 2007, honoring Harper Lee of Monroeville, AL.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I commend Dr. George V. Irons, Jr., M.D., native Alabamian, for his outstanding achievements as one of our Nation's foremost cardiologists. Dr. Irons has treated the hearts of Americans for over five decades. He graduated from the Medical College of Alabama, earning the highest grades ever recorded in the school's history, straight A-plus. Since that time, his professional accomplishments have been many. While at the Medical College of Alabama, he was selected by the American Medical Association as one of the top two medical students in the nation. For his superior scholastic record, leadership and service, he won the Stuart Graves Award, as the Medical School's top student. After military duty as a flight surgeon, Captain, U.S. Air Force, internship and residency, chief resident in cardiology, Dr. Irons joined the Duke University Medical School Faculty in 1964, where he was named fellow in cardiovascular diseases. Dr. Irons' career has truly been notable. Since 1966, he has been in active practice in Charlotte, NC, as the first board certified cardiologist in western North Carolina. Dr. Irons was Founder and is president of Mid-Carolina Cardiology, a premiere coronary care provider. As a high school junior, Irons won the prestigious Bausch & Lomb Award, as America's top science student--a nationwide science talent search based on competitive examinations sponsored by the University of Rochester, NY. As the winner, he was offered a substantial scholarship, which he declined, to attend Samford University. He graduated from Woodlawn High School with a perfect academic record, first in his class, and served as president of the student body. At Howard College--now Samford University--he continued his course, finishing a rigorous 4 year pre-med curriculum in 35 months with a perfect 3.0--first in his class. For his excellence, he was awarded the John R. Mott Trophy and as the outstanding graduating senior, he won the Birmingham Exchange Club Trophy, Danforth Award, and the ODK National Leadership Award. He also found time to letter in varsity track and win the conference championship in his event. As a distinguished cardiologist, he was inducted as fellow into the American College of Cardiology and received a special Award of Merit with Citation from the National Association of Cardiologists for his distinctive research contributions to the science of coronary disease. Only eight physicians have been so honored in the Association's history. Dr. Irons' research has been published worldwide in leading medical journals. This year, Dr. Irons was named one of Samford University's Distinguished Alumnus. Samford University is one of America's finest liberal arts universities, founded and serving in the Christian tradition. To be selected Distinguished Alumnus, the nominee must be distinguished in their professional career, community and church involvement. I would like to commend Dr. Irons, achievements, research, and devotion to superior patient care. He exhibits tremendous dedication to the science of coronary disease to provide a better life for our citizens through more improved medical technology and treatment. I proudly salute Dr. Irons, one of Alabama's great native sons, for his extraordinary service to medicine and this latest honor as a Samford University Distinguished Alumnus.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would be interested in speaking on behalf of the Sununu amendment. I don't know what the alternating agreement is.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, while I am not opposed and don't think the proponents of the legislation have a bad intent, they have a vision for a national rail system, and they are willing to put billions of dollars into it. But I have never been able to lay my hand on a study that shows that a national rail system mandated by the government is feasible over long distances. Yet there was a study that showed, even in Europe, that train routes within certain ranges will work. I think the distance was approximately 200 to 300 miles. If it is much longer than that, people almost always choose to fly. If it is much shorter than that, they almost always choose to drive. Americans, more than anyone else in the world, have automobiles, and we choose to drive frequently. It allows you to arrive when you want, carry things you want to carry, drive straight to where you intend to go, and not have to wait in a station. And you don't have this on time problem. Commercial airlines are on time about 80 percent of the time. Amtrak was only on time 66 percent of the time. That is another factor you have to think about if you are going to regularly use a long-distance train. In certain corridors, where the traffic is heavy, it works, and I am not disputing that. I am not for shutting down a profitable route or even routes that are close to profitable, which we can justify subsidizing. But I think, in all honesty, that Senator Sununu has raised a legitimate point. How much can we support these routes that are losing money, are unlikely to ever make money, and are driving up a heavy cost that the whole Amtrak system must carry in its effort to comply with congressional mandates? So if you could reduce some of these losses that are draining Amtrak's ability to be effective and gave them some freedom to make business decisions rather than having their operations determined by political decisions made by Congress, I think we would be better off. So after much thought and review, I have concluded that this is a rational amendment. It is hard for me to see how it can be opposed. Therefore, I will support it. I thank the Senator for offering it.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield for that purpose.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be brief. Amtrak does go through my home State, and I have been interested in the impact of not having support for that periodic travel through our State that the system does and how much it costs and what the right public policy should be and how we should think about it. I would note Amtrak operates 44 routes over 220,000 miles of track, and 97 percent of those tracks are freight company tracks. But it runs a deficit each year, and we have to have Federal subsidies for it. The crux of the public policy issue that all of us, I think, should think about for the overall public policy--not for one or two little-- not for a few people in a vision for what we ought to do for the future but what is the truthful situation we are in. Kenneth Mead, the Department of Transportation inspector general, succinctly stated the situation this way: The mismatch between the public resources made available to fund inner city passenger rail service, the total cost to maintain the system that Amtrak continues to operate, and the proposals to restructure the system comprise dysfunction that must be resolved in the reauthorization process of the Nation's inner city rail system. This proposed reauthorization would entail about a $2 billion-a-year subsidy for the next 6 years. Remember, the bill that was enacted in 1997 to reform and have accountability for Amtrak contemplated there would be no more subsidies in 2002. Now, Senator Sununu has studied this issue, and I believe we can rely on the things he is saying, fundamentally. It is important, and I am glad somebody has committed the time and effort to point out some of the problems with going forward with business as usual. I am going to take a couple of minutes and share some thoughts. The train that goes through Alabama, Mobile, AL, east and west, it comes up--I am not sure exactly what the situation is this year, but when I checked last year, the train went through 2 or 3 days a week going east at 2 a.m. in the morning, and when it goes west, 2 or 3 days a week, it was 3 a.m. in the morning. Now, that is not likely to attract a lot of customers. Let me show this chart and go through it. I believe we will come to understand that what we are talking about, I say to Senator Sununu, is trying to do something that is basically impossible to do. It is not going to work. I wish we could. As we used to say in the country--I grew up on the railroad tracks. My daddy had a country store. There were three country stores and a railroad depot in our little community. The train went by, we had a passenger--I remember when we had a passenger train down there. There hasn't been a passenger train on that road in 40 years. There is only one store left and no railroad depot. Times change. Things happen. Let's look at this chart on what it would take from Birmingham to Washington, DC. Well, what are your options? If you go on a commercial airline--the one we checked here was a direct flight from USAir last October--to Birmingham, there were seven direct flights to Washington, DC, from Birmingham, AL, a day. If you take your personal vehicle, you can leave anytime you want to leave. If you take the train, there is only one a day. That limits your options. People, when they are deciding how to make a trip, think about these things. What about how long does it take? The air time is 3 hours 12 minutes, the personal vehicle is 11 hours, approximately, and the train time is 18 hours. What about how many stops do you make? If you take an airline, it is one stop. It is a direct flight. What about your personal vehicles? Let's assume you make four stops. But Amtrak is making 18 stops. It is not taking the shortest route. What about our cost? I was surprised at this when we looked at the numbers. The primary cost for a round trip airline ticket, as I said, as of last October, was about $328. We now think it is $350 or $360, something around that price. That is what the commercial airline fare is. If you took your personal vehicle, the cost for gasoline is $87. Gas is about $2.97 a gallon today. The Amtrak ticket is $206 round trip. I don't know that this is an accurate figure for the food and board, but in the air you have no cost of food and a room is not needed. In a personal vehicle, you can estimate one meal or two meals at $20. On Amtrak, the high cost of food and a sleeper car can put you well over $100--maybe even $200--as our figures show. On the commercial airline, the total cost for one way would be $160 to $175. A personal vehicle is less than that while the train is more than that. The train is going to be much more than that one way. So this is why people are not traveling long distances on trains. It is not because they are not there. They are there. But you say: Well, what we need is Amtrak coming through Mobile at 5 a.m., 7 a.m, or 8 a.m. Well, you cannot make that happen. To do that, we would have to double the number of trains or triple or quadruple them, and they will lose even more money. I wish it weren't so. I wish we could make this system work, but certain long routes are not feasible. However, Congress, being what it is, mandates it. We say you have to run these routes, and Amtrak runs up billions of dollars in debt trying to comply. If I could see us moving to a time when we would come close to making this feasible, I would be supportive.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Is there any pending business?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in morning business. Before I do, I just want to express my concern and sympathy to Senator Feinstein and the people of California. It has been horrendous. I caught some of it last night, and my wife has been watching it off and on all day. It is a horrifying spectacle to see the power of that fire and the helplessness you face when the winds are right. I think it does, I say to the Senator, indicate, as she has suggested, whether we are talking about hurricanes or earthquakes or fires or floods, we can probably do a better job with policy and reaction to that. I look forward to working with the Senator from California.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I need to correct one statement I made previously. I said the President had issued a veto threat. He does not normally do that on a motion for cloture situation. It was a statement of objection for the bill without an explicit threat of veto.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will just conclude by saying, this would be the wrong direction. This would be to signal that, once again, we are focused on rewarding illegality rather than taking the steps necessary to create a lawful system, and at that point we can more fairly go to the American people and ask them to consider what to do in a compassionate way for those here illegally. I yield the remainder of the time to Senator DeMint.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds?

Mr. SESSIONS. The Executive Office of the President of the United States, OMB, has issued a veto threat on this bill and said they will veto it because they believe it is not part of comprehensive reform, as Senator Specter said. They also go forward to note a number of specific problems with it. They note that we: [M]ust be careful not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has brought the Nation to this point. By creating a special path to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants--including young people whose parents respected our Nation's laws--S. 2205 falls short. They go on to note: This path to citizenship is unavailable to any other alien, no matter how much promise he or she may have, no matter how much he or she may contribute to American society. They note that it would: [A]llow illegal aliens to obtain a green card before many individuals who are currently lawfully waiting in line. They note that they can: [P]etition almost instantly to bring family members into the country. By the way, it would be 1.3 million people admitted under this program, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a fair and objective--certainly not a conservative group, I will say it that way. They go on to note that the persons would be ``eligible for welfare benefits within 5 years.'' The bill would be indiscriminate in who it would make eligible for the program through certain loopholes: Certain aliens convicted of multiple misdemeanors and even felonies. They note that it would be vetoed. So that is President Bush who has been strongly favoring immigration reform. I have disagreed with him consistently on many of his ideas. Let me make mention of a couple of things that are fundamentally important. Most importantly, individuals are not going to take the military route. I would estimate at least 90 percent would take the option of just 2 years of college without any requirement to have to attain a degree. I submit this will strike a dagger, most importantly, in the heart of the decided will of the American people which is to create a lawful system of immigration. It would put illegals ahead of legals. It will make clear that even after our national debate and vote a few weeks ago, the Congress still does not get it; that the Congress is still determined to stiff the will of the decent majority of American citizens; that the Senate will move forward with an amnesty bill that puts 1.3 million people on a swift and guaranteed path to citizenship, ahead of millions who applied and are waiting in line lawfully, to give them every right of citizenship this country has to offer. That is what I think amnesty is, giving every single right that we have to offer to someone as a result of illegal conduct. So before--and this is important--before we make any real progress toward a lawful system of immigration, we have less than 100 miles of the 700 miles of fencing this Congress called for. There is no workplace enforcement. A modest attempt to do something like that has been blocked by the courts, and nothing has been followed up. There has been little or no--

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. I yield Senator DeMint the remaining time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have no objection to that. I assume it is a colloquy--but I would not want to concede that rather small amount of time remaining on this side.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to Senator Specter, please.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few thoughts on the vote we cast on the DREAM Act. I really believe it was an important issue. It went beyond what some might think in that it dealt with some issues that are important to America, what we are thinking of as a country, and why we need to get the immigration issue correct. We can do it. It is something that is important. But once again, we sort of fell into the trap of focusing on helping to meet what the needs or desires are of people who are here illegally and not focusing on restoring the rule of law to immigration enforcement. So I think the Senate leadership's commitment to moving this legislation would have been a step in exactly the wrong direction. I believe the strong bipartisan vote against it indicates that there remains grave concern about this kind of amnesty proposal, particularly in light of the fact that we have not achieved any significant progress toward enforcement of our laws at the border, at the workplace, and in other areas. I would just say as a person who has worked on this with some determination in the last several years that I have absolutely come to believe that if we do a series of things, we can create a lawful system of immigration in America. That is important because I think a lot of people think it is just not possible, that nothing we do will work. But that is not true. If we have a good legal system, if we have a good enforcement system at the border, if we make it difficult for people to work, eliminate the job magnet and create a work card, an identification card that is biometric and can't be easily counterfeited, we could see a dramatic return to lawfulness in immigration. That would be so good for America. It would so reduce the frustration and anger that is out there. As I have said before, I don't think people are angry at immigrants, although some of the people who support these legislative acts that I think have been bad have tried to suggest that the anger which is out there among the American people is directed at immigrants. It is really directed at us. The American people have been requesting for 30, 40 years that we create a lawful system of immigration, and Congress has continued to stiff them--just refused to do it--and talks about it and promises and passes this bill or that bill or this provision or that provision, all the time suggesting that these are going to make a difference. Then, either we don't fund them adequately, so they never really take place, or the bill is a discrete piece of legislation that never has much impact on the overall situation we have confronted and does not do any significant--does not take us in any significant way toward a lawful system. I hope this strong vote sends a message that this Senate, prior to creating a lawful system of immigration both at our border and in the workplace, is not prepared to undertake the huge AgJOBS legislation. Senator Reid has said he would bring that up again, but maybe this vote will encourage him not to do so. The DREAM Act, which we just rejected, would have given, in short order, every benefit of citizenship--including citizenship--to 1.3 million persons. The AgJOBS bill that we keep hearing will be brought up will be an additional 3.3 million. So that is a third of the amount of people who would be provided the benefits of amnesty, a third of the number that was in the bill this summer that the American people rejected. The DREAM Act, as I said, would have provided amnesty for over 1.3 million, according to the Migration Policy Institute--not a conservative group. It would give current illegal aliens a financial bonus. They would be eligible for instate tuition, subsidized student loans, and Federal work study. So if you have a problem with illegality--and I just want to share this with my colleagues; these are not insignificant points I am making--if you are going to create a lawful system of immigration into America, you are going to have to have some sanctions and punishments and prosecutions. More than that, you absolutely can't give benefits to people who have violated our laws, who have gotten past our borders, and then we start rewarding them with benefits. So a number of years ago, in 1996, we said that if you are a person coming to our country illegally and you were illegally here, you at least shouldn't get instate tuition when you go to college. You ought to not be in a better position than a lawful American who might live a few miles across the State line. That was the deciding vote here. This would have reversed that--not only that; as I said, it would give them subsidized student loans, Stafford loans and other loans, as well as work study benefits. So, as they say, if you are in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. If you would like to end and reduce illegal immigration, stop rewarding it, please. That is what we are talking about. So this bill I think went too far in a number of ways. I was actually pleased that President Bush's administration analyzed it and strongly opposed it and sent us a letter to that effect. So even President Bush, who strongly supports immigration into America and has supported a lot of the legislation here, opposed this bill. I think they were right in doing so. I would note that under the DREAM Act, individuals, once they have been here 5 years and did 2 years of college without a degree being required--they got 2 years of college--they would then be able to bring their family members. Some say: Well, they were brought here as a young child and through no fault of their own, and so they ought to be given the benefits of this amnesty. Well, that is not a uniform picture. It does tug at our heart strings, and we do care about that. It is something we are going to have to deal with sooner or later: how we are going to deal with people who came here a long time ago? But many people came here at age 15. You only have to be here prior to age 15. Maybe they came and lived with their brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles, and then they are immediately put on a path to citizenship. They are then able, after that, to become a citizen and to bring their parents or maybe the parents are here. They would also be able to bring in their wife and children, plus bringing brothers and sisters. That is the way the system would work. I think it is not a good process. I am pleased the Senate agreed with that. I will conclude by making some points about policy and the question of the rule of law in our country. If we are serious about securing our borders, the first thing you do is stop providing benefits to those who come illegally. That is the first and most obvious step we can take. The principle is clear: If there are benefits to breaking the law, people will continue to do it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you subsidize people who are here illegally by giving them student loans and in-State tuition, you will encourage that. You will also send a message that is even more important--that if you can get into America illegally and hold on a few years, you will be rewarded in advance of those who are here legally and are waiting in line. This is an untenable position for our Nation. A nation that wants itself to be considered seriously, a nation that respects its laws and cares about that must follow through. We cannot abandon our commitment to the rule of law. You have to be consistent. That is what sends the message that builds respect for the law, and not just in the United States, I submit; it would be sending that message and broadcasting that message to the world. If we don't do it, the message we are broadcasting to the world is that if you can bring, send or assist a teenager to come into the United States, the United States will educate them all the way through college--and we do that. We don't require you to be a legal American citizen to go to schools in Alabama or anyplace in America, nor to college. But you are not supposed to get in-State tuition if you are here illegally. Not only would you be able to carry through with that, but you would be able to, in 5 years, get a permanent resident status, a citizenship, and then you would be able to bring your family in. That is not the right direction, I submit, we should be going in. We don't want to send the wrong message. The question sort of comes down to, do we have the will to enforce our immigration law? Do we have the will to do it? Will we stand on principle and law and sound public policy? Or will we allow emotion and politics to further erode an already weak immigration system and further erode the perception that we are serious about creating a lawful system. Passing the DREAM Act today would, in the wake of failed comprehensive reform that we had this summer--if we had done that before we have been able to secure our borders and before we have been able to create a lawful system of immigration, that is not the right way for us to go. It is not. It cannot be gotten around. It sends the wrong message. It will say we have immigration laws but no intent to enforce them. It will send a message that if you break our laws, not only will that be forgiven, but you will be put at the head of the line and you will be financially rewarded for it. That is not what we have to do to create a lawful system. The rule of law in this country is important. I was a Federal prosecutor for almost 15 years. I was attorney general of Alabama. I have worked with law enforcement all my professional life. I remember distinctly talking with law enforcement officers about the sale of marijuana in neighborhoods. Sometimes local police would say: You know, these are small amounts of marijuana and we cannot focus on the small cases. We only focus on the dealers. That was a mindset a lot of police departments had. They discouraged that. I would tell them that, in effect, if you take that policy, you have legalized the sale of marijuana in that neighborhood. Not only that, you have created an unlawful system in that neighborhood and you will have created violence and instability that adversely impacts the good and decent people who live in that neighborhood. You cannot do that. You see, there are moral and legal and practical consequences of having a legal system that is not enforced. It adds up. That is what we have done in immigration. We have looked the other way and denied it is happening, and we have let people with special interests dominate the debate and we have talked about making the system lawful, but we have never done it. That is why the American people are not happy with us. We have not been trustworthy. We have not been reliable. We have not. If we would get this system right, we could do a lot better job about making it work in an effective way. The American people want us to do that. I have to tell you, why do people want to come to America? They think they can make a better life here. If there has been crime and instability and theft and abuse and unfairness in the system that was in the place they came from, they feel like if they come to America and they have a problem here, they can go to court and they will be protected and they can make money and build assets and people will not come and steal it from them. They can leave something for their children and they can work hard and send their children to college and they will be able to do even better. That is why they want to come here. It is all founded on the rule of law. The reason we are a unique nation--and you know that great hymn that says our liberty is in law-- is that our legal system has made us great, prosperous, and free. I don't think it is a good policy that we allow millions of people to come to our country in violation of our law. I think that sends a wrong message to them and undermines the very legal system that makes the country so attractive. I remember in the debate, Senator Grassley, who is a direct speaker, a farmer from Iowa and now the ranking member on the Finance Committee, made a speech. He said he was here in 1986 as a Member of this body. He remembered the debate. During those debates, it was said that in 1986 this would be amnesty, but it is the last time, we would never do it again. He said: Let me ask you why nobody this time, in this debate, a few months ago this summer, is saying we will not have anymore amnesty again. Why are people not saying that? He said the answer is obvious. If we had amnesty in 1986, and 20 years later we have it again, nobody with a straight face can stand up before the world or the American people and say that we would not have amnesty after this one, that this is going to be the last one. How silly is that? We said that a few years ago. So this is not a small matter. What principle can you utilize to say to a young person, or any other person who came into our country illegally today, 10, 15 years from now--what principle can you articulate as to why they should not be given amnesty when we gave it to people today? You see, this is a matter of seriousness. It cannot be ignored. I feel strongly about that. I want my colleagues to know our country needs to create a lawful system of immigration. Once that is accomplished and the American people feel comfortable about that, we can think about a way, I believe, that would be effective and compassionate for those who are here today and that is rational and that we can defend. I don't believe we can defend that today, when our system is not working. I see my time has expired. I will wrap up and say I think we did the right thing in this vote today. Hopefully, we will continue to work toward a lawful system of immigration and, if we do that, a lot of things will become possible in the future that are not possible and appropriate and should not be done today. I ask unanimous consent that a Statement of Administration Policy that opposes the DREAM Act, which we rejected a short while ago, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize the U.S. Naval Academy's class of 1957. On Saturday evening, October 27, 2007, the class of 1957 will celebrate its 50th class reunion in Annapolis, MD. On June 29, 1953, 1,135 young men each received a one-page form entitled ``Interpretation of Oath'' addressed: ``To a Candidate about to take the Oath as a Midshipman.'' It interpreted the practical aspects of the oath: trustworthiness, perseverance, language, cleanliness, and loyalty. It warned of many inoculations that soon would be given and then finished with: Men cannot be trained for a profession of arms by surrounding them with luxuries and babying them. Young men who are worthwhile do not wish to be coddled. The first few days, when the drills are over and the night has come, you will find that you are tired and perhaps a little homesick. In a few days you will find that you are feeling better, you have a better appetite and sleep better than you ever did before. If you do your part you will find that the academy will do its part by you. Truer words have never been written. Later that afternoon these young men stood in Tecumseh Court in The Yard at Annapolis, MD, took the oath, and became midshipmen in the U.S. Navy, class of 1957. Almost 4 years later on June 7, 1957, 848 of them graduated with a bachelor of science in engineering, took another oath, and were commissioned into the Armed Forces. Of the Navy Blue majority, 568 were commissioned into the Navy: 160 went to Pensacola to become naval aviators; 203 went into destroyers; 42 to auxiliary ships; 94 to capital ships including aircraft carriers; and 104 of the class went into submarines a year or so later. Sixty-four went into the United States Marine Corps and 206 were commissioned into the then academy- less Air Force. During the ensuing 50 years, the class of 1957 distinguished itself in service to the Republic. Of the original graduating class, 534 served for 20 years or more. Thirty-eight of them gave their lives in the execution of their oaths. Charles Duke walked on the Moon. Leo Hyatt endured 2,050 days of captivity in North Vietnam. Bradley Parkinson developed the global positioning system. Altogether, the class of 1957 produced 21 admirals and generals. Class members served an average of 1.3 times as commanding officers. The class served with distinction throughout the cold war, including the very hot Vietnam war, and emerged victorious. Following their retirement or resignation from their respective services, members of the class continued in a variety of careers and professions: 169 of them became presidents or vice presidents of companies or corporations; 33 served as chief executive officers. Mr. President, I salute the U.S. Naval Academy's class of 1957. Most importantly, I wish to extend warm and hearty congratulations to them for a job well done, or as the Navy would say it, ``Bravo Zulu, '57!'' I extend my best wishes for their continued success during the years to come.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to COL Herbert S. Lockett, former ombudsman for the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. Colonel Lockett has a long and distinguished history of service to our Nation, both as a soldier and as a volunteer ensuring that National Guard and Reserve soldiers are prepared for battle. His service, both on the front lines and behind the scenes, is noble and commendable. It is for this reason that I honor him today. Colonel Lockett served as a combat medic in the Southwest Pacific Theater during World War II, earning a Bronze Star, an Outstanding Leadership Commendation, and three Campaign Stars. He cared for those who were wounded and risked his own safety in service to others. Those who brave bullets to provide care are truly heroic, and Colonel Lockett was no exception. He went on to serve in Korea as an infantryman, where he earned a Silver Star for Gallantry at the Battle of Pork Chop Hill. While his unit had taken heavy casualties, and many in his unit threatened to desert, he took charge and they fought until reinforcements arrived, earning two Presidential Unit Citations and credit for 2,000 Chinese KIAs. Even after retiring from active duty, Colonel Lockett continued to serve his country. Colonel Lockett has been a volunteer with National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve helping to prepare soldiers in National Guard and Reserve units to be deployed for combat operations. For his efforts in this regard he has been awarded the James N. Roche Spirit of Voluntarism Award, the highest award given by the committee. Mr. President it is my honor to pay tribute to this great Alabamian, and most of all this great American. He serves as a shining example of the American spirit. He is loved by all who know him for his tireless work and determination.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I believe, in accordance with our understanding on both sides, it would be appropriate for me to call up amendment No. 3373, and I do so now.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Alexander for his comments. Indeed, what we are talking about is funds contributed by union members to further union causes, not to line the pockets of persons who embezzle, steal, or otherwise cheat and use the money. That is an important issue we need to keep in mind. It is troubling to me that we have opposition to keeping this program on track. I have offered this amendment, as I indicated earlier, a new amendment that has a different offset. I know there was concern over the international union funds that go to the U.N.-affiliated agency. There is a big increase in that program, a $10 million increase. I am troubled by that increase, frankly, because last year Secretary Chao met with the people who were receiving this money, and they gave very inadequate explanations of where the money went. In fact, they couldn't explain where it went. I don't know whether it is being well spent. At any rate, the most important thing for us to do is focus on making sure we are protecting the contributions of union members and that their funds are being protected. That is why I altered the offset to one that takes this $5 million from the administrative, management and related expenses of the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education. That is where the funds would come from. I believe that would not be a heavy burden on those agencies. In fact, they can absorb it readily, and this is clearly, as a question of priorities, more important to make sure we are not cutting back on this budget. Senator Specter talked about the status of the budget. I repeat, I think he understood it and explained it eventually correctly that the committee mark cuts the budget $2 million below last year's funding level. Because of inflation and cost increases, that is a most significant $2 million cut. What we are proposing is that there be a $3 million increase in the overall budget, a total of $5 million--$2 million to get up to last year's funding and an additional $3 million to increase the funding. I think this is valid. I think it is justified. It is something we really should do. If we don't do it, we are going to have a severe, adverse impact on the ability of OLMS to fulfill their statutory requirement of auditing unions and requiring unions to publicly file their financial disclosures. Some say this is a burdensome regulation, but in today's day and age, being able to maintain records of where you spend your money is not too much to ask. Most of these records are done by computers now. People have bookkeepers, and if they don't, they are taking serious risks. So to be able to report this information is not too much to ask. It is very valuable to their members. Union members should have the same protection, as Senator Alexander said, as corporate stockholders. This OLMS legislation is to union transparency what the Securities and Exchange Commission is to corporate transparency. This chart shows the mission of OLMS. The mission of OLMS is a good mission. It is not to harm anybody. It is to assist in the integrity of this system--No. 1, to provide union financial transparency. That is why the bill was passed in 1959, so that union members can know where their money is being spent. That is the report which is required. Then to protect union financial integrity--that is part of the audit function of the OLMS. They are required to audit the union activities, and they do so, but, as I noted, even at this current level of funding, they only get around to doing every union in the country once every 33 years. Until we had some increases in this budget, it was once every 133 years. It is a small agency, $47 million in last year's budget, but it has shown big results. OLMS does not tell unions how to spend their money; it simply requires them to file accurate and timely reports, which allows union members to determine for themselves whether the expenditures that are being made are appropriate. If they don't know what is happening, they cannot express their opinions in leadership meetings. That there is a high level of demand from union members for this kind of information is very evident. This is a remarkable number. Between May of 2006 and May of 2007, on the Web site of OLMS where these reports are posted so members can access them--so they don't have to go down and ask the officer or the boss at the local union to ``give me your records,'' they can just access them on the computer--767,980 hits were identified on last year's Web site. People are looking to see where their elected union officers are spending their money. Why shouldn't they? That is an average of 64,000 a month and over 2,100 a day. If union members don't care about how their hard-earned dollars are being spent, I ask, why do they take time to access this Web site? Of course they want to know, they have a right to know, and the only way they are able to get this information in a readily available form is through this reporting requirement. Unfortunately, the reports are not being submitted, and because of shortage of personnel and a certain lack of legal enforcement ability, only 36 percent of unions are not filing the appropriate forms. The delinquency rate is 36 percent. That is not good for union members. Now, Secretary Chao has met with union leaders. But let me tell you what happened. Under the Clinton years, this was not being enforced. That is just it. You want to know the truth? It was not being enforced. And the number of personnel went from 427, in about 1990, down to 260. They just weren't enforcing this 1959 mandate. When Secretary Chao realized it was her responsibility to make sure union members could see financial disclosure forms, and she asked that it be done, a lot of grumbling occurred. They said, oh, it was burdensome; oh, there were problems. So she met with them and met with them and they altered plans and they figured out ways to do it that were cheaper and better and less burdensome, but she required them to comply with the law that requires this disclosure. Now, after our colleagues have gained ascendancy in the Senate, lo and behold we come in and whack their budget. Now, who is being listened to, politically powerful bosses or is it the interest of union members? Embezzlement is not something we ought to support and put up with. We in Congress are focusing on transparency right here. We talk about it a lot. It is embarrassing to me that our colleagues have seen this budget be reduced. This chart gives a clear indication of just how significant overall the problem is we are dealing with. From 2001 to 2007, 796 people were convicted. Most of them pled guilty, and court-ordered restitutions totaled $101 million. But I indicated to you that less than 5 percent of the unions per year are being audited, and it appears that for every four of the audits that are conducted, about one person is convicted of something, on average. So we have a problem, we really do. And I submit it is not because people are necessarily bad people. Some of them may be, but a lot of it is because there is no real oversight and accountability, and temptation is too great. I have been a prosecutor for 15 years. I will tell you, you give people lots and lots of money, it goes through their hands and nobody is watching it. Temptation takes over, and you will rightly expect problems to occur if you don't have tight fiscal controls. We don't have it. I think we need to have a lot more emphasis in this area than we do, other than just a $3 million increase in this department. It is obvious. We hear a lot of talk about integrity in here about our financial disclosures and other things. Well, if we don't do our duty, people will complain. If businesses don't file their reports, they will complain. And we need to make sure unions do the same, not to beat up on unions but to help unions have integrity. Now, not to be monotonous--and I find this remarkable--but some may say, well, they are abusing unions and picking on people. But the conviction rate is 95 percent--95 percent of all indictments have resulted in convictions. They do not always get big sentences. I thought some I have seen were pretty light. But the point is, if you are convicted of these kinds of offenses, you lose your leadership position in a union, and that is important. So if you are stealing from a union, you ought not stay in as an officer. So I would just suggest that from my review of the cases, people are not being abused. They are being fairly treated. Overwhelmingly, the defendants are pleading guilty, and restitution is being made. People who are corrupt are not being able to remain in office to keep their hands in the till where the money is. The legislation that requires this is not new. This law has been on the books for some time. I will admit that we been very lax, and it was not being enforced, but the conviction rate, the amount of restitution, the number of fraud cases per audit indicates that was not a good decision. And if the audit rates had been maintained, I submit we would have had a lot less crime and fraud and loss of union members' money. This occurred in 1959. One of the leaders of it was our own Senator Robert Byrd. He spoke earlier today. He has been here a long time. He was here in 1959 when this bill passed. And as a Senator from West Virginia, a State with a strong union heritage, a proud union heritage, he decided to vote for this bill. The bill was actually introduced and led by Senator John F. Kennedy. This is what Senator Kennedy said at the time. The racketeers will not like it, the antilabor extremists around the country will not like it, but I am confident that the American people, and the overwhelmingly honest rank and file union members, will benefit from this measure for many years to come. And until we stopped enforcing it a few years ago, or got lax, it has been beneficial. I think the work that is being done now, the $101 million in restitution, indicates that progress has been occurring that has benefitted union members. Now, Senator Byrd wrote a letter that was included in the Congressional Record in response to certain criticisms he received from a district president of a union in West Virginia. They sent a letter of condemnation, and Senator Byrd was direct about it. He responded: The bill which passed the Congress will not hurt honest unions, and it will give added protection to the rank and file members in the unions. Honest union leaders have nothing to fear from this legislation. The corruption and racketeering that have been revealed in the fields of both labor and management made it imperative that some kind of legislation be enacted. And I think that remains as true today as it was when he made those comments in 1959. Madam President, since 2001, OLMS has only had the resources to audit 3,275 of the 26,000 unions on record. That means in the past 7 years combined, only 12.5 percent of the unions have been audited. It is able to audit only about 2 to 4 percent of the unions each year. It is important to note that unlike corporations, unions are not required by law to have outside auditors. Most corporations have to have outside auditors. So in many cases, this audit is the only outside audit a union will have. In 2000, OLMS only did 204 audits out of well over 20,000 unions. That is the equivalent of a union being audited once every 133 years. Last year, they did 736 audits, a better number, but that still translates into an audit only once every 33 years at that rate. It is better, but I think we need to do a lot more. With the $2 million reduction in funding which is currently in the bill, it is estimated there will be approximately 350 fewer audits each year, and that is almost cutting the number in half. So we should be seeking more, really, considering that from those 3,267 audits that were completed there came 827 indictments and 796 convictions. OLMS has been funded below the President's requested levels over the past several years. Yet if the proposed cuts in the bill are implemented funding will drop from $47.7 million to $45.7 million. That is below last year's budget. So I would just note again that we had 427 employees in this department in 1990. It fell down to 260, it has been inched up to 331, and if this bill passes in this form, cutting the budget, we are going to see a loss of personnel instead of an increase in personnel. We ought to be closer to the 400, it seems to me. OLMS was the only enforcement agency in the Labor Department that received a budget cut during the congressional markup. Let me mention this story of the United Transportation Union. We have a picture I think is sad. It is a picture from an undercover operation. The person who is handing off this money that is on this picture is a UTU-designated legal counsel by the name of Victor Bieganowski. The person receiving the money is John Russell Rookard, 58, of Olalla, WA, a top special assistant to Alfred Boyd, Jr., UTU president at the time this bribe money was paid. In 2004, Boyd, the international president of the Nation's largest railroad operating union, pleaded guilty to participating in a bribery scheme involving Houston lawyers. Union officials extorted bribes from the lawyers in exchange for access to injured union members. A March 12, 2004, Houston Chronicle article explains that Byron Alfred Boyd, Jr., of Seattle, is the last of four officials of the UTU to plead guilty in a plan to extort bribes from lawyers in exchange for access to these injured members. Boyd admitted using the bribes he was paid--get this--to gain control of the union. He persuaded former union president Charles Leonard Little of Leander, near Austin, to resign in exchange for $100,000 and a new pickup. This would allow him, Boyd, to assume the presidency of the union. Little resigned, but I guess he didn't get a promissory note or a mortgage because he was never paid his $100,000. Boyd not only stole from his union and breached the trust of his union members, he didn't pay the man he promised to pay to give up his office. Little pleaded guilty last year, as did former union insurance director Ralph John Dennis. We have too many examples of this kind of disregard for the integrity of the funding of unions. People are being entrusted with this money, and it is not being managed well. And it is something that we need to do more about, in my view. Madam President, I would just share a few other examples which I think are instructive of some of the problems that have occurred in recent years. In Pennsylvania, in June of 2007, in the eastern district of Pennsylvania, Lawrence Marable and Deborah Powell, former president and treasurer of AFGE Local 1793, representing employees at the VA Medical Center, both pled guilty to conspiracy and theft of property in a special territorial case. They conspired to convert dues checks and issued Local 1793 checks for their personal use totaling $184,129. This was a very serious matter, I suggest. In May of this year, in Michigan, Alan Raines, former financial secretary of Steelworkers Local 1358 was charged with embezzling union funds in the amount of $274,262. That is not chicken feed. That is huge money. A lot of these unions do not have that many members, and the cost per member in one, I remember specifically, was about $1,000 per member in the amount of loss that occurred. Here, on April 2, 2007, in Puerto Rico, the president of the International Longshoremen's local was found guilty of 12 counts of embezzlement. He was charged among other counts with conspiracy to embezzle union funds in excess of $1,950,000. That is a breathtaking amount. Both of those, in May and April of this year. In March of this year, in New York, John Daley, former chief financial officer of the New York State Nurses Association, was sentenced to time in prison after pleading guilty to grand larceny for taking $1,193,000 in union funds. These are public records. These are huge amounts of money. In June of last year in Connecticut, a former financial secretary of Local 745 of PACE was charged with taking $138,000, embezzling that much money. In June of this year, in my hometown, sadly, the Southern District of Alabama, where I at one time was a Federal prosecutor myself in the United States District Court there, Kenneth Mays, the former treasurer of IBEW Local 1053, was sentenced after pleading guilty to embezzlement and ordered to pay $37,000 in restitution, reimbursement. This is right in my home state. On July of last year, in Fulton County, GA, in the district court, a bookkeeper for IBEW Local 613 was indicted for taking $11,000. In December of 2005, in the Northern District of Iowa, Debra Herrig was sentenced and pled guilty to embezzling union funds and made restitution in the amount of $13,000. In December of 2004, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Rodney Fox was charged with embezzling $89,000 of union funds. In May of 2005, in the Southern District of Iowa, Amanda Kemmer was sentenced to 24 months and ordered to pay $209,000 in full restitution for embezzling union funds. There are lots more I can indicate. I will repeat. I don't believe there is any need for this kind of criminal activity to go on. I believe a lot of it occurs because there is so little oversight. If we had a rigorous oversight and audit function by the Department of Labor, we would see a lot less of it. If the unions were required to promptly and fully report the expenditures, union members would be able to watch for problems and pick them up sooner and keep these kind of embezzlements from going to hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars. That is why this office, of all offices, should not be reduced. I understand some people believe it is a burden, and for a good union that never had any problems I guess filing it is a burden. It may not be a necessary thing. But, really, probably it is because the union members get to see where their funds are being spent, honestly and fairly. Most unions, of course, are honest and do a good job, and most union members are the salt of the Earth and couldn't be better people, and most union leaders are honest and decent and work hard every day to protect the interests of their own members. They try to make sure they get a fair deal in the workplace. I am telling you we need to be attuned to that because wages are not what I think they ought to be for the average worker in America today. There are a lot of reasons for that. I suggest one of them is this very large surge of low-wage labor that comes into our country illegally. But, regardless, we want to help our union members receive the highest possible wage and to be able to know that their leadership is honest and trustworthy and doing the right thing. I believe we have to get this money back into this account. We need to be sure we have at least a modest increase in spending to keep up with the inflation rate so we can continue at least this modest rate of enforcement. I urge my colleagues to not see this as an action that goes against unions but as an action that will strengthen unions, that will affirm the importance of the union members' money that they contribute, and to make sure it is spent wisely. It is sad to say, sometimes you get a big restitution order of $1 million--I have been there and seen them, but it is like getting blood from a turnip. It will never come back. It is gone and the members have actually lost it and nobody can do anything about it. I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to this amendment. I think it is reasonable and fair and the offset, let me repeat, does not deal with the controversial ILO, International Labor Organization, that does some good. It certainly has good objectives. How well they spend their money, I have my doubts, but it has good objectives. It is an offset against administrative expenses, and across the board it will be a small impact on the administrative budgets of these agencies. I yield the floor.