Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. The act says three convictions of misdemeanors. The Senator is right. It can be up to 6 months or a year.

Mr. SESSIONS. For those here illegally and want amnesty to be given even though they have already violated immigration laws.

Mr. SESSIONS. I agree with the Senator on that. I will disagree with the concept that somehow, by working here, coming here, and getting a job you wanted to get when you came, that that is somehow earning something, if you did it illegally. You are getting what you wanted, which was pay for the work. That is what I would point out. Then, a family would be automatically eligible to come into the country. I don't think there is any dispute about that. If a person came here illegally, if they worked here 18 months and met those qualifications of 100 workdays, or 565 hours, I believe-- either way, it is not very much--they can come even though they are not here now. In other words, if they did that illegally, worked here and for some reason went back home, then they are getting a letter from Uncle Sam saying, By the way, we know you violated our law but we are in a forgiving mood. You can come on back and join the process toward citizenship and bring your family, too. I am not sure that is what we want to do. I don't think it is what we want to do. That is the fundamental of this legislation. I think that is what you call amnesty. Not only does it give the person what they wanted in terms of being able to come into the country and get a job and be paid, that puts them on a track--unless they get seriously conflicted with the law--to be a permanent resident and then even a citizen, and their children and family can be on that same track. That is a big deal. That is what I am saying. It is not something we need to be rushing into on this legislation today. Under section 101(d)(8), entitled ``Eligibility for Legal Services,'' it is required under the act that free, federally funded legal counsel be afforded, through the Legal Services Corporation, to assist temporary workers in the application process for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. American workers are not always available for that. They have to meet other standards such as need and that sort of thing. Also, the act gives several advantages to foreign workers not provided to American workers. Look at this. Section 101(b), rights of aliens granted temporary resident status. Right here--temporary resident status. Terms of employment respecting aliens admitted under this section, A, prohibition. Quoting: No alien granted temporary resident status under subsection A may be terminated from employment by any employer during the period of temporary resident status except for just cause. Then they set up a big process for this. There is a complaint process. The subsection sets out a process for filing complaints for termination without just cause. If reasonable cause exists, the Secretary shall initiate binding arbitration proceedings and pay the fee and expenses of the arbitrator. Attorneys' fees will be the responsibility of each party. The complaint process does not preclude ``any other rights an employee may have under applicable law.'' That means they could file under this process for unjust termination and hire a plaintiffs lawyer and sue the business for whatever else you want to sue them for. Any fact or finding made by the arbitrator shall not be conclusive or binding in any separate action-- That is the action filed in the court by plaintiffs' lawyer-- or subsequent action or proceeding between the employee and the employer. I submit to you, by the language of this statute, it would appear they intend for that to be admissible, if not binding. It says not binding but the implication would be it would be admissible. This means an employer cannot allow that arbitration proceeding to go without an attorney. He will have to hire an attorney and go down there because things will go wrong and that will be used against him in any civil action that might take place. They have to pay counsel in both places. This section will override State laws in America. In Alabama, unless you enter into a contract that states otherwise for employment, your work for an employer is at will. Contracts of employment at will mean just that: it is the will of either party. Employees can quit at will and employers can terminate at will, with cause or without cause, and for no reason, good or bad reason. That is the way I think it is in most States. Certainly that is true in my State. This provision will mean illegal aliens who file for amnesty under the AgJOBs amendment, after coming here illegally in violation of our law, are guaranteed to have a job unless they are terminated for just cause. If the AgJOBS amendment passes, employers of aliens given amnesty will be subject to forced and binding arbitration regarding the termination of the alien, and they will have to cover their legal bills for the defense in arbitrations even if the arbitrator finds they had just cause to terminate the alien. I suggest what we are about here is a provision for greater protection for a foreign worker, one not only who is foreign but who previously violated American law. If you were an employer and you need to lay off one person, and you have two working for you, and one would have the ability to take you through arbitration and argue that you did not have just cause, and the other one had no such rights, you might fire the American citizen first, not the foreigner. There is another provision I will talk about later that deals with the filing of the application. The Senator says they will be doing background checks. I see nothing in here that provides for background checks. It requires an application to be filed to become a temporary resident. Get this: It can be filed with two groups who are called ``qualified designated entities.'' That can be an employer group who wants workers to come here to work for them, or a labor group. And they are qualified entities. The application is filed with them. It prohibits giving the application to the Secretary of Homeland Security unless a lawyer has read it first. It says the entities that receive this application cannot give it to the Secretary unless they are conducting a fraud investigation. How would they know to conduct one if they haven't seen the documents? It might be fraudulent. It is a rather weird idea, is antigovernment, and seems to be far more concerned with protecting an applicant who may be committing fraud than protecting the security and the laws of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is in the legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I do not see Senator Chambliss, but I would like to enter into a discussion. We will be voting tomorrow on the AgJOBS bill and the Kyl-Chambliss bill, and maybe other bills--the Mikulski bill and who knows what else--in the next few days as we are debating the emergency supplemental. These are amendments filed to the emergency supplemental, legislation to provide funding for our magnificent soldiers who are ably serving our country in harm's way to carry out a national policy that we sent them to carry out. We have been told that since the House of Representatives, when they passed their emergency supplemental, added several provisions to enhance our border security, recommendations that were in substance made by the 9/11 Commission to provide greater protection to our country against attacks by terrorists, such action by the House has opened the door to any immigration language and bill that we want to offer, that any Member may favor, to be added right onto a supplemental for our soldiers. There is a tremendous difference between those provisions, in my view. The Sensenbrenner language in the House bill is narrow, based on recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, related to our national defense and should have broad-based support. I hope it does. The President supports it. The AgJOBS bill, however, is controversial. It deals with a very large and complex subject that affects our economy and our legal system in a significant way. We absolutely should not be attempting to slip such legislation of such great importance, and on which our country is so divided, onto the emergency defense supplemental. Let me speak frankly on the issue. There is no legislative or national consensus about how to fix our immigration system. I serve on the subcommittee on immigration of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have been having a series of important hearings on this subject. Our chairman, Senator John Cornyn, has been working very hard and providing sound leadership, but our subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee and this Senate are nowhere near ready to develop a comprehensive immigration proposal. This is made clear when we see that a number of outstanding Senators who worked on immigration over the years--such as Senator Kyl, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Saxby Chambliss--are working on legislation, also. Surely no one can say this AgJOBS bill that really kicked off this debate is not a colossally important piece of legislation. Every one of us in this body knows that immigration is a matter of great importance to our country and one that we must handle carefully and properly. After the complete failure of the 1986 amnesty effort, surely we know we must do better this time. Let me state this clearly. I believe we can improve our laws regarding how people enter our country, how they work here, and how they become citizens in this country, and we should do so. We absolutely can do that. Many fine applicants are not being accepted, applicants who could enrich our Nation. Further, as a prosecutor of 15 years, a Federal prosecutor for almost that long, without hesitation I want to say this: If we improve our fundamental immigration laws and policies, and if at the same time we work to create an effective enforcement system, then we can absolutely eliminate this unconscionable lawlessness that is now occurring in our country and improve immigration policies across the board, serving our national interests and being certainly more sensitive to the legitimate interests of those who would like to come here, live here, work here, or even become citizens. Any such legislation we pass should, in addition, protect our national security. Of course, we need to keep an eye on our national security--Have we forgotten that? Surely not--and allow increased approval for technically advanced, educated and skilled persons and students, as well as farm labor. More importantly, under no circumstances should we pass bad legislation that will further erode the rule of law, that will make the current situation worse and will violate important principles that are essential for an effective national immigration policy. Some will say, Well, Jeff, it is time to do something, even if it is not perfect. My direct answer to that is it is past time to pass laws that improve the ability of our country to protect our security from those who would do us harm. That is our duty. But we simply are not ready to legislate comprehensively on the complex issue of immigration. We have not come close to completing our hearings in the appropriate subcommittees and the Judiciary Committee. More importantly still, time or not, we must not pass bad legislation. The Nation tried amnesty for farmworkers in 1986 and few would deny it was a failure. That legislation, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, established within it section 304. The Commission's duty was, after the act had been in effect for some time, to study its impact on the American farming industry. The Commission issued its report and found, in every area, farm labor problems had not been improved and as many as 70 percent of the applications for amnesty were fraudulent. I wish that weren't so. I wish we could pass laws that people conjure up which would solve the complex problems and it will all just work like we think it might. I am sure those people, in 1986, heard the exact same argument we are hearing today why this kind of legislation is so critical. They tried it. But they put in a commission to study it. The Commission was clear. The Commission said: In retrospect, the concept of worker specific and industry specific legislation was fundamentally flawed. That is exactly what the AgJOBS bill is, industry and worker specific. Indeed, it is the same industry and the same workers-- agriculture--that the 1986 sponsors said would be fixed by their bill. It was an amnesty to end all amnesty. That is what they said. Now we are at it again in the same way. Later, in 1997, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, an African- American leader of national renown, was authorized, by a 1990 immigration law, to chair a commission. The Commission reported to President Clinton on the status of existing immigration law. The Jordan Commission found that the guest worker programs do not ``reduce unauthorized migration. To the contrary, research consistently shows that they tend to encourage and exacerbate illegal movements by setting up labor recruitment and family networks that persist long after the guest programs end.'' The Commission further concluded that what was needed was an immigration system that had integrity where laws were enforced, including employer sanctions. I will quote from their report. They stated: Illegal immigration must be curtailed. This should be accomplished with more effective border controls, better internal apprehension mechanisms, and enhanced enforcement of employer sanctions. The U.S. Government should also develop a better employment eligibility and identification system, including a fraud-proof work authorization document for all persons legally authorized to work in the United States so that employer sanctions can more effectively deter the employment of unauthorized workers. Our enforcement efforts remind me of the man who builds an 8-foot ladder to try to reach across a 10-foot chasm. While he may have been close, close doesn't count in such an event. He is heading for disaster. We are not as far away as most people think from an effective enforcement mechanism. It is absolutely not hopeless for this country to gain control of its borders, especially with the new technology we have today--biometrics and that kind of thing. We are spending billions of dollars, but we are spending that money very unwisely. The solution to our immigration situation is to review the procedures by which people come to our country, and the procedures by which people become citizens, and to then steadfastly plan a method that will work to enforce those rules. Without that enforcement, no matter what changes we make in our current law, we will be right back here discussing Amnesty III for agricultural farmworkers before this decade is out. This is plainly obvious to anyone who would look at our current system. By all means, this Nation should not, in response to this current failure, pass a bill like what has been offered which basically says our current system has failed and we intend to give up and do nothing to fix it. It says we have failed, our system is not working so we are just going to quit trying and let everybody stay in. The American people are not going to be happy if they learn that is what we are about here. They surely will learn about it sooner or later. Polls show huge majorities, upwards of 80 percent, want a lawful system of immigration. Why are we resistant to that? It has been amazing to me, anytime a piece of legislation is offered that might actually work to tighten up the loopholes we have, it is steadfastly opposed and seems never to become law. I feel very strongly about this. If it is not amnesty, I don't know what amnesty is. This bill will bestow legal status and a guaranteed pass to citizenship for over a million individuals, perhaps 3 million, perhaps even more. The Commissioners who studied the last bill all agreed the number that actually obtained amnesty was far greater than anticipated. In addition, it makes no provision whatsoever for commensurate improvement of law enforcement. It hurts me, as somebody who spent most of my professional life trying to enforce laws passed by Congress, to see us undermine the ability of our system to actually work. The passage of this legislation will be the equivalent of placing a neon sign on our border that says: Yes, we have laws but we welcome you to try to sneak into our country, and if you are successful, we will reward you, as we have done twice before, with permanent residency and a step onto citizenship. Under this legislation, if a person has worked within 18 months, 575 hours or 100 workdays--and a workday is defined in the act as working 1 hour--then for 100 hours within 18 months, they are eligible to apply for a temporary resident status even though they are here plainly and utterly illegally. They do not have to go home and make another application; they simply apply for this. In addition, they become a temporary resident. It then provides they can ask for permanent resident status and that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall grant them this permanent resident status if they work 2,000 hours in a 6-year period. That is about 1 year of work period. Then they apply for a permanent resident status. In 5 years, if they have not been convicted of a felony or have not been convicted of three misdemeanors, the Secretary shall confer citizenship on them if they apply. If they become a permanent resident citizen, they can call for their family, who may be out of the country. A family who never had any thought to come to this country is allowed to come in free. All of them are put on a guaranteed track for citizenship. Indeed, if they have already left the country not intending to return, but did work 575 hours in 18 months before that period, or if they are willing to say they did--true or not--they get to come back in and bring their families with them. Maybe a person here never intended to bring their family, but faced with this offer, they bring them in. I am not sure we know how broad this bill is, how dangerous this language is. I have a host of specific complaints about the provisions within the statute. I will talk about them later today or tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Arizona in his request. I think it is important if we are to spend most of the afternoon on the issue. If we could work out an orderly arrangement, that would be good.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator from Vermont allow me the opportunity to offer an amendment? I do not know how long he will be speaking.

Mr. SESSIONS. Less than that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. Senator Craig is one of my favorite Members of the Senate. We agree on many things. We have not agreed on this one. Yes, I think we all understand we are dealing with a broad, important, and complex issue. It does require us to give it some thought. But the point of the matter is we are being asked to vote on AgJOBS tomorrow. People are going to have to cast a vote on this bill. I urge you not to vote for this legislation, because it should not be on the Defense supplemental and, second, because it is flawed, seriously flawed. It is not consistent with what I think are the views of most Members of Congress or the American people on how we ought to handle this matter. I mentioned briefly earlier how the process toward amnesty works in this legislation. I would like to refer to this chart. I think it makes the point rather simply. I do not think it is disputed. You have people who came here illegally. Perhaps they are in the country, perhaps they have already gone back to their home country, but they have violated our law by coming here, both in coming here and in working illegally for some firm or company. If they have done that and if, within 18 months of December 31 of last year, 2004, they have worked 100 workdays--and they have defined a workday in the act as 1 hour, so that could be 100 hours of work--they earn what the proponents of this legislation say they are earning: their right to be here. They are being paid for this, presumably. They didn't come here to work for not being paid. They came for a salary they are willing to accept. They work here for 100 hours. Then they become a lawful, temporary resident. Then all of a sudden someone who was here unlawfully is now converted to a lawful resident. A number of things occur after that. If they have family here, a spouse or children--one, two, three, four, five, six--and that spouse or those children may have been here 6 weeks, the spouse and children are entitled to stay as long as the person who now has become a lawful, temporary resident; and within the next 6 years, if that person is employed in agriculture for 2,060 hours--the average worker works about 2000 hours a year, so that would be about 1 year out of 6, being paid for this--they have therefore earned legal permanent resident status. That is pretty significant, legal permanent residency, because if you become a legal permanent resident, then you are no longer an indentured servant. You are not required to work in agriculture. You can work on any job you want. It might be this court reporting job right here. I don't know what they want to work on. They became a legal, permanent resident. They can wait for 5 years, and then they are virtually guaranteed a citizenship unless they are convicted--charged, convicted--of a felony or convicted of three misdemeanors. A misdemeanor can be a pretty serious offense sometimes. I am not sure we want somebody to want to come here to commit a bunch of misdemeanors. You don't usually get caught for all of them. People do things and half the time they do not get caught at all. If you catch a victim twice on a misdemeanor, that can be very serious. Then they are given citizenship. By the way, if their children are not here, have never been here, and they became a lawful, permanent resident, they can send for them--one, two, or five members. They can come on down and be a part of the United States and be on the road to citizenship, even though maybe that was never the intention. Maybe it was never the intention, to begin with, for their family to come here.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. About a million.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will say it this way: I will say it is very likely to be a million.

Mr. SESSIONS. Close to a million, if you take the figure of 700,000. I am not sure we have thought it through. The Senator, I believe--who was here in 1987 when the 1986 amnesty was passed--would admit that the estimate of how many people would take advantage of it was very low. In fact, I believe three times as many people took advantage of that amnesty as the estimators estimated. It could happen here. I don't know.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd for his thoughtful remarks. As I have been doing some research on this AgJOBS bill myself, and have become increasingly concerned with it, I came upon a report in the early 1990s that reviewed the success of the 1986 amnesty, or lack of success. I wondered--the Senator was here during that time--whether the same arguments were made in favor of the bill in 1986 that are being made today; and further, whether he would agree with the official Commission's report that the 1986 amnesty was a failure?

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to make some remarks today on the Defense supplemental we have before us. It is critical we pass that legislation. I have been exceedingly disappointed that critical legislation to support our troops who are serving us in Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas around the world is being held up by what now appears to be a prolonged and extensive debate on immigration. More than that, we are being asked to vote on a very significant immigration legislation. No. 1, the AgJOBS bill is 105 pages. As I read it, Mr. President, as I know you have, it is breathtakingly deficient. It will undermine our current immigration system, make it much worse. It is an abomination. Yet I understand at one point the sponsors, Senators Craig and Kennedy, said they had over 60 Senators prepared to vote for it. Now, they are peeling off right and left and we may certainly hope there are not votes sufficient to pass this legislation we will be voting on now on a defense bill. I was in an Immigration Subcommittee hearing yesterday, chaired by Senator Cornyn who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. It was a very informative and important hearing. He has been working on this for many months now, trying to hammer out something that makes sense for America. Yet now we are rushing through to vote on this bill. I want to share some thoughts about it. I want to strongly oppose the AgJOBS Act. I oppose it, not only because it has nothing to do with the money we need to support our troops in Iraq and will no doubt, and already has, slow down the bill, but because it undermines the rule of law by rewarding illegal aliens with amnesty. It creates no mechanisms in the law that will help bring integrity to a system that is failing badly. It is a huge step backward. It would be a disaster, if you want to know the truth. It contains a host of bad provisions that should not be law and, as a result, has even lost the support of much of the agriculture community the sponsors claim to be so much in need of it. It will provide amnesty to 1 million illegal aliens and their families in addition, illegal aliens who broke the immigration law to come here illegally and then again broke the law by working here illegally. The AgJOBS bill will treat unfairly those people who come to the United States legally to work in agriculture, and do their work and comply with the rules dutifully. They do not benefit at all from this amnesty. Only illegals can benefit from its passage. That is a fundamental principle a great nation ought to think about. This is not an itty-bitty matter. We are going to provide a benefit to somebody who violates a law and deny it to somebody who complies with the law? What kind of policy can that be? How can one justify such a policy? Under the AgJOBS bill, illegal aliens are granted not only the right to stay here and work here, but they are put on the road to citizenship, a virtual guaranteed path to citizenship unless they get arrested for a felony--not arrested, you have to be convicted of a felony. Or if you are convicted of three misdemeanors, that can get you out--three or more. As I noted, the legal farm workers under the current H-2A program will get nothing. They are certainly not put on a road to citizenship. Legal workers will not become permanent resident workers and then citizens under the AgJOBS bill. If the AgJOBS bill passes, we will state to the world that America is in fact rewarding people who break the law to the disadvantage of those who follow it. The sponsors of the amendment say this is not amnesty, it is earned legalization; it is adjustment of status; it is rehabilitation. Those are misnomers, to say the least. The AgJOBS bill is amnesty, plain and simple. It will give illegal aliens the very thing they broke the law to get, the ability to live and work inside the United States without having to wait in line the same as everybody else to get it. The amnesty contained in AgJOBS does not stop there. It goes even further and gives illegal aliens a direct path from their new legal status to U.S. citizenship. Getting rewarded by being handed the exact thing you broke the law to get plus the ability to get citizenship is amnesty, I think, under any definition of it. It even goes far beyond the proposals President Bush has made that some have called amnesty, and he says it is not. I am somewhat dubious about some of the ideas he has proposed. But his principles are clearly violated by this AgJOBS bill. Make no mistake about it, President Bush, for all his commitment to improving the ability of people to come to America to work, has never announced principles as breathtakingly broad as this. Let us remind ourselves that criminal laws are involved here. Title 8, section 1325 of the United States Code says illegal entry into the United States is a misdemeanor on the first offense, a felony thereafter. Coming here illegally, regardless of why you came, is a criminal offense. Oftentimes, false documents and papers are submitted and filed. That is a criminal offense also. Not only does it provide amnesty to illegal aliens who are already working here, it gives amnesty to the illegal alien's family, if their family is also illegally here. But if their family is still abroad and not here, the AgJOBS amendment allows the illegal alien to send for their family and bring them here, cutting in line ahead of others who made the mistake of trying to comply with our laws rather than break them. According to a Pew report, there are at least 840,000 illegal immigrant workers who would be eligible for amnesty under this bill. Adding in one spouse and a minor child for each of those, the estimate can easily increase to 3 million immigrants--3 million, all of whom are defined only in the agricultural community, not in any other community in the country where it seems to me we would have a very difficult time on principle defining why agriculture workers get such beneficial treatment compared to any other worker who might be here. Not only does AgJOBS give amnesty to the current people who are in our country illegally, but it extends that amnesty to illegal aliens who once worked in America but have already gone home. It actually encourages them to come back to the United States and puts them on a route that leads them to full citizenship. These are people who have returned home to their country, and we are putting them ahead of lawful workers who come here and may also want to be citizens one day. The AgJOBS amendment will create a category of ``lawful, temporary resident status'' of agricultural workers who have worked at least 100 days in the 18 months prior to December 31, 2004. These are supposed to be workers who were here working, contributing to our economy, but they only have to work 100 days. You have to read these acts. You can't just believe what you hear about them. I was trying to study it last night and things kept hitting me that almost take your breath away. One hundred workdays--do you know how that is defined in the act? An individual who is employed 1 or more hours in agriculture per day, that is a workday. For literally as many or as few as 100 hours of agricultural work in 18 months you are put on this track. That is not good policy. I don't know who wrote this bill. The details of it are extremely troubling. Because the bill now only applies to agricultural workers, it is true the entire illegal population that is estimated to be in our country of 8 to 10 million will not be legalized under the bill. However, we can be quite sure the majority of those 1.2 million illegal agricultural workers will apply for amnesty if this amendment is passed. Again I ask, what real principle can we stand on to say we need to give these people who are here illegally preference over people who might be working in some other industry? Under the AgJOBS bill, an illegal alien is not deportable as soon as his paperwork is filed. No factfinding or adjudication on the application is necessary. It kicks in a protection that he cannot be deported. Maybe he has been charged with a felony, but the trial hasn't come along yet. It seems to me the procedure is guaranteed to go forward and they will be able to be put on this track. After the illegal alien gets the first round of amnesty, being granted temporary legal status under the AgJOBS bill, the bill gives them the opportunity to continue working in agriculture and apply for permanent resident status here in the United States. Thereafter that puts you in a position to become a citizen--guaranteed, unless you get in some big trouble. There is no limit on the number of individuals who would be allowed to adjust to lawful permanent residence and eventually become citizens. If the illegal alien who meets the bill criteria has already left the United States, the legislation actually would encourage them to come back through the border to become a lawful temporary worker. As I read the legislation, they are allowed to do that by filing a petition. I believe it is called a preliminary petition. This petition is pretty interesting. The petition fundamentally is filed at the border with an officer, it says. And who is the officer? An officer is a member of a farm workers organization or an employer group, both of which are not representing the interests of the citizens of the United States but both of which have a special interest in having the alien come into the country. That is how they make their money. And they have to accept it if he produces virtually any document at all that would say he or she has worked in the country at sometime previously. Later on my breath was taken away where it says in this act that the documents filed by the illegal alien are confidential. Read this: Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Secretary [that's the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is supposed to be supervising all of this, under his jurisdiction] nor any official or employee of the Homeland Security or Bureau or Agency thereof may use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant to an application under this section. . . . It goes on to say: Files and records prepared for the purposes of this section by qualified designated entities [these are these employer groups. These are the farm worker organizations] are confidential, and the Secretary shall not have access to such files or records relating to the alien without the consent of the alien, except as allowed by a court order issued pursuant to paragraph 6. Great Scott, you mean you file an application that is supposed to justify you to come into the country, and it is supposed to allow you to come in here, but the drafters of this legislation are so distrustful of our Government and the Secretary of Homeland Security that he is not even able to see the documents? I don't know how this became the policy of the United States. The fundamental principle is that no nation is required to allow anyone to come into their country because they have sovereignty over their country. They set standards and try to adhere to them. Wise countries such as ours are very generous about how many people are allowed to come in. Some are far more strict--most are, in fact, more strict than are we. But no one has a right, automatically, to enter somebody's country. You enter by permission of that country. I don't think there would be anything wrong to ask the applicant to at least file a petition so the designated governmental official in charge of the operation can see it, instead of it being secret from them. Frank Gaffney recently wrote a column entitled ``Stealth Amnesty.'' He is the president of the Center for Security Policy. We do have some security problems involving terrorism involved around our country. He summarized the AgJOBS bill by saying this: By the legislation's own terms, an illegal alien will be turned into ``an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence'' . . . Just by fiat. Provided they had managed to work unlawfully in an agricultural job in the United States for a minimum of 100 hours; in other words, for 2\1/2\ weeks during 18 months prior to August 31, 2003. I will continue to talk about the bizarre nature of this application process. Someone who is even not in the country who wants to come back into the country, as I understand it, who has worked in our country illegally for some period of time and have returned to their country, they want to come back; they file an application, a preliminary application, I believe the phrase is. They do not file it with the Government, they file it with a farm workers group or an employer group, both of which do not have a real interest in seeing that the laws of the United States are enforced. It goes on. It is difficult to understand. I read from page 24 of the 205-page bill: . . . the Secretary shall not have access to such files or records relating to the alien without the consent of the alien, except as allowed by a court order. It goes on to say that ``neither the Secretary nor any official'' shall ``use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant to an application filed under this section,'' provided they cannot use it ``for any purpose other than to make a determination on the application or for enforcement.'' Then it goes on to state that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the use or release for immigration enforcement purposes or law enforcement purposes'' of information contained in files and records of the Department of Homeland Security but that does not give them the ability to use the information contained in the paperwork filed with the employer group. Those papers the employer does not give to the Department of Homeland Security are kept secret and not available to law enforcement, the bill goes on to add that no information in the application can be used ``other than information furnished by an applicant pursuant to the application or any other information derived from the application that is not available for any other source.'' I was a prosecutor. I know how hard it was to handle these things. This bill will create a situation that makes these documents virtually unusable in making sure this system has integrity. Why do we want to do that? What possible reason do we want to have in legislation of this kind that would say when you come here and you present documentation into evidence that justifies coming here to do that--why shouldn't the information you present in your application be part of the files of the Government, be reviewable at any time by any agency of the Government, for any purpose for which they want to use it? Everybody else has to do that. Before you can be a Senator, you have to disclose all your finances. That does not take me long, but for some people it takes a long time. We have to do that, but somebody who is not even a citizen, not even a resident of this country, can keep information secret even though they are asking to become legal permanent residents eligible for citizenship. Mr. President, I will quote from an article by Mr. Frank Gaffney. This confirms what I have been saying, which is undisputable about the bill. We are not at a time in our history when we should be doing this. It is exactly opposite of what we should be doing if we want to create a new system of immigration that allows more people to come here legally, to work as their schedules are fit, with employers who may need them. We can do that. We should do that. We can do better about that. We can improve current law. But to just willy-nilly allow people who could very well be very marginal part-time employees, who never worked much-- to give them permanent resident status and citizenship for violating our laws is thunderously erroneous, in my view. It is just not good. Mr. Gaffney goes on to say: Once so transformed--What he means by that is once you have been transformed from an illegal person to a legal person by filing an application--they can stay in the U.S. indefinitely while applying for permanent resident status. From there, it is a matter of time before they can become citizens, so long as they work in the agricultural sector for 675 hours over the next six years. But you only have to work, really, 2,000 hours, or 1 year out of 6 years, but you have to stay in the agricultural sector. Some have called this creating indentured servants. Why isn't it a form of indentured servitude? You have to come here. You are required to work for 6 years in agriculture. You cannot take some other type employment. The Craig[-Kennedy] bill would confer this amnesty as an exchange for indentured servitude. The amnesty will be conferred--Mr. Gaffney goes on to say--not only on farmworking illegal aliens who are in this country--estimates of those eligible run to more than 800,000. It would also extend the opportunity to those who otherwise qualified but had previously left the United States. No one knows how many would fall in this category and want to return as legal workers. But, a safe bet is that there are hundreds of thousands of them. If any were needed, S. 1645 [the AgJOBS bill] offers a further incentive to the illegals: Your family can stay, as well. Alternatively, if they are not with you, [and you are in the United States] you can bring them in, too--cutting in line ahead of others who made the mistake of abiding by, rather than ignoring, our laws. So the system would work this way. I do not think anyone would dispute this. Someone is here illegally. They are working in agricultural work. By the way, it defines, at the beginning of this legislation, what an ``employer'' means in agricultural employment. And it says: The term ``employer'' means any person or entity, including any farm labor contractor and any agricultural association, that employs workers in agricultural employment. So you have to work for an agricultural employer, but that does not indicate to me that you have to be working in agriculture. Maybe the company has some workers who are agricultural, and 90 percent of them are not. Maybe you could work for them the way this thing is written, regardless. But the way this system would work is if they were here illegally over a period of 18 months--if they were here just 18 months--and had worked 100 hours in agricultural employment during that 18 months, the Secretary shall make them a lawful temporary resident--required to, unless they committed a serious crime or something. Then, over the next 6 years, if they were to work in agriculture for up to 2,060 hours--that is about 1 year's work--over 6 years in agriculture, they become a legal permanent resident. Then if you just hang along there for 5 years, you can become a citizen. Now, I do not see where this can be supported by somebody saying they earned their citizenship. Citizenship should not be bought and paid for in labor. Why? Well, they worked for compensation, they wanted to work for compensation, this is not something we forced them to come here and do, they were paid like every other American is paid. You earn your pay for the work you perform. I do not know that you should earn additional benefits because you work. All the while, of course, the lawful H-2A workers are still required to go home when their time is up. They only receive pay for working, why should we give illegal workers more than that. The AgJOBS amendment goes so far as to provide free legal counsel to illegal aliens who want to receive this amnesty. All Americans don't get free legal counsel. There is no notice in this bill that suggests they have to have any low-income level or have no assets to get the legal services this bill gives to illegal alien workers. It provides that the Legal Services Corporation can expend their funds and shall not be prevented from providing legal assistance directly related to an application for adjustment of status under this section. Again, we are now giving them free legal status, free legal services, and we are allowing them to go to these groups, these farmworker organizations or employer groups, to help them with that. The AgJOBS amendment provides all that in that fashion. Let me talk about another item in this amendment an item that restricts the rights of employers. I don't know how every State does it. I think probably a substantial number of States, like my State of Alabama, have laws that provide for employment at will; that is, unless an employee has a contract, they work for the company and they can leave the company whenever they want and the company can terminate them whenever they want. That is Alabama law. I am rather certain of that. But if you come in under this act, you get an enhanced protection over American citizens. Prohibition: No alien granted temporary resident status under subsection (a) may be terminated from employment by any employer during the period of temporary resident status except for just cause. And they set up an administrative law process, an arbitration proceeding to have all these trials. The burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate just cause for termination, and he has the burden to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. Once again, we are entering into a complex legal deal here we need to avoid, providing legal rights and protections to noncitizens who have violated the law that are not available to American citizens. Presumably, there are two farmworkers on this farm somewhere. One of them is an American citizen--in Alabama, let us say--and the boss wants to fire one of them. If he fires the temporary resident alien, he has to go through arbitration and hire a lawyer and defend himself and be sued. As a matter of fact, it goes on to say that doesn't end it. That is one additional remedy the worker can have. He can still sue the employer for any kind of fraud, abuse or harassment or any other thing that some trial lawyer may pursue. So it doesn't end it. The evidence apparently can be utilized from that trial into a next trial. I am concerned about that. I believe it is an unnecessary litigation that is going to impact our country adversely. That is why you will see that agricultural groups are not supporting this AgJOBS bill. What we really should do is follow the recommendations made to us over the years by immigration commissions of Congress that have been created for the specific purpose of providing advice and counsel to us on how to effect immigration reform. In 1992, 6 years after the last illegal alien agricultural worker amnesty passed in 1986 as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, the IRCA, the Commission on Agricultural Workers issued a report to Congress that studied the effects of the 1986 agricultural amnesty called the Special Agricultural Worker Program. One of the first things the Commission acknowledged was the number of workers given amnesty under the bill had been severely underestimated. The Commission reported the SAW Program legalized many more farmworkers than expected: It appears that the number of undocumented workers who had worked in seasonal agricultural services prior to the IRCA was generally underestimated. What else did the Commission find? Did it suggest that this solved the problem of workers in America in agricultural industry? Did it fix the problem that they tried to fix in 1986? They say this: Six years after the IRCA was signed into law, the problems within the system of agricultural labor continued to exist. In most areas, an increasing number of newly arriving unauthorized workers compete for available jobs, reducing the number of workers available to all harvest workers-- That is, those who were given amnesty and those who are citizens-- and contributing to lower annual earnings. Did the Commission recommend we pass a second legalization program such as AgJOBS? What did they say that might help us on that? They said this: A worker specific and/or industry specific legalization program, as contained in the IRCA, should not be the basis of future immigration policy. This was 6 years after we did the last one. They had a commission study it. This is what they concluded. What do they suggest we ought to do? What did the Commission recommend? They said the only way to have structure and a stable agricultural market was to increase enforcement of our immigration laws, including employer sanctions, and reduce illegal immigration: Illegal immigration must be curtailed. This should be accomplished with more effective border controls, better internal apprehension mechanisms, and enhanced enforcement of employer sanctions. The U.S. Government should also develop better employment eligibility and identification systems, including fraud-proof work authorization documents for all persons legally authorized to work in the United States so that employer sanctions can more effectively deter the employment of unauthorized workers. That is what they recommended. That is what we haven't done. In fact, we are in an uproar over this rather minor Sensenbrenner language the House put on their bill that deals with national security and a way to make ID secure and other matters consistent with recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. So it appears that the Senate does not want to do that but what we want to do is continue to pass these amnesty bills. This should not be happening. Restoring our ability and commitment to successfully enforce our immigration laws is the only long-term solution. A real solution will not reward illegal behavior by handing out amnesty to people here illegally, but instead will require effective control of our borders, active policing in the interior, and participation among all levels of law enforcement. Of course, it includes improving the laws that we have to allow, where needed, more people to come legally in a system that actually works. But to have any system at all, of course, that must be created with an enforcement mechanism that works. We have never created such a mechanism and now it is time to do so. I introduced a bill last Congress--and will introduce, again--that would strengthen the United States' ability to enforce our immigration laws. The Homeland Security Enhancement Act would clarify for law enforcement officers of a State, county, and city that they do have authority to enforce immigration violations while carrying out their routine duties. They don't have authority to deport or try, but they have a responsibility, in most instances, to detain people they identify as being here in violation of the law and contact Federal officials to process that individual after that. They have been told, and been confused about, what their authority is. I have written a law review article on it, aided by my assistant here, my counsel, Cindy Hayden. We researched the law and came to that conclusion. The law provides the authority, in virtually every instance, but lawyers have confused cities and counties and police and sheriffs, and they are not participating in anything the way they would like. We are not talking about forcing them to do anything. We are trying to make sure we pass legislation that clarifies existing law and makes it clear they have the ability to serve and assist our country. It would increase the amount of information regarding deportable illegal aliens entered into the FBI National Crime Information Center database, making the information more readily available to local officials. This is a big, big deal. In the hearing Senator Cornyn chaired yesterday, we had a person from the Department of Homeland Security who is in charge of detention and removal, and what we learned was that over 80 percent of the people who are detained, processed and found to be here illegally are released on bail while the government arranges for their deportation. It is not surprising they don't show up to be deported. Even after they are given a hearing and found to be here in violation of the law, they are consistently released on bail, and 80 percent of those don't show up to be deported. Then, we now have some 400,000 absconders. Now, Mr. President, if a Senator gets a DUI in Kansas or someplace and you don't show up for court, they put your name in the database, and if you get stopped for speeding somewhere in some other State, they will pick it up. So they are a fugitive, but their information is not being put into the NCIC. I know police officers. I was a prosecutor for over 15 years. I asked them about this. They tell me they do not even bother to call the Federal Immigration officials if they apprehend someone that is illegally here because they won't come and get them. So they have just given up. They are prepared to help. What a great asset that would be. But, no, we have not seen fit to do that. But more importantly, the 400,000 absconders are not in the National Crime Information Center computer. So when a State officer apprehends someone, and they have a name and they want to run it through the wanted persons database they would use for an American citizen, they run the birth date, the driver's license, or other identifying characteristics, and it tells them whether there is a warrant out for their arrest. That is how most people are caught today who violate the law and who are fugitives. Most of them are caught in simple traffic stops. Don't tell them because they will quit speeding. But that is how we catch them--when they get in a fight somewhere and the police runs their name and there is a warrant out in Texas for them for assault or something. We raised Cain last year about that and asked the tough questions of a number of the Department officials. They said they would try. So out of 400,000, we learned there are about 40,000 of those names they found time to put in the NCI Center computer system that is available at city, county, and police offices out in the country. That indicates to me how confused we are about how to make this system work. I want to say this. I absolutely believe that we have one big problem on our minds; that is, we think it cannot be done. We think we cannot enforce immigration laws, that we might as well just quit. Well, under our present way of doing so, that is correct. However, if we create a more generous way for people to come here legally that is simple and understandable, and if we enhance our enforcement abilities and if we quit rewarding those who come illegally, you will begin to see the numbers change. As a matter of fact, there is a tipping point out there I am absolutely convinced exists. If we enhance the enforcement of those who come illegally, we quit providing those who are here illegally with benefits, we increase border enforcement, and we enhance the way for people to come here legally to work, and we make that easier and will get more support from countries from which these people come, we can tip this thing. As the number that come into the country illegally goes down, and as our enforcement effort and officers are increased, you will have a tremendous change in the number of enforcement officers per illegal. That is when you make progress. That is what happened in crime. The crime rate has been dropping for the last 20 years. As it drops, we don't fire policemen. We have gotten more policemen per crime, so they have more time to work on crime. They are doing a better job of apprehending repeat offenders and putting them in jail. The crime rate has broken. Instead of going up, as it did in the 1960s and 1970s, it has been going down for over 20 years. We can do that here. It will affirm America's commitment to the rule of law. To do that, we are going to need additional bedspace for detention, and we cannot continue to release people who have been apprehended on the street so they just disappear again. We have to require the Federal Government to receive and process people who have been apprehended by local law enforcement. We need to make sure the system provides them a fair hearing, but it also needs to be a prompt hearing. If someone is in violation of the law, the system should work rapidly and not with great expense. Those are some of the things I am concerned about in the bill I have offered. But there are many other problems of a similar nature that need to be dealt with. We are a nation of immigrants. America openly welcomes legal immigrants and new citizens who have the character, integrity, the decency, and the work ethic that have made this country great. But they are concerned, rightly, about the politicians in Washington who talk as though they hear them when they cry out for a system that works, and we say we are working on it. What do we do? We came up with an AgJOBS bill that absolutely goes in the wrong direction. The same people who are supporting that bill, for the most part--although not Senator Larry Craig--are opposing my bill, for example, that would enhance law enforcement authority for local officers, and they wonder if we have any commitment at all here to enforce the law. They have every right to do so because I will tell you, from my experience in talking with police officers in my State, nothing is being done. Until we put our minds to it, nothing will be done. How do we go from here? What should we do? In my view, we need to pass this emergency supplemental to support our troops. We need to reject all immigration amendments on it. We need to follow President Bush's lead and have a serious debate and discussion on this issue. We need to agree on certain principles about how it will be conducted. We are going to have a legal system that works. We are going to be humane in how we treat people who come here. We are going to consider American needs. It is not going to be an unlimited number. And we are going to create a legal system that works. We can do that, and we should do that. A lot of work is going on toward that end right now. Senator Kyl and Senator Chambliss have a major bill to deal with some of these issues. Senator Cornyn, a former justice of the Texas Supreme Court, a former attorney general of Texas, is doing a real good job in managing the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and is considering all these issues. Then sometime later this year, I think, we might as well get serious, bring something up and try to make some progress. Who knows, maybe even the President should appoint an independent commission of people who understand this issue--we have had commissions before--and make some specific recommendations about how we ought to proceed. That could work, in my view. Right now the American people lack confidence in us, and they have every right to lack confidence in us because we have created a system that is flawed, it is not working. It is an abomination, really. I want to share this information with my colleagues. Farmers who are supposed to be benefiting from this act, the agriculture workers amnesty legislation, do not want it. Maybe some farm groups in Washington or lobbyists are for it. Maybe some big agricultural entities want it. But I have in my hands an open letter from the Southeastern Farmers Coalition. It is signed by a list of organizations and individual H-2A program participants, people who utilize farm workers from out of the country who are ``the overwhelming majority of H-2A program users in the country.'' The list of signatories to this letter is expansive, including the North Carolina Growers Association, the Mid-Atlantic Solutions, the Georgia Peach Council, AgWorks, the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Association, the Virginia Agricultural Growers Association, the Vidalia Onion Business Council--I am sure that is a sweet group--and the Kentucky-Tennessee Growers Association. The letter states: Farmers in the Southeastern United States are opposed to Senate bill S. 1645 introduced by Ted Kennedy and Larry Craig. It is an amnesty for illegal farm-workers. It does not reform the H-2A program. Please oppose this legislation. The text of the letter, which asks me to oppose the bill, says: [AgJOBS] is nothing more than a veiled amnesty. While everyone, it seems, agrees that the H-2A program desperately needs reform, this legislation does not fix the two most onerous problems with the program: the adverse effect wage rate and the overwhelming litigation brought by Legal Services groups against farmers using the H-2A program. In fact, it explicitly provides for more such litigation. The letter goes on to say: The Craig-Kennedy-Berman reform package provides a private right of action provision that goes far beyond legitimate worker protections and expands Legal Services' attorneys ability to sue growers in several critical areas. These lawyers, who have harassed program users with meritless lawsuits for years, will continue to attack small family farmers under the new statute. Supporters of Craig-Kennedy-Berman have endorsed this alleged reform believing in a misguided fashion that it will bring stability to the agricultural labor market. It will not. It will create greater instability. As illegal farm workers earn amnesty, they will abandon their farm jobs for work in other industries. Continuing this letter: Many of the attached signatories have been actively involved in negotiations surrounding this legislation. The following groups have broken ranks with the American Farm Bureau. As a matter of fact, I think the Farm Bureau has now switched sides on this bill, and they are no longer endorsing it. They are not supporting it now. They have changed their position. They continue: You are likely to hear that the majority of agriculture supports this bill. The industry, in fact, is split. But, in fact, the trend has been the other way against it. They go on: History has demonstrated that the amnesty granted under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was a dismal failure for agriculture employers. Farm workers abandoned agricultural employment shortly after gaining amnesty and secured jobs in other industries. I also received a letter last week from two growers in Alabama who favor improving the ability to utilize foreign workers. They strongly support that. But still they asked me to oppose the AgJOBS legislation. Tom Bentley of Bentley Farms, which grows, packs, and ships peaches from Thorsby, AL, and Henry Williams, head of the Alabama Growers Association, write: In the coming days, you may be asked to vote on legislation offered by Senator Larry Craig and Senator Edward Kennedy that purports to significantly reform the present H-2A agricultural worker program by providing an earned amnesty to hundreds of thousands of undocumented farm workers now present in the United States. Despite claims that this bill is bipartisan and represents the interests of all agricultural employers, growers in the Southeastern United States do not support the passage of this legislation. This bill is not H-2A reform as touted, it is simply an amnesty bill for a selected group of workers. If farmers who make up a majority of H-2A employers are opposed to AgJOBS because it is amnesty for illegal workers and it does not reform the H-2A program, why should we pass it? Who supports this amendment? I believe the supporters who are advocating it are really not in touch with the desires of the American people and the desires of the farmers they claim to represent. In fact, I am not sure the authors understand just how far this bill goes and just how many serious problems exist within it. I do not think that I am out of touch with the American people. I certainly believe the principles I have advocated are consistent with the rule of law that I cherish in our country, and I am troubled to see it eroded in this fashion. I believe reform is necessary. I believe we can achieve reform. I believe we need to spend some time on it. I do not think it can be done piecemeal. I originally thought it had to be done comprehensively. Then somebody convinced me we could break it up. But the more I look at it, the more I see the nature of it. Why would we want to spend all this time on one group of workers, agricultural workers? There are other workers who are facing the same challenge. Why not fix this problem in a generous way for foreign workers to come and work, a generous way to achieve citizenship, a focus on the real needs of America, not just laboring immigrants. We need people who have Ph.D.s, brain power, scientific people who may cure cancer one day. We need more of those kinds of people, too. We need to look at it comprehensively. Draw up a system that works. But one that allows us to honor the heritage we have been given as Americans, the heritage that draws so many people--our heritage of the rule of law--is being eroded terribly today. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I associate myself with the comments of Senator Lieberman and say how he expressed my feelings about this important legislation. It has been a pleasure to work with him in a bipartisan way. He has demonstrated time and again his interest in matters of national defense and national security and his commitment to those who serve us. I, too, believe, as was discussed not too long ago at one of the hearings, there is a bond between the American people and those we send out to defend our interests in dangerous areas of the world. We as American people need to honor that bond. One of the commitments I think we must make as a people is to say to those who go in harm's way to execute the just policies of the United States that if something happens to you, we are going to try to take care of your family. That is one thing you don't need to worry about. I believe the HEROES bill, as we named it, honoring every requirement of exemplary service, is the legislation that moves us a long way in that regard. I couldn't be more excited. I thank the Appropriations Committee Chairman, Senator Cochran, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their support of making this a part of the supplemental. We certainly have worked hard in trying to gain support from the military community and the Department of Defense which understands exactly how and what we should do to better support those who lose their lives in the service to their country. We did a number of things. Two years ago, as part of the Defense bill I asked that we put in language to study this. Senator Lieberman and I talked about it. And they put that language in. We have gotten some studies back. We began to figure and think about what we could do to make families more secure in the case of the loss of a loved one. Last year, they completed the study and we began to look at it. The President and the Secretary of Defense responded to our request promptly and, I believe, honestly and objectively. The Senate report that is before us today recommended increasing the death gratuity benefit from $12,420 to $100,000 for our service members who die on active duty in a combat theater, and then we amended the bill to include those who serve on active duty who lose their lives. It also allows, as I have proposed, for every member of the military to raise the level of coverage under the servicemen's group life insurance which is capped out at $250,000 to $400,000. I believe that is a more legitimate sum for a family suffering this kind of loss. Additionally, for those serving in the combat zone or a designated contingency, the Department of Defense will pay the member's premium for the first $150,000 of insurance to guarantee they are participants in that program. The report before us also makes these changes retroactive to cover those who lost their lives since the beginning of the global war on terrorism which began October 7, 2001. Families of our service members who have died since October 7, 2001, will receive a one-time cash payment of $238,000 which is a sum of the added coverage of life insurance, $150,000 more life insurance, coupled with proposed increase of the death gratuity of $88,000. Finally, the report will place language in the law to require service members to inform their spouses of the level of coverage that may be enacted. As I conclude my remarks, let me be clear on this issue. There is no amount of compensation that can replace the loss of a loved one. Not for a soldier, not for a police officer, not for a teacher, or a fireman. However, our military service members volunteer to leave their families and engage in a very difficult and dangerous campaign to defeat terrorists and secure peace and prosperity not only for America but for countless millions around the world. The training and operations conducted to ready them for combat are also dangerous and will also be included in the death gratuity section of the report. The enhancements of the death gratuity and SGLI outlined in this bill reflect the risks and dangers faced by our service men and women as they serve us around the world. The language stays true to what our President requested in the supplemental and what Senator Lieberman and I put in S. 77, the HEROES bill. This report and the death benefits enhancements offered are based on a sound analysis of this highly important and emotional issue. We can never do enough to thank these brave Americans. Each and every one of them who serves us in our military today is a national treasure. I am thankful and grateful that the Senate has included the HEROES provision in this report, and I look forward to voting on this bill and seeing it enacted into law. I note that not too many months ago I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait in a C-130 late at night, and there were two flag-draped coffins of soldiers who had given their lives in service to our country. Yesterday, I talked with the daughter, 25 years old, of Sergeant Major Banks. Her mother, a sergeant major in the Army, was one of the soldiers who died in the tragic helicopter crash in Afghanistan recently. I talked to her about her mother, and how much she admired her mother, and to think how she had risen through the ranks to become a sergeant major, growing up in a poor area of Alabama, African American, who inspired her daughter, Shante Banks, as she described her mother's influence on her life. She gave her life serving our country, as many have. I believe we have done the right thing here. I think it is going to be a good step forward. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Senator Lieberman as we have moved this legislation forward. I thank the President and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 14. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the second 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; provided that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1268, the Iraq- Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Tomorrow morning, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental. We were able to make good progress on the bill today, and we look forward to another productive day tomorrow. Currently we have three amendments pending and we are working with the Democratic leadership to move forward with these amendments. Therefore, Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day tomorrow.