Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. That would be fine.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Kyl. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had previously offered and called up amendment No. 4775, and I ask that Senator Kyl of Arizona be made an original cosponsor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will not speak on an amendment at this time, but if others do not object, I would like to call up amendment No. 4775 and ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is the pending matter?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few remarks about the amendment I have offered, No. 4775. It is to actually fund the border barriers and fencing that we authorized by an 83-to-16 vote just a few weeks ago, on May 17. This Senate said that is what we wanted to do. Unfortunately, when the more appropriate time came to fund it, we failed to have the money to do it. I think there is a great deal of cynicism among the American people about Congress's commitment to actually creating a lawful system of immigration for America. They are not only cynical, but they are determined to see to it that Congress does. We are the vehicles for the American people to accomplish national goals of importance. As a person who had been a law enforcement officer for many years involving Federal law, it is just heartbreaking to see, with regard to immigration, law made a mockery. People have every right to be upset with us, upset with the President--this President--and previous Presidents, previous Congresses. Twenty years ago, in 1986, we developed a system that was supposed to work to deal with immigration. We gave a one-time amnesty to several million people. We promised we were going to make the system work in the future. And we never funded anything that would work. That is undisputable. It just cannot be denied by any person, I do not think, who would look at the situation as it has developed since 1986. There was a promise to do something. That promise was not fulfilled. So we do not want to head down that road again. I think the House of Representatives is correct. Let's make sure we follow through this time. We have a credibility gap. We have a problem. People are not confident we are going to do it. Indeed, money gets tight around here. We spent $30-something billion on homeland security, but we could not find $1.8 billion to fund the fencing we voted to authorize and that DHS wants--fencing is a one-time expenditure that would reduce the number of Border Patrol agents, reduce the number of people who attempt to come in, and reduce the overall cost in the long run of making the border secure. But we did not do it. Why not? Well, those are the kinds of questions we are dealing with. Now, the President has done some things that indicate he is committed to border enforcement. On July 25, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar and National Guard Bureau General Steven Blum held a press conference on Operation Jump Start. That is where the National Guard is helping us at the border, as the President requested that they do. Chief Aguilar and General Blum explained: The National Guard is assisting them--the Border Patrol--with their ``tactical infrastructure so they can be more effective; . . . better roads so they can move along the border laterally . . . '' You have to be able to move along the border. You cannot have people elbow to elbow trying to stop people coming here illegally. When you see people come, you have to be able to move laterally along the border. And quote: ``fences and lighting and sensors.'' So that is what the National Guard is doing. Now, yesterday, on August 1, we received a letter from Ralph Basham, the Border Patrol Commissioner, and Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of Defense, announcing the fulfillment of President Bush's promise to deploy 6,000 National Guardsmen to the border by August 1. He met that goal. This is a good step. It is not the solution. They are not allowed to participate as a law enforcement agency. They have a lot of restrictions on them. But it is an assistance, and it is also part of a signal to the world that a wide-open border no longer exists, that we are taking steps to maintain security at our borders, like most nations of the world strive to do. The letter describes how 6,199 soldiers and airmen are now working in four border States. One of the capacities they are serving in is ``forward deployment,'' which includes ``engineering and other efforts.'' This refers to the National Guard's role in building tactical infrastructures--roads and fencing. So the National Guard is already charged with helping build the tactical infrastructure needed on the southern border. But they just do not have enough money to build what the Senate authorized: 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers that are less expensive but at least keep people from driving across the border in their vehicles. So the amendment we have before us now, and the vote we will have, will finally appropriate the funds that will build fencing on the border. This is a real vote. What we often do in this Chamber is authorize expenditures. We authorize programs to be undertaken that will serve some good purpose. But if the appropriating committees and the Senate do not get around to actually funding those authorized activities, they never occur. This is an appropriations bill, and it is a bill that has real power to fund a fence, in this case. So it is a real vote. The language of the amendment is simple. We take the amount of money already in the bill to fund emergency National Guard activities and increase that money by the amount needed to construct the 370 miles of fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers on the southern border. Because 39 new miles of vehicle barriers were already funded in the Senate-passed Homeland Security bill we moved some weeks ago, we only fund 461 miles of vehicle barriers with this amendment. Of course, the number of miles of barriers and fencing is what was requested by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Mike Chertoff, to the Congress. It is what he stated he needed to be effective on the border. It is also important that we send that signal to the world that there has been a change in policy. We can deny we had a policy of open borders, but in reality we basically did. We have had an open borders mentality, so people around the world have received a message; and that is, if they are determined and if they come to our border, they can figure out a way to get across. That has been happening. We do not need to send that signal. We need to send a signal that the open borders time is over by passing this amendment. It is not a bottomless pit of costs. In fact, these barriers are one-time costs, but they will help us have good enforcement with fewer agents for decades to come. The net result will be that we will be able to save money. It will also save money in its signal capacity in that I believe we are going to have fewer people attempting to violate the law, as a result of a clear commitment to use the National Guard, fencing, increased Border Patrol, and also detention beds and deportation activity. We are not playing games. The American people have every right to be dubious and concerned about the commitment of this Congress to follow through. However, I believe we can follow through. This is a test for us. I believe we will be ready to pass the test. The cost to construct these miles of fencing and barriers will run between $1 and $3 million per mile for fencing, based on whether the military constructs the fencing or they use private contractors, and they are authorized to use contractors that they supervise, and $1.4 million per mile of vehicle barriers. The total construction cost for these miles will be less than $2 billion. That is not a small amount of money, but it is a manageable amount. In a budget that spends over $900 billion a year, we ought to be able to find a couple of billion dollars to follow through on a commitment we made and the commitment the American people expect us to fulfill. Fencing is a proven approach. With the establishment of the San Diego border fence, crime rates in San Diego have fallen off dramatically. According to the FBI crime index, crime in San Diego County dropped 56 percent between 1989 and 2000, after the fence was built. This is a whole county. It was a huge lawless area. Congressman Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, lives in San Diego. He called me several months ago to give me some personal insight into the economic growth, the security, and safety on both sides of the border, after this lawless area was brought under control by a fence. It is a proven success. Vehicle drive-throughs, where people drive across the border and run right past anybody who may be watching them, have fallen between 6 to 10 per day before the construction of the border infrastructure to only four drive-throughs in the whole year of 2004. Those occurred only where the secondary fence was incomplete. It is undeniable that fencing has reduced illegal entries into San Diego. According to the numbers provided by the San Diego sector Border Patrol in February of 2004, apprehensions decreased from 531,689 in 1993--they apprehended 531,689 people on the San Diego sector in 1993. As a result of the fencing at the most busily crossed area in 2003, there were 111,515. Isn't that great? That is about one-fifth as many, indicating that one-fifth as many people were trying to cross the border overall. They apprehended in the San Diego area last year--in 2003--111,000 people attempting to enter this country illegally, and there are hundreds of thousands now crossing in Texas and Arizona, far more than are crossing where the San Diego fence was built. So the scope of this problem is huge. I can't understand the concern that people would have that barriers would be somehow impractical when we are dealing with these kind of numbers. Fencing has also reduced drug trafficking in San Diego. In 1993, before the fence, authorities apprehended over 58,000 pounds of marijuana coming across the border. In 2003, after the fence helped stem the tide, only 36,000 pounds of marijuana were apprehended. In addition, cocaine smuggling decreased from 1,200 pounds to approximately 150 pounds. We have made a lot of progress there. We need to replicate that. We have learned from it, and we need to follow our own example. It is a one-time expense that this bill would meet and will allow us to meet those challenges. I am convinced that physical barriers at the border are an essential part of a cost-effective solution to our current border security crisis. Virtual fences are intriguing and may be good in remote areas, but they don't impress me with regard to high traffic areas where we are talking about half a million or a million people crossing per year. There are only two alternative routes that we can take to secure the border: manpower alone or manpower plus infrastructure. We can take either: just personnel alone or we can do personnel plus infrastructure. The latter is much more cost effective. It will save us money. Attempting to secure the entire 2,000-mile border with manpower alone could require as much as 150,000 agents, if you put 15 per mile over the 2,000 miles of the border. Then you have 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. How serious is this? It is a huge cost, were we not to have barriers at the most troubled areas. If we only build a virtual fence and not a real one, we will be spending millions on technology to detect illegal crossings, and then we will be spending millions on manpower to chase down, apprehend, arrest, process, and deport the illegal crossers. That is not what we want to do. We don't want to play an expensive game where we catch and release and chase and catch and apprehend and pay to deport and pay to house while they are being deported. Apprehension is manpower intensive, slow, and legally complex. It requires additional related activities and costs such as incarceration and repatriation, courts, appeals, transport, lawyers. We don't want to do that. We want to get away from that. We want to send a message to the world that this border is no longer open, that if you attempt to cross our border illegally, you are not going to succeed. You need to apply and wait in line to come legally. We are generous about how many people we allow now and how many people we will allow in the future. We are a very generous nation with regard to immigration. We will remain so. But we want people to make their application and wait in line, not to pour across the border. Many of the illegal crossers are coming from areas of the world that have terrorist influences. Once they are inside the border, they are that much harder to catch. Preventing people from coming here illegally is the right approach. Prevention is the right approach. We need to get to that place. I talked to President Bush about this issue recently. He agreed that we need to get to what you might call a tipping point. Once we are serious and get border enforcement up and going in a real way, we get more Border Patrol agents, we end the catch-and-release policy, we put up fences and vehicle barriers, and we have sufficient detention beds so people don't have to be released on bail after they have been apprehended, never to show up again when they are asked to come back to court, if we end all of that, all of a sudden we will see a dramatic reduction in the number of people attempting to come. Couple that with a really workable biometric identifier card for people who come here with a lawful entry right and a job, and they have to present that card or they can't get work, people will wait in line to get that card. If we crack down on businesses who are hiring people without the proper identification, they will quit hiring people. Most businesses will do what you tell them to do. We can get to that point very easily, far easier than a lot of people believe, where we can go back to a lawful system of immigration for America. That is what the American people want. They have every right to insist on it. They have been insisting on it for 40 years. We were supposed to have fixed it in 1986, 20 years ago. We did not do so. I am telling you, this Senator is not going to support any kind of immigration legislation that will not work to serve the interests of the United States and will not create a system that is lawful and not lawless. No Member of this Senate should. I urge my colleagues to take this step and vote for this amendment because it is narrow. It simply adds money to the emergency National Guard account already in this bill to provide funds for the construction of physical barriers on the most vulnerable miles along the southern border, the area that Secretary Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security favor. If we don't use the emergency funds provided in the budget for this purpose, they will get used for something else. The Senate has already voted overwhelmingly to approve construction of physical barriers along the border. We missed a chance to fund that barrier in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. With this vote, there are no difficult choices to make. We can actually say to our constituents that we followed through and we walked the walk as well as talked the talk. I am confident that we will be successful. I thank Chairman Stevens for his consideration. I understand we may have a vote later this afternoon, which would be pleasing to me. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I had a call several months ago, before I offered the amendment, from Congressman Duncan Hunter of San Diego, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, and he shared with me his positive view of what the San Diego fencing had meant for that area. Crime had gone down. Economic growth had occurred on both sides of the border--it was so positive. I know there is fencing in Arizona, and it is not the best kind, not the most attractive. As was said, it is not something you can see through--landing mats. But based on the Senator's experience and many years of examining what has happened at the border, is he convinced and would he share his thoughts about how this could be helpful in the overall view of creating a border in which the law is followed and we have security?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, on May 17, by a vote of 83 to 16, we approved my amendment to mandate the construction of at least 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of the United States. That was a very strong vote. It represented the request of Secretary Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security. It was the amount of barriers and construction that he felt was necessary to help him create a secure border. I believe this Senate meant it when we voted to do that. When the vehicle came forward on Homeland Security, we failed to fund this project. I think it left this body in an embarrassing position, telling the American people we are for barriers at the border, we are for meeting the request of the Secretary of Homeland Security, but, by the way, we are not going to put up any money to fund it. I know there were reasons that some felt it couldn't be afforded under the amendment process, which gave the appropriators a requirement to find it within the $30-billion-plus Homeland Security bill, but we are now in a position where we feel there are funds available that we can utilize to make this step. We believe this is a germane amendment to the Defense bill. The National Guard is going to be a part of our border security, and the National Guard does have the authority to enter into construction and other engineering projects as part of their directive to assist in securing the border. That is where we are today. I think this is an appropriate amendment. I see my colleague, Senator Kyl from Arizona, is here. I would say it has been my honor to work with him quite a number of years--ever since I have been in the Senate. There is not a single Senator here who has ever spent anything like the number of hours he has spent in advocating for a legitimate, sound method of border security, nor has anyone voted more consistently than he to establish that. I am glad he is a cosponsor. Senator Kyl understands this process. He is one of the leaders in the Senate. I am glad he feels this is an appropriate way we can go forward. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. One more question, if I could ask the Senator from Arizona. Would he share with us and the American people some information he might have about the size and scope and numbers of people that are crossing in the Arizona area? I know he cares about that. That is one reason the Senator feels so strongly about it. But I am not sure a lot of people understand the scope of the problem. He has already shared that fencing is a component of fixing the problem, but would the Senator share with us the scope of the problem?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his interest and support. I know he indicated we needed to work on it the last time we voted on it. Perhaps I would like to speak a little more on it. And I think I would ask for a rollcall vote.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Bond for dealing with this important issue. We have indeed reached a point in this country where I think there is confusion about the absolute responsibility and legal requirement to maintain classified information in our Government. We need to be more serious about that. He can speak with authority. His son has served in Iraq and is a fine officer. We appreciate that. He understands these issues deeply. Again, I thank Senator Bond for that.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Bond for dealing with this important issue. We have indeed reached a point in this country where I think there is confusion about the absolute responsibility and legal requirement to maintain classified information in our Government. We need to be more serious about that. He can speak with authority. His son has served in Iraq and is a fine officer. We appreciate that. He understands these issues deeply. Again, I thank Senator Bond for that.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I recently had the opportunity to speak in favor of the constitutional amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that amendment, and even though it failed by a vote of 66 to 34, I do not believe it is an issue that will ``go gentle into that good night,'' to use the words of poet Dylan Thomas. The flag is the unifying symbol of our country and all it embodies. Hundreds of thousands have died fighting to protect what it represents. It seems only logical that we, as a body, would continue to fight to protect it. A few days after the Senate vote, I received a copy of a speech written by Alabama's state auditor, Beth Chapman. It was a speech she delivered to a meeting of the Alabama Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution--a group dedicated to promoting patriotism and preserving American history. I found it to be not only timely, but a beautifully written and passionate reminder of what the flag represents and why it should be protected. I ask that the full speech be printed in the Record. The material follows. Flag Day Speech Alabama State Auditor Beth Chapman's address to The state meeting of the Alabama Chapter of the Daughter's of the American Revolution The red, white and blue, the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory, our Standard, the Star Spangle Banner--the American flag--it has heard the battle cry for freedom and has been the banner for democracy--it is our sacred symbol of the heart and soul of our country--our freedom. It represents the fifty states and the blood of the men and women who died carrying it--if not on their bodies, in their hearts and souls as they fought for freedom of a nation--our nation. Though tattered and worn, it continued to wave as 6,000 patriots died in the Revolutionary War breaking off the chains of tyranny from Great Britain. It survived the Civil War and draped the caskets of many of the 500,000 total (some brother against brother) who fought and died defending freedom, though they disagreed on what that freedom meant--the flag continued to wave in its defense. It soared at Gettysburg, unfurled at the Battle of the Bulge, was blood stained at Kasson, stood watch in the final hours at Pearl Harbor as hulls of ships and shells of men floated on the burning waters. It was hoisted by brave American soldiers at Iwo Jima. Throughout history it was tested and tried on the beaches of Normandy and was triumphant on the shores of Tripoli. It stood for justice's sake though 116,000 Americans fell in WWI and 405,000 in World War II. It survived the numbness of frost bite in the Chosin Reservoir of the Korean Conflict and heard the brassy bugle's cry of Taps being played for more than 54,000 who lost their lives. It proudly but sadly waves today over a wall that bears only etched names in stone of more than 58,000 faces, hearts, souls and bodies of the fallen soldiers who died in the jungles of Vietnam. It flew for righteousness' sake mounted in the dirt of Desert Storm as 293 Americans' bodies were killed but their love for country was not captured, conquered or defeated. Most recently it saw 1,672 Americans in Operation Iraqi Freedom die and is has covered the bodies of 190 killed in Enduring Freedom--yet the flag still endures. It still waves--restoring the foundations on which America was built and reminding us of the freedom with which we've been blessed. And today it continues to wave, somberly but surely over the 260,000 brave and courageous veterans whose silent, sleeping spirits remain in Arlington Cemetery. They defended our freedom and determined our destiny and the destiny of our nation. Now they rest in peace while we enjoy the symbolism of the flag with as much passion as they once felt when they were defending it. Many have spit on the flag, buried it and burned it, not realizing the freedom it represents is what allows them that right, though no matter how obnoxious and disrespectful it may be, it supposedly was right. But what a pity they know not how much innocent blood was shed so they could have that freedom to express the bitterness, hatred and disrespect they appear to have for their own freedom and anything it represents. Over one million men and women of the United States Military have died defending what our flag symbolizes, but others have died simply by living the American Dream which it represents--2,595 civilians at the World Trade Center on 9- 11, 92 on Flight 11 and 65 on Flight 175, 125 in the Pentagon, 64 on Flight 77, and 45 on Flight 93--total of 2,986 died on that same tragic day--doing nothing but living out in their daily lives what our flag stands for--freedom. They were the innocent victims of evil people and a jealousy and hatred that comes against such a beloved freedom as ours. And on that day when our country was at its lowest level, our spirits had plummeted; we had been wounded worse than at any time in our great nation--in the very middle of that ordeal, three exhausted New York Fireman had the foresight, the vision and the inspiration which could only be fueled physically by adrenaline, but spiritually and emotionally by raw patriotism--love of God and country--to hoist an American flag for all the world, friend and foe alike to see, so they would know we had not been defeated. Even in the ruin and rubble, Old Glory was raised and proudly waved as she had so many times before in peace and war. She rose up out of the dust, dirt and even fire to restore the American spirit, which can not be snuffed out as a burning candle by tragedy or hatred, but is only further motivated to wave higher and further unfold to spread the news of freedom and of victory. It symbolized freedom, hope, and determination of the American people and the strength of our spirit. Some have purchased with blood the freedom our flag represents, other have defended it--and by the grace of God those of us in this room have been blessed to simply live under it in the greatest country on the face of the earth. And it costs most of us nothing and that's why it should have our utmost honor and respect. For the same exact flag many not have been through all the battles, but what it represents has been, and that is more than anyone person can say. The flag has seen it all and survived it all, therefore, the spirit and freedom which it represents has survived it all. It is the epitome of the sacred symbol we know it to be. It stands atop the United States Supreme Court building as justice attempts to be served; it stands over the United States Capitol in hopes of good laws being passed and bad ones being killed. It stands in schoolyards as children play, over Court Houses and City Halls as good grassroots government is hopefully being administered. It drapes the shoulders of our country's finest athletes as they represent us at the Olympics. But let us not forget that it has also left this earth to represent us, to fly into the Heavens and land on the moon. It has flown into the wild blue yonder far into the majestic skies reaching toward the very face of God, only to explode, and quickly plummet into the sea with the Challenger and the brave Americans in it. There is little of our heritage that it has not seen; there are fewer of our victories, triumphs, and tragedies that it has not experienced first hand. It has waved at half mast and at full mast, but it has never ceased to wave. It is not to be burned or buried, but flown with great pride and admiration. Some say it is not the flag, but what it represents that we should honor--I say we cannot honor one without a pledge of allegiance to the other. The Pledge of Allegiance nationally debuted in October 1892 on Columbus Day when 12 million children across America recited it for the first time. The Pledge of Allegiance has had three major changes: Originally it read: ``I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' June 14, 1923, it was revised to ``the flag'' instead of ``my flag'' and the words ``United States'' were added. One year later it was revised to read ``the flag, of the United States of America.'' But the most significant change came on Flag Day, June 14, 1954, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower added these two simple, but profound words: ``Under God.'' And this is what he said about adding those two words: ``In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.'' The Pledge of Allegiance as we know it today is only 31 words packed with pride, honor, loyalty and devotion. Red Skelton, a brilliant comedic mind of another generation shared this story on television many years ago. Little did he know this story would be so poignant and prophetic today. He shared the story of his teacher Mr. Laswell who came to think his class was just saying the pledge of allegiance out of routine so he made a drastic change in their schedule one day. This is what he said to them: ``I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as thought it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word.'' I--me, an individual, a committee of one. Pledge--dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity, Allegiance--my love and devotion To the flag--our standard, old glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's been respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job. United--that means we all have come together. States--individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose and that's love for country. And to the Republic--a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chose by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people. For which it stands, one nation--one nation meaning ``so blessed by God.'' Indivisible--incapable of being divided. With liberty--which is freedom--the right of power to live one's life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation And justice--the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others. For all--which means boys, and girls, it's as much your country as mine. Skelton later said since he was a young boy that two states had been added to our country and that two words had been added to our pledge--``Under God.'' Then he smiled and said, ``Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that (those two words ``Under God'') is a prayer and they would eliminate it from schools too? Little did he know that now, many years later, that very effort has been discussed before the United States Supreme Court. Though the words to the Pledge of Allegiance have changed its purpose, meaning and intent has not. But the flag still waves and our nation is still one nation under God and we still live under the banner of democracy and the flag waves in our churches, school yards, state and national government buildings and always in our hearts and homes--because that's where freedom originated and that is where it must remain. When we pledge allegiance to our flag, we are making a commitment, and what we are committed to is what we become as individual people, and as a nation. The destinies of many nations have been determined by what their people were allegiant to--Rome is a good example of that. Let America never become a Rome. Our flag is more than three colors of cloth and millions of pieces of thread sown by hand. It is more than Betsy Ross and Francis Scott Key. It represents a message of hope and freedom that is carried in the hearts and souls of the people of a nation for generations. I pray today that God will continue to bless this country and that we may never divorce ourselves from the preservation of that freedom for which our men and women have died and our flag still boldly stands. Now let us stand and with great pride, honor, humility and resolve--with great enthusiasm, fervor, patriotism, passion and respect to say our pledge of allegiance together as we have never said it before.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one thing we are about to do today after many objections and difficulties over the years from the Democratic leadership is to pass a bill that will allow offshore production of oil and gas. It will absolutely positively affect the pocketbooks of American citizens. This is a bipartisan effort, although as one can see from my colleague and his polemic--political polemic--that he just completed, even the Democratic leadership is not comfortable with making progress, but many of the Members are. Before I talk about the energy bill, I want to take a moment to respond. He talked about the war. We had a vote on withdrawal from Iraq. It was 93 to 6 against that. We voted a year later on it again and only 13 Democrats voted for it then. We need to have more bipartisan work to accomplish issues that are important to the American people, and we can do it. But we are being driven by the politics of elections, and I don't think it is healthy for us. That is the way it goes around here, unfortunately. We will continue to proceed. I just want to know how the Senator comes up with this number, 700- something billion dollars of costs for the partial repeal of the death tax. Who knows where that number came from? The Congressional Budget Office which, in my view, tends to overscore, making it higher than reality, said it was $260 billion over 10 years. I submit that even this is a high number. I submit also that we have voted in this body-- and it is now the law of the United States--that in 2010 the death tax will be completely eliminated. It phases out and goes to zero, but if we don't do something about it permanently, it will go back to 55 percent. Plus, if a State has another 5 percent, such as Alabama does, that is 60 percent of a person's net wealth confiscated by the Government. The polls show the American people are not happy with that. They don't think that is legitimate. So we spend a lot of time here figuring out how to make this death tax law stable so that people know what they are facing and what they are going to have to pay and what their families will have to pay. We looked at it, and we have come up now with a flat rate of 30 percent for estates that would qualify at that level. That would be the maximum rate--not 55 but 30, a compromise that deals with this extraordinary confiscation of wealth by the Government of people who have worked hard, have paid their taxes, made money, paid a third of it to the Government, saved something for their children, and then the Government comes in and takes 55, 60 percent of it. We do not think that is fair. The American people do not think that is fair. Polling data shows they do not think that is fair. This is a matter we need to fix. We have this zero rate out there at 2010, about a little over 3 years from now, that we need to fix--a permanent fix. We are on the verge of doing that. We will have bipartisan support for that despite the assistant Democratic leader's arguments against it. We need to work on these things. We can and will move forward with that proposal. Also, our Democratic colleagues say they wanted the minimum wage raised, according to the Kennedy bill, and so as a compromise we proposed to do that and work that out. That is where the negotiations are going. Hopefully we will be successful in that. Mr. President, I will talk briefly about some good news, for a change. We have had, I have to say, Members of this body--almost entirely on the other side--who have blocked energy production in our country for a number of years. It has caused the cost of living and the price of gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil for Americans all over this country to go up. What have we seen in the 10 years I have been here? We have seen this. We have seen the proposals to produce oil and gas from the vast Alaskan ANWR region blocked. A substantial majority of Senators have voted for it, but the Democrats have been able to block it with a filibuster each time. We have had a long-term battle on nuclear power, and just this last fall that battle broke in the right direction. We have not had a nuclear plant for over 30 years in this country. We are burning a lot of natural gas to generate electricity when it could be produced for a fourth or a fifth of that cost by nuclear power with no air pollution. Also, it wouldn't drive up the cost of natural gas for heating our homes. We have had that nuclear power blocked. Finally, we passed a bill that gave us the opportunity for more nuclear power. We now have 18 different preliminary requests to develop new nuclear powerplants in America, all filed within a year of the bill's passage. The Tennessee Valley Authority in my home State--and we have two nuclear plants in Alabama--tells me that nuclear power comes in at 1.2 cents per kilowatt hour compared to 1.8 cents for coal--that is 50 percent higher for coal--and natural gas at 6 cents, five times as much. We need more nuclear power. Finally, under the leadership of President Bush and this Congress, we have moved forward in that direction. That is positive. We have also passed an energy bill that enhances wind, solar, and ethanol, and included mandates that will cause us to utilize more of our domestically produced biofuels--something I support. I have worked with Senator Evan Bayh, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Salazar, Senator Brownback, Senator Lindsey Graham and others on this issue. We have a bipartisan group to treat energy production as a national security issue. And we should. It requires conservation. It requires efficiency. It requires biofuels. It requires enhanced production. Nobody suggests our demands are going down. We can do better to contain the growth in demand, and we should do everything possible to do that, but the world is growing economically and more people are utilizing energy and it is causing shortages and driving up the price. So let's celebrate a little bit. We had a vote yesterday. The opposition to drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has broken. It was, I believe, 72 to 23 against the filibuster of this bill. So I believe we are heading toward passage of it, and it is a fabulous thing. We would be so much better off today had we passed this legislation 5, 6, 7, or 8 years ago. But we have had a moratorium on drilling in huge portions of the Gulf of Mexico. Around Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama--off our shores, pretty far out in the gulf in most cases are some 4,000 producing oil and gas wells. But a few areas of the Gulf of Mexico, with very large reserves, have been under a moratorium. We have been blocked by law from having production in those areas. As a result, we have sent around the world huge amounts of American wealth, the wealth earned by American citizens--huge amounts of that to other nations, many of them not friendly to us. As a result, it has made the price of gasoline and natural gas for American citizens higher. It has resulted in many of my constituents and others around the country paying $50 or $75 more a month for gasoline so they can go back and forth to work--money they didn't have to spend on that a year or two ago. Prices have gone up. We have ceased to expand our domestic production. We have had to buy it on the world market, 60 percent from foreign nations, many of those hostile to us politically and otherwise. It is not a good thing. One of the things we need to do is to make a step in the direction of producing more at home. It is overdue. I am glad my colleagues on the other side have moved forward. Once again, we had to reach a compromise. We talked with Senator Martinez and Senator Nelson of Florida and they have come around to this 125-mile buffer zone around Florida. That is far more than I think is necessary, but certainly there are strong feelings in Florida about it. Under all the circumstances involved, I think it is a good decision. I am prepared to go forward with that. I would like to see more, but this, certainly, with 8.3 million acres that could be produced, will provide an opportunity for us to get out there, prove these reserves exist, and have production there. I want to say one thing here. I want to be clear. This is very important. It is not correct it is exactly wrong, in fact--and it must never be the policy of this Senate, this Congress, or this Government to conduct drilling anywhere for the purposes of helping oil companies. That must never be our mission. Our mission must be to study what is happening in our country and in our world and to take actions that will help reduce the cost of energy for American citizens. That is what our responsibility is. That is our duty. Congress has created laws that put a moratorium from production on areas where large reserves exist. I don't know what oil companies may desire to produce there. Most of them out there, I understand, are independent firms doing the production, but regardless, whoever produces it, that is not whom I am trying to help. If we produce more natural gas in our domestic system, we help drive down the cost of natural gas. In fact, this production could have a larger impact on natural gas than it is likely to have on gasoline. It should really have a positive impact on both. Let me show this chart. I didn't realize this originally. I met a businessman in Alabama. He has a big chemical company, an international company. He was telling me how much his natural gas costs have gone up and he said it is hurting him. It is putting his business in a position where they might have to close it or cut back. I said, Why? Aren't other places in the world paying more? He said, No. I suppose that is the first time I realized that fact. You know, for gasoline, we pay $3 a gallon here. It is $7 or $8, or more in Europe-- more in Japan, I think. So I have always thought we were cheaper. But look at this chart. In the United States we are now at $8.85 per million Btus of natural gas. Lots of Americans heat their homes with natural gas. Lots of American electricity is generated by natural gas. Lots of businesses utilize great amounts of natural gas in their chemical and other processes that they need to be successful. But look at these numbers. In Trinidad it is $1.60. Bolivia is $1.65. Even in England--the United Kingdom, it is $7. In Belgium, $6.95; in Russia, $1.20; Ukraine, $2.70. In the Gulf States, it is a little over $1. Even in China, it is $5.05. In Japan, it is $6.05. If you are a business and you make fertilizer with natural gas--we make fertilizer, plastics and other things from natural gas--it is clear that our corporations and businesses that hire Americans are having to pay more, as are consumers of natural gas, than many areas around the world. I say that to say this has a potentially significant positive impact for our economy if we can knock down the price of natural gas. Natural gas goes into pipelines. It is moved by pipelines throughout our country. We have the pipeline infrastructure. We have the pipelines on the coast. We have a pipeline right now that runs from Mobile, AL, across the gulf to take our natural gas that we produce--that Florida does not produce--to Florida so they can generate electricity or do other things with it in Florida. They can have their air conditioning running and live near the beach and be comfortable. Somebody has been producing it. We have been producing it on the western part of the gulf. We need to produce it further toward the East. Natural gas is not easily transported. Only 2 percent of our natural gas comes from LNG, liquefied natural gas. That gas is cooled tremendously, it becomes a liquid instead of a gas, it is put in a ship, and it is brought to the United States. Then it has to be heated up, returned to its gaseous state, and then put in the pipeline. That is what we do. We do very little of that because natural gas is primarily a domestic product. So the more natural gas we can produce in the gulf, the more likely we will see these prices decline. If we have more nuclear power to generate our electricity with rather than natural gas, we could also see a decline. What I am saying is that I am not here, and the people in support of this bill are not here, to say we want to help energy companies. We want to create a market out there that would contain the rising cost of gasoline and natural gas. I will note that it is a good thing for me that after all these years, some 40 years of production in the gulf, some 4,000 wells that are offshore, that for the first time the Gulf States that have been bearing the brunt of this effort will receive some funds from it, 37.5 percent--a little more than a third of the value. Two-thirds will go to the Federal Government, 63 percent will go to the Federal Government through either the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which will be spent all over the country on environmental matters, or for the General Treasury. I think that is a good mix. I think it is fair. It will be limited, however, to be spent in the Gulf States for things that benefit the environment and the Nation. We have people from all over the Nation who come and enjoy our coast. The funds will be utilized for coastal protection, mitigation in damage to fish, wildlife, and natural resources, implementation of federally approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plans, and mitigation of offshore drilling activities through funding of offshore infrastructure projects. Yes, for the first time there will be some sharing with the States on this offshore production, but it is not a huge amount, No. 1. No. 2, the funds are to be used for conservation-type programs that will benefit the entire Nation. In conclusion, I believe that what we are doing now is a direct response to the cries of Americans working citizens and middle-class Americans who are concerned about their high heating costs. They are concerned about their high gasoline costs. They are concerned about our wealth being transferred overseas--$200 billion a year is what we pay for oil and gas around the world. If we can produce more at home, we can help contain the cost of gasoline and natural gas, and maybe even reduce it. We can keep that wealth right here at home. We can create good, high-paying jobs here. And those citizens with those high-paying jobs will pay taxes to the Government so that we can have money in the U.S. Treasury instead of spending it in Venezuela and having it go into Hugo Chavez's treasury. I am excited about it. It is historic. I thank Senator Landrieu, and I thank other Democrats on their side that are now coming around to support it. Senator Landrieu has been our most knowledgeable supporter on this issue for many years. I believe we are going to make it happen today. It is going to be good for America. It will be a bipartisan act, and we need to do more of that around here. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I recently introduced a bill to preserve the cross that stands at the center of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, CA, that is under attack by the ACLU to remove the cross. This bill would preserve that cross by having the U.S. Government purchase the property, as it stands, from the city of San Diego. This acquisition is the action that the U.S. Department of Justice tells us is needed to preserve this cross as a part of a memorial that has secular monuments also. Congressman Duncan Hunter has led the effort in the House. He is a San Diego Representative, chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House. It passed 349 to 74 in the House. So we are trying to pass that in the Senate. It was called up for clearance by unanimous consent recently--I believe last night--and there was an objection from the Democratic side. It is time for us to move forward. I don't think there will be overwhelming opposition to it, as there was not in the House of Representatives. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5683, the House bill, which was received from the House. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am a resident of Mobile, AL, on the gulf coast. We drive down to the beaches periodically. What I would like to convey to my colleagues is that Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have always allowed production of oil and gas offshore. We even allow production very close inshore. The beautiful Mobile Bay, a fragile estuary, has a number of very large oil rigs in those estuaries that have produced very large amounts of oil and gas. We have never had a problem of any serious nature of an environmental negative impact. As we begin to discuss this subject, we need to ask ourselves, what is the opposition to drilling in an expanded area of the deep Gulf of Mexico, 125 miles or so south of Alabama and Florida, and 200 miles west of Florida's western beaches of Tampa? What is the opposition to it? I ask that question. Is it a sincere environmental objection or is it just a persistent opposition to the utilization of oil and gas that many people have in America today? Is it some sort of hostility to oil companies? Is that what is making people have a hesitation? I would like to discuss those areas a little bit. Let's talk about the environment. We have at this time 4,000 producing wells in the Gulf of Mexico--4,000. We have had one of the most devastating hurricanes ever to hit in Katrina last year. We had several other hurricanes that had very high winds--not quite as big, but their winds at times were nearly as strong as Hurricane Katrina's--that came through the gulf. Official reports have indicated that 3,000 of those 4,000 wells that are existing now in the Gulf of Mexico were in the direct path of one of those hurricanes last year, and we had not a single spill of any sizable amount. Several of the platforms, large as they are, were damaged. But they have, in ways that I am not able to fully explain, shut-in valves down under the water, at the ground, and it shuts off the oil from the well, and no matter what happens to the rig there is no spill of oil. In fact, only about 2 percent of the oil in our waters around the U.S. come from oil production, or maybe less. But 63 percent comes from natural seepage. Most of it comes from runoff from storm sewers and things on the land. All that is really very small. It is not a huge impact in any way. I would just say to my colleagues, when you go fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, as I like to do when I can, which isn't often, you tend to fish around these rigs. Just over Memorial Day weekend I was out with my brother-in-law and nephew. We went fishing around the oil rigs and had a little luck. That is where people fish. It provides a structure that allows growth of foods, sources that feed smaller fish, and larger fish feed around them, and that is where people fish. Nobody worries about that or expects any kind of problem with it. They have been there for decades now. So the environmental question is not a real one, in my view. It has, to a degree, been settled more than we can imagine. But I would say this: The same people who may be worried about drilling in the gulf don't seem to be very worried about drilling in the lake at Venezuela, or the Persian Gulf, or the Caspian Sea. These are smaller bodies of water, self-contained, in which a spill would be even more dangerous. That is where we are getting much of our oil and gas today, from those areas of the globe. Many of those areas that we produce oil and gas are far more subject to being damaged, perhaps, than if we had a spill in the vast Gulf of Mexico. Then there is this argument: We don't like the oil companies. You are trying to help the big oil companies. I want to dispute that and dispute that unequivocally. My goal is to serve my constituents. How do I serve my constituents? I help them receive the necessary, critical oil and gas that they need to carry on with their lives at as low a price as possible. I don't think it healthy or justifiable to say to my constituents in Alabama: We are not going to let you produce oil and gas off the coast of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Florida. We are not going to let you get any gas and oil from there. We are going to require you to buy it from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. We are going to require you to buy it on the markets of the world where it may have come from Iran, and certainly Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or other countries. Some of those haven't been friendly to us. They charge whatever they can charge. A couple of years ago, it was $35 a barrel and now it is $70-plus a barrel. What kind of sense is that? If some big oil company has a long-term contract with one of those foreign countries to buy oil at $35 a barrel that was signed 2 years ago, why would they want production in the gulf? In fact, they may not. I don't see the oil companies demanding increased drilling in the gulf. This is coming from people who can add dollars and cents, people such as this Senator who travels the State, talks to our constituents, listens to what their concerns are, goes to church, and goes out on the street shopping, and people come up to you and they talk about the high cost of gasoline. That is what they are talking to me about. I look them in the eye, and I say I am going to do what I can to make these prices lower. We tried putting in a law that sets prices, and that was a total failure. You can't fix prices by statute. It is a marketplace out there. And what do you do to make the marketplace work on your side? You increase production. Frankly, it doesn't require a huge increase in production to make a big price adjustment. If the world demand is here but the supply is a little more than demand, surpluses build up, and all of a sudden the prices start falling. People have oil in their tanks. They cannot sell. So they cut their price to sell more. Somebody else has to cut the price, and it drops down. If you have a world supply here and demand is a little above the supply, and the world is out here and can't meet it, people have shortages, and they have to bid the price up to get more. Then you have a problem. Even small amounts can make a big difference in prices. That is all I am trying to say to my colleagues. I emphasize again that the reason to produce within the Gulf of Mexico, as I believe ANWR and several other areas of this country, is because that money stays at home. It doesn't go to Hugo Chavez or others. It helps generate our economy. It creates jobs in our economy. People who make money pay taxes to our Government, not to some foreign government. The pipes and that kind of thing work. And the transportation costs are less because it is much closer. These are factors which are relevant to any policymaker in our Nation. We have artificially denied our Nation the right to produce this oil and gas that is right off our shore for far too long. It is time for that to end and to go forward with this production which will help our economy, help create jobs, help contain and actually reduce whatever the price of oil and gas may be in the future. It will be less cost to produce in the gulf than it would be otherwise. I have no doubt. I see the distinguished majority leader. I will be pleased to yield to him, and at this point I thank him for his understanding of this critical issue. He has been steadfast and clear about it ever since I have been in the Senate, 10 years. And now we are at a point where we might get something done this time. I thank him for his leadership, and I am pleased that both Senators from Florida are supporting the bill, so we have some cause for optimism. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am glad to hear the remarks of the Senator from Florida, and I am glad that he feels able to support this legislation. It is something I have worked on for quite a number of years and supported as a Senator from Alabama. We have a lot of oil and gas right off our coast. We believe this could be done safely and be great for the country economically. I am pleased that the distinguished Senator believes he can support this bill. We do have to work with the House of Representatives. They do have input in the legislation. But, hopefully, when all that is settled, we will have something we can pass. It is critical for our economy. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.