Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, on May 17, my colleagues, by a vote of 83 to 16, approved my amendment to the Department of Homeland Security immigration bill to construct at least 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of the United States. This was based on the statement of the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, that this was what he believed was necessary to create a border enforcement system. Of course, a fence is not a cure-all, but it is a very real and integral component of enforcement at the border. Many of the areas we have the greatest difficulty with are urban areas. You can't put a policeman at every single street corner where people can walk across. So a barrier is necessary. We have a number of barriers in San Diego and other places, and they have worked very well. Crime on both sides of the border has decreased, property values have increased in those areas, and economic development has occurred. So there is no doubt--and it is not something that is mysterious-- that a good fencing procedure will help us in many ways. It is something we discussed and debated, and then when we voted, we voted 83 to 16 to approve it--a bipartisan vote. But what I wish to make clear is this was simply an authorization. It represented a promise, a commitment by the Senate that we would build fencing. We would build fencing, and that, in large degree, is a part of our dialog with the American people in which we told them we are getting serious about enforcement. We are not just talking anymore. We really mean this time to get serious about enforcement, and we are going to do the things that are necessary. We are not going to build a fence along the entire border, but we need a certain amount of fencing--370 miles--and that is what would be put in, and that is what this Congress, this Senate, voted for. The House has more. I think they have 600 miles in their bill. So this was where we were. I have made this point for some time in the debate: We do a lot of talking, we do a lot of legislating. The things we do often sound very good. The things we say often sound very good. But we don't ever quite get there. The things which will really make a difference, which can be demonstrable in improving lawfulness at the border, somehow, some way, seem not to become law. This fencing requires a sum of money. We are going to show an increase--an increase--in spending for Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security next year or this year, this period, of over $100 billion. We are talking here about a cost of less than $2 billion, a one-time enforcement enhancement of having a barrier at the border. The figure we have in here of $1.8 billion contemplates that it will all be done by private contractors at the higher prices for the better fence. I suspect as we move forward in conference the conferees may find that the National Guard, which were not part of the process at the beginning, were not being called out when we first voted on this amendment, could actually build this fencing for what we understand would be one-third the cost per mile. This might be a perfect thing for them to do and participate in. There may be other ways to keep this cost down. We made a commitment as a body that we were going to take some real steps that would work to enhance enforcement at the border. So I say to my colleagues, in many ways the vote we are about to take on funding this amendment is a test. The American people should look at us and evaluate us according to this test we are about to take. Were we serious on May 17 when we said we wanted to build this fence? It is not in this bill today. This is the legislation that is the appropriate vehicle to put in the spending for it. It is not in the President's request. It is not in the item that came out of the committee. I know the committee had many challenges, but this matter is important. It represents a commitment we made to the American people. We need to follow through on that. If we do not, how could anyone say that the Senate has integrity in the commitment that it has made to the American people to create a lawful system of immigration in our country, to end the lawlessness at the border and create a lawful system? That is what we need to do. We don't need to end immigration. We are going to maintain immigration. We are going to treat people fairly. We are going to allow people to come in and go from the United States. In fact, we can enhance that and make it much easier, but we need to have a lawful system. We need to end this unlawful system, and that is what I would say is so critical about this process. The bill as presently written appropriates $288 million for necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to customs and immigration. None of this $288 million is designated for any construction of new areas of border fencing on the Southwest border, as we voted to do by 83 to 13. The construction funding only includes money to continue land acquisition and construction for the San Diego fence--$30 million-- which is already under construction. As for vehicle barriers that we have been told are important, especially out in the rural areas, barriers to stop the easy crossing of vehicles, 39 miles of new permanent vehicle barrier in western Arizona only are funded. That is for 39 miles, not the 500 miles that we authorized. It continues construction of vehicle barriers in El Paso for a few miles; $200,000 for vehicle barriers in the Swanton Sector. Those amounts are the only amounts out of the $288 million that are designated specifically for fencing and vehicle barriers. That is not enough to fund what the Senate voted to authorize, 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. I know there are ways to contain costs. Frankly, I think if we work at it we might be able to demonstrate this amount of fencing could be done for less than we have here. But I would say to my colleagues, the estimates we have had are these. This will meet the challenge. Unless we have clear evidence to the contrary, we need to follow through on our commitment to fund this. This amendment appropriates the funds for the 370 miles of fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations along the Southwest border that the Senate authorized in May. Although the Department of Homeland Security supported my amendment at the time to add these miles of fencing and barriers when we voted on those issues in May, funding for these miles of fencing is not included in the bill. The advantages of fencing are numerous. It magnifies, it multiplies the effectiveness of our Border Patrol officers as they go about their work. They have a difficult job to do. They have to maintain a border that is 1,700 miles long. They need help. There is no way we could have enough Border Patrol agents to patrol that entire border. We need to make it more difficult for those who would come in to our country illegally. Fencing has worked in San Diego, it has worked in Arizona, and it is going to work wherever we put it, to enhance the ability of our law enforcement officers to detain and stop and interdict those who would enter the country illegally, which is what we need to do if we are going to move from this lawless system of immigration to a lawful system of immigration. These are the kinds of things the American people have been asking for. They are asking for us to demonstrate that business as usual is no longer in effect, that talk is no longer in effect. The American people are looking at us and they are going to be looking at us carefully to see if we are actually going to follow through on what might really work to reduce illegal immigration and to create a system that is lawful and decent and fair, so people who wait in line are not chumps and those who break the law and come across the border illegally are the ones who get rewarded. We need to stop that. That is wrong. It undermines law and sends a wrong message to those people who come into our country. I say to my colleagues that we need to do a better job. We have a serious problem with the American people. They are suspicious of us. They are cynical about what we have done. We have been talking about a lawful system of immigration for 30 or 40 years, and we have never produced it. We passed a bill 20 years ago, in 1986, that was to be the amnesty to end all amnesties. We said we are going to do this one time and after this is done we are going to create a lawful system for immigration. What happened? Amnesty became law just like that. The people got their amnesty. And there was a promise. As we made a promise on May 17 to build fences, they promised to do the things necessary to secure the border after 1986, and it never happened. It didn't happen in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000. We had a series of Presidents who did not follow through. We have had a series of Congresses that have sat over those years and they have not made this system work. Yet when we go back home to our borders we say we want no amnesty and we want a lawful system. It is time for us to make a decision. This is a lot of money, you say. It is $2 billion. I say we spend $1,400 billion a year in this country. If you took a poll of the American people, would they say we ought to spend a couple of billion dollars to start making a real dent in the illegality at the border, that they would expect us to find the money somewhere? I think there is no other program in this country not worthy of being reduced to some degree so we could fund this. My amendment would simply take an overall reduction in funding in this bill because that is what I am limited to, really, as an effective amendment at this point: to cut across all funding levels in the bill a sufficient sum to fund what we committed to do, which is build a fence. I want to say to my colleagues, this matter is not going away. We are not going to be able to go back to the American people and tell them we have taken seriously their directive to us to fix this system if we don't put up the money necessary to do so. As I have said for so many years--and recently we have talked about it a lot--you have to get to that tipping point in enforcement. You have to reach that point in which it is quite clear to those who would want to come to this country that the best way to do so is to come lawfully, to wait in line and take your turn. I talked with President Bush about it on Air Force One. He agreed. He used the phrase ``tipping point.'' That is exactly correct. We want to establish a tipping point; a barrier, sufficient agents, sufficient detention spaces are key to that. It is not going to break the bank. I am optimistic about our ability to achieve this. But you simply have to close the holes. You have a bucket with three holes in it. If you close two of the holes, you are still going to have the water run out. When we do what is necessary to close the holes in our legal system we can create a system that will actually work, create a tipping point where people wait in line and come legally according to the standards this country establishes for them. I am very concerned that by not funding what we just so recently voted for, by not funding that we will be indicating, just like in 1986, we were really serious about moving forward with an amnesty but we are not serious about creating a lawful system of immigration in this country. Wouldn't that break faith with the people who sent us here? Wouldn't that undermine their respect once again? It is already at the lowest possible ebb. They know we have not been serious about the border. Everybody knows that. Who can deny that? It has been an issue for quite a long time. It has been discussed and discussed. They say we can have a virtual fence. A virtual fence will help a little bit. But I am not able to cash a virtual check at the bank. I would like to see some real fencing. So we had a discussion about that and we voted. We voted to build a fence. It was a little more than half of what the House voted in size, but it was a significant step that will, in fact, multiply the effectiveness of our Border Patrol agents who are working their hearts out for us right now, today. It will absolutely do that. It will absolutely work. That is why some people oppose it so steadfastly. Whatever you present in the matter of immigration, in my experience, that actually tends to work, gets objected to. Somehow it becomes very difficult to pass. There was objection to this amendment, frankly, until the very end. I think the voices of the American people were heard and all of a sudden we ended up with 83 votes. Some people thought it would be a close vote. It wasn't so close when we voted because we were listening to our constituents, which is what we are supposed to do. There are 2,000 miles on the border. Many of those are quite remote, not appropriate to build a fence on. Some say they want to build a wall along the border. What we need is strategic fencing. We need to use high technology. We need increased agents. We need enough bed spaces when someone is apprehended so that they can be detained pending deportation, particularly if they are other than Mexicans, because the Mexicans can be taken across the border right quickly, normally. But for those who are from other areas of the world, sometimes it is very difficult to effect a deportation. As a result, people in our law system are forced to confront a problem. They don't have the bed space for them. They don't have a plane flying back to the Philippines or Brazil or Chile or wherever the people may be from that day, so they are releasing people on bail, called catch and release. They are released and they don't show up to be deported. Mr. President, how much time remains on this?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, that is where we are. What you need to do is reduce the number of people who are coming here illegally. You need to reach a tipping point. People who are coming here illegally, other than Mexicans, have been told correctly until recent months that if they are apprehended, they are not going to be put immediately on a plane back to Brazil or the Philippines or wherever they may have come from. They are going to be released on bail. One study showed that 95 percent of the people released on bail under these circumstances don't show up to be deported. Surprise, surprise. You need bed spaces. We have some more bed spaces in our bill. You need more agents--not a huge number of bed spaces and not huge increases in agents, but you need more agents and more bed spaces. You need to multiply the impact and effectiveness of Border Patrol agents by barriers. How much more simple can it be than that, that we have these barriers that multiply the effectiveness of our Border Patrol people? The strategy among those who support this bill that passed the Senate--the Kennedy-McCain bill, or whatever we want to call it, which moved through the Senate--is that it become law. The strategy is that we will sort of have a conference with the House of Representatives in secret and we will come up with some deal that gives amnesty to everybody who is here. Check the future flow of immigration in the country forever, and we will talk about how to make enforcement work. A lot of people said: Listen, we went through that in 1986. That is what we talked about in 1986. Remember? Don't forget that. That is what they said in 1986. They said in 1986: Give us amnesty today and we will take care of the enforcement tomorrow. Senator Isakson offered an amendment to deal with that very specific matter. He said: I am worried about that, too. That is what happened in 1986. That is what I am hearing from my constituents back in Georgia. We are all concerned about that. We know it is a very real problem. Why don't we say amnesty doesn't become effective, or any relief that one may choose to give to those who come here illegally, whatever relief we give them doesn't become effective until we have the border secured. He offered that as an amendment. It was one of the most intensely watched amendments in the entire process. I have to tell you, it was very discouraging to me and very discouraging, I think, to the American people to see that amendment fail. Why? Why was that amendment important? Because they rightly conclude from that that we never had or never intended to create a good enforcement mechanism. If not, why wouldn't we pass the Isakson amendment? Why wouldn't we pass it? Why wouldn't we pass it if we intended to actually create a lawful system? It made you think that maybe what we are hearing is rhetoric--talk and promises--but we are not going to deliver. That is why I am saying to my colleagues that this border fence is more than just a little matter of $1 billion-plus, as much as that is. It is a matter for the American people to evaluate whether or not they consider that we are acting with integrity when it comes to creating a lawful system of immigration in America. The Secretary of Homeland Security said it is necessary. We voted 83 to 16 to approve it. Now we have the Homeland Security bill where this project should be funded, and it is not funded. I know we have difficult choices to make. But that is what they pay us for. Are people not listening to their phone calls, and not reading their mail? The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Louisiana, understands this issue. I have heard him speak articulately on it. It is a matter of legitimate concern for the American people. The American people are not anti-immigrant. They do not want to punish immigrants. They believe in immigration. But they want a lawful system of immigration that serves the just interests of the United States of America--not a system that makes a mockery of the law. They have been asking for it to be fixed for 30 years, and no President and no Congress has responded to their cry. I am going to tell you, they are going to be heard this November. There may be some people who will have to answer if they voted for this fence and then didn't vote to fund it. Why not? Why shouldn't they be held to account on that? We are facing some difficult choices. The American people are concerned about the issue. Fundamentally, the American people are correct. They have good and decent instincts. This Nation is a nation of laws. And on immigration we can have laws that work. That is what we are looking to do. I don't know of anyone else who wishes to speak at this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. This amendment would follow through on our 83-to-16 vote on May 17 to build 370 miles of fencing at the border and 500 miles of vehicle barriers, as requested by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Mike Chertoff. Unfortunately, this bill does not fund it. Just a few weeks ago, we authorized it. Now we are not funding it. That is not acceptable and will undermine our credibility with the American people. Please note that the amendment has been modified. The amendment has been amended, and it does not require any account to be reduced, such as the Coast Guard or others, but it does require discretionary spending in the bill to be reduced to pay for it, so it is paid for. We need to honor our commitment and our vote of just a few weeks ago in order to maintain credibility with the American people on the question of immigration, an area in which they have great reason to distrust our actions. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I know Senator Gregg and his team will figure out a way to fund it if we require it.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks on the question of funding of the authorized border fencing in amendment No. 4659 and amendment No. 4660 which would authorize funding for the hiring of a number of interior enforcement agents that we authorized and voted to hire just a few weeks ago. I would like to talk about that. I am well aware--and I know the argument that has been made by our wonderful Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, and Senator Murray-- that there is just not enough money in this bill to pay for it. I would say to my colleagues: This is an important issue that deals with something that we made a commitment to the American people about just a few weeks ago. And now it comes time for us to fund it and we don't have the money. We spend almost $900 billion in discretionary spending, $1.4 trillion in entitlement spending. We can find a couple of billion dollars to fund this. How do we do it? We pass these amendments, and we will send a signal to the appropriators and to the White House that we are serious and find the money somewhere. That is what we will be saying. I know they are going to say: Don't vote for this amendment. I am for the fence. Everybody is for the fence, Jeff. We just don't have the money. How can we say that? We just voted to build the fence. We can't say we don't have the money. That is not an acceptable answer. So pass this amendment. Yes, it is going to cause some grief. Yes, there is going to be huddling of appropriators and budgeteers and the White House. They are going to have to hammer out a way to get the money to fund this thing. But to let this slip and to be on record as a Member of the Senate who just voted to build a fence and now vote not to fund it is not a good thing to do. It is going to send a bad signal to the American people. It is going to be a bad signal. They are going to say: They have been promising to have some enforcement and the first vote that comes up, the first bill that comes down the pike, they don't put the money in to do just what they voted to do. Remember the fence can't be built and the agents we authorized to be hired can't be hired unless we appropriate the money. Please, we have to appropriate the money. I know this budget is tight. I will just say to my colleagues, I thank Senator Gregg for his support for the fence, his work in the supplemental to get more money for enforcement. If it had not been for his leadership, we would not have as much as we have. But it is not enough. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is a statement by the Senate that somehow we expect this matter to be funded. There is plenty of money in this Government, if we look for it, to fund this important matter. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I make one thing very clear: Fencing should not be a political gimmick. It should not be a suggestion that it would cure all of our problems, but fencing works. Let me share some thoughts about it. It is proven 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 56.3 percent between 1989 and 2000. Vehicle drive-throughs--these are people who bolt across the border in a vehicle--vehicle drive-throughs through the immigration prohibited areas have fallen from between six and ten per day before the construction of border infrastructure to only four drive-throughs in all of 2004. And those four only occurred where the secondary fence was incomplete. Fencing has reduced illegal entries in San Diego. According to numbers provided by the San Diego Border Sector Patrol in February of 2004, apprehensions decreased from 531,000 in 1993 to 111,000 in 2003. Let me repeat that, talking about tipping points: They had to arrest, in 1993, along the San Diego border, 531,000 people; after the fence was up in 2003, only 111,000 were arrested, one-fifth. How many hours, how much money was saved because people did not have to be arrested and did not come illegally? How many people did not successfully enter the United States because of this fence? Fencing has also reduced drug trafficking in San Diego. In 1993, authorities apprehended over 58,000 pounds of marijuana coming across the border, but in 2003 the fence helped stem the tide of drug smuggling and only 36,000 pounds of marijuana were apprehended. In addition, cocaine smuggling decreased from 1,200 pounds to 150 pounds, about one-tenth. I talked to Congressman Duncan Hunter, who chairs the House Committee on Armed Services. He is very familiar with the border. He explained to me it was an absolute wonder how much good that fence did. That is why the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, has spoken out and said this is what he needs: 370 miles. I am quite aware there is a shortage of money, and we have to make choices. I repeat, in our discretionary budget, we spend about $870, maybe $900 billion in our entitlement program expenditure. It will increase 9 percent next year. It will increase by over $100 billion. We spend $1.4 trillion-plus on entitlements. That is $1.4 trillion on entitlements. We cannot find $2 billion to deal with the fencing that we voted a few weeks ago to approve? I think we can. I know it is difficult. I know Chairman Gregg, if he had the money, as he said, would fund it. How do we break this train wreck we are heading to? How do we get off this track of not doing what we committed to do? Vote for this amendment. It will send a message to the appropriators, it will send a message to the administration, it will send a message to those who are working on our appropriations accounts that we as a Senate expect them to somehow, some way, go back and make the tough priority choices and find the money necessary to do this. Maybe we can fund it over 2 years. If so, they will work that out. This is not the final draft of the bill that will ultimately be before the Senate. They will work that out. I am willing to work with them on that. Also, if the National Guard were to build it, we have been told they would do it for one-third of the cost that private contractors would charge. That could be a savings, and we could get this fencing done without so much money in any one budget year. We voted to build 370 miles of fencing, 500 miles of barriers for vehicles, and I am hoping we will not disappoint the American people, once again. I am hoping somehow, some way, we will rise to the occasion and say: We made a commitment. It is the right thing to do. The administration was never out here championing building fencing. That is never something they said would be a cure-all. Frankly, it is a bigger positive step than many people admit. They did come forward and tell us, through the Secretary of Homeland Security, that these were the figures they needed to create a lawful system at our border. We have areas in developed cities and towns where people can walk across the border without even a checkpoint. There is not even a fence there. This is what we need to do. If we are serious about it, and I think the American people are, and I think there is a growing seriousness with the President and the Members of the Senate, let's step up and do what it takes. Don't go 8 feet across the 10-foot ravine and fall into the pit. Let's complete the task before the Senate. Somehow, some way, we can find the money in this budget. I know we will if we pass this amendment. If we do not pass this amendment, we will be sending a signal, it is business as usual, and we do not intend to honor our commitments. That is the wrong thing to do it. It could not be more damaging to have failed to honor our commitments on any bill before the Senate than the immigration bill. This is a bill for which the people have the least confidence in us. Amendment No. 4660 The other amendment I call up is amendment No. 4660; I ask the previous amendment be set aside, and I will make my remarks about amendment No. 4660.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment deals with sufficient funding of ICE, Immigrations and Custom Enforcement interior agents. ICE is authorized. We voted to authorize and hire 800 new investigative agents in fiscal year 2007. That begins October 1st. Beginning October 1st, we voted to authorize the hiring of 800 new agents under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The Department of Homeland Security asked for 206 investigative agents in 2007. Among other things, those agents are used to investigate illegal employment in the workplace, workplace enforcement. Virtually every Senator, in the context of the immigration debate, has talked about how important it is to increase worksite enforcement. We have talked about it time and time again. The way to do that is to increase the number of agents who are investigating these cases. How simple can it be? This Senate bill appropriates $57 million, an increase of $19 million, to enhance resources devoted to worksite enforcement. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the $19 million increase would hire 141 new agents. The bill also appropriates funds to hire 27 new compliance investigators. They are similar to but not the same as an investigative agent. The 141 new agents and the 27 compliance investigators do not meet the President's request for 206 agents. They just do not meet the President's request for 206 agents. And it does not come close to funding the 800 agents that Congress authorized ICE to hire next year. You see, once again, this is serious business. We talk about enforcement. We say we are going to do it, but when it comes down to the lick log, we spend our money on other things. So my amendment will ensure that the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security funds the full level that Congress authorized to hire in 2007, a total of 800 new agents. This means that we have to find the money for ICE to hire 659 more agents than the bill currently funds. That is 800, minus 141. The Department of Homeland Security tells me that it costs as much as $130,000 to fund a fully wrapped new ICE agent for the first year, with training and equipment and all those things. Therefore, the cost for these additional 659 new agents will be $85 million. To pay for these agents, the amendment contains an across-the-board reduction. This is about making some decisions about what we intend to do with regard to enforcement of immigration laws. It sets some priorities. So that will help us focus on what we need to do. To me, based on my experience, having worked with Customs agents, having worked with Border Patrol agents, having worked with INS agents back when I was a Federal prosecutor, interior enforcement agents, who are responsible for enforcing immigration laws in the workplace and inside our borders, are a top priority. Let me tell you, it is not going to be that difficult. We are not going to need tens of thousands of Federal agents to change the workplace illegality that is going on. Most businesses today want to do the right thing. We have not given a biometric card, which is not easily counterfeitable, to those people who come here legally so the businesses can make a legitimate decision about whether they are legal or not. We have created a lawless system in many different ways. But businesses must be held accountable. We can create, under this bill, a system that gives businesses a greater ability to know what the law is and to comply with the law. Once they know we expect them to comply with the law, once we pass this immigration bill that will create better workplace rules and procedures, we can almost overnight see a dramatic reduction in the hiring of illegals at the workplace. Isn't that what we want? Some do not want that. They would like to be able to hire as many as they want to at lower wages. But we as a nation have to look at the national interest and set a policy about how many people should come into the country, only allow those in lawfully, and make sure they are given a good identifier so they can go to work. But we need sufficient investigators to make sure we reach the tipping point in the workplace so that employers know with certainty what the rules are and know that if they do not comply with those rules they will be held to account. Once they know that they will be held to account, we will see, in very short order, a dramatic dropoff in illegal activity. Just this increase would make a tremendous amount of progress. Mr. President, I have a few minutes left. I would yield to the Senator from New Hampshire. He may want to make some remarks.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4659.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment will fund the investigative agents we authorized in the immigration bill that passed this Congress. It would do so by increasing the funding for $85 million and would fully fund the 800 positions we authorized. We authorized 800 positions, but, unfortunately, we have only funded 141. Once again, it raises serious questions, as in 1986, about whether or not we are going to talk but not be willing to put up the money to fund the bill. Also, this will be offset by reductions in any discretionary account without mandating across-the-board cuts. The amendment has been amended from that previously filed so that no specific account is required to be cut, such as the Coast Guard. I believe we need to follow through on our commitment to the American people to increase our investigative agents. This will fund what we authorized.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds to say that this amendment would authorize the appropriating committee to pay for the fencing--give them more discretion to pay for it out of the account they deem is appropriate. It would be across the board but within their discretion, so that no one particular account must be cut or reduced by passage of this amendment. The Coast Guard and other things would not have to be reduced in order to pay for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be offering some amendments to the Homeland Security bill that I think are important. I thank Senator Gregg for his leadership and his interest and his hard work in meeting some of the demands of this Nation with regard to homeland security. Unfortunately, we have not been able to meet all of those demands. America, we have a problem, a very real problem. This Senate and its action concerning immigration with relation to the bill that just passed this Senate is beginning to create a circumstance that in every respect looks like 1986, the year we passed the last immigration bill. We must not allow a repeat of 1986. This Senator will do all that he can to see that does not happen. It goes to the very heart of our service in this Senate. It goes to the integrity of the Senate. It goes to the respect with which we want to be held by our constituents around this country. We must not repeat what happened in 1986. We must not allow a repeat of the 1986 immigration bill. Back when the immigration bill started moving through the Judiciary Committee, I raised this very point. It came about in an interesting way. I offered an amendment in the committee to expand bed space. It was accepted. I offered another amendment, and it was accepted. I began to think: It is easy to authorize, isn't it? It is very easy to pass a bill that authorizes more bed space. It is very easy to pass a bill that authorizes a fence to be built along the border to improve our security. It is easy to authorize more Federal agents to be hired, more workplace enforcement to be put in place. It is easy to authorize the expansion of the US-VISIT Program, which is central to an entry-and-exit system. It is easy to authorize interior enforcement agents around the country. But an authorization is merely an authorization. Those agents do not get hired, they will not be paid, the VISIT system will not be in place, the fences will not be built until money is appropriated. This is the bill we would expect that appropriation to take place. That is the problem we have. The bill does provide some additional expenditures for Homeland Security and for border enforcement and for other things. For that we are grateful. But the big matters that go to the heart of whether we are going to have a lawful system have not been funded adequately. It is something we have to confront and deal with in an effective way. In 1986, we promised we would just have amnesty one time. It was the amnesty to end all amnesties, unlike today, when we deny we are offering amnesty. In fact, the proposal we passed in the Senate does just that. It is very similar to 1986. What was the promise? The promise is we will have enforcement in the future and we will not need another amnesty. They said in 1986 it was an amnesty to end all amnesties. That was the argument. That is what we tried to do. That is what they tried to do at the time. What happened? The promises that were made about enhanced enforcement did not occur. I point out, 2 million people were expected to claim amnesty; 1.5 million people were expected to claim amnesty. When it concluded, 3 million people had claims. Almost double the number of people came forward to claim the amnesty, many of them with fraudulent documents and inadequate proof. But they got it because it could not be disproved, and the numbers were so large. That system did not work well, but the amnesty was part of the immigration bill. It became law. Everyone entitled to that amnesty got it. It openly was called amnesty. I note for the record that Black's Law Dictionary, in its definition of the word ``amnesty,'' lists the 1986 immigration bill as one of its definitions. These people got their legal status, their citizenship track, the benefits of welfare, earned-income tax credit, and all the other benefits that accrue for people in the United States, but the enforcement never came. Remember, we said it was not going to happen again not too long ago, just 20 years ago. Where are we today? We now have an estimated 11 million people in our country illegally. We say we have to do something about this, but we cannot call it amnesty. But we will create this little system where they pay $1,000 or $2,000 and they are on a track to full citizenship--but it is not amnesty. Mind you, there is hardly any difference between what we did in 1986, but this year it is not popular to talk about amnesty because people have been around the country listening to their constituents, and the people of America are not happy with amnesty. They do not like it. Many Members of this Senate have promised not to vote for amnesty. So all they do when they vote for this bill is redefine the meaning of words and say it is not amnesty. They just say it is not amnesty. They vote for it and say: I didn't vote for amnesty. They have to wait a while before they get citizenship. They have to pay $1,000. And if they held back taxes for 5 years, if they pay taxes for 3 of those years--and they pick the 3--then they have paid the price. They have paid the penalty. They earned their amnesty by paying back taxes. Yet American citizens pay their taxes all 5 years. How are you going to prove the back taxes anyway? This is nothing more than amnesty. I drive this point home. What is the point? The point is, that has been put into law by the bill we passed in this Senate. Now they say: We will have enforcement this time; we are going to do the things that are necessary to have enforcement. A lot of people say we really do not like a fence, but after they talk to their constituents back home--and I offered the amendment to have 350 miles of fences and 500 miles of barriers, and we had a vote. It passed 83 to 13--we passed an amendment to build the 350 miles of fences, 500 miles of barriers. We have authorized it, colleagues. That is all we did was authorize it. I have heard the comments: I voted for the Sessions amendment. I voted to build a fence. I am for enforcing immigration laws. When do we build this fence? Where do we get the money to build this fence? What bill is it that the money has to come out of? It is a Homeland Security bill. That is the one in the Senate. We have been looking through the bill, reading the fine print, and it is not in there. The money to build the fence is not included. We should be ashamed. We trumpeted this. The majority leader said he was supportive of this. Everyone was supportive of building a fence. When it comes time to pay up and actually buy the bricks or buy the wire and pay the people to do it, where are we? I raised this in the Judiciary Committee. I offered an amendment sort of like the Isakson amendment at that time. Senator Isakson offered his amendment in the Senate that said: We see this problem coming, colleagues. This has been the pattern. We authorize things, we make promises, but we do not follow through, so let's do the Isakson amendment which says none of this amnesty takes place until the enforcement takes place at the border and we follow through on the things we promised to do. That is a pretty clever little amendment. Why would anybody object to that? Why would anybody who voted and promised to build fences, to add detention beds, to add agents--why in the world would you vote for those kinds of things and then not want to follow through on them? I think it was troubling to me--troubling to a lot of Americans; I know troubling to Senator Coburn, the Presiding Officer--when Senator Isakson's amendment did not pass. Why? Why did Senator Isakson's amendment not pass? Well, the American people are pretty cynical now about our commitment and our integrity when it comes to matters involving immigration. And I suggested at the time and worried at the time that the reason the Isakson amendment did not pass was there was never any intention to fund the fence, to fund increased bed space, and fund the increased agents, make the US-VISIT program work--never any intention. Now, wouldn't that be a bad thing? Wouldn't that reflect badly on the integrity of the U.S. Senate, when the whole Nation is looking at us? They are frustrated with us. They have not forgotten 1986. People remember that. They remember that. And they are looking at us: Are we going to do this again? And the first bill that comes up, we don't have money in it to fund the fence that we voted 83 to 16 to build. That is just breathtaking when you think about it. It was a highly debated issue. It was probably one of the more noteworthy amendments in the entire debate. People thought it might be a close vote. As it turned out, it was an overwhelming vote. But it is easy to vote to authorize, isn't it, if you never intend to fund. That is an easy vote. I see the young people and the pages and those around here. Learn something about the U.S. Senate. It erodes public confidence in the integrity of the Government when you brag and speak glowingly about taking aggressive action to improve enforcement of immigration laws in America and then do not do it. That is not good. That is just not good. The matter is not a little one. This is not a little matter. The American people know that immigration is important to our country. They know it is deeply important to our country. They care about it. They have been watching it. They watch it nightly on television. They write letters to their editor. They call my office. They call other people's offices. They complain about what is going on and how we have done our business. They have every right to complain. They have every right to complain. Why in the world would we ever suggest that somehow the American people are not generous and fair and decent when it comes to immigration? They really are. We are a nation that believes in immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants. We believe in immigration. But people are frustrated. Some people say things that are harsh maybe about immigrants, but when you listen to most people, the anger that they are expressing is not at the immigrants, it is at those of us in Washington. It is at a string of Presidents, it is at a series of Congresses that have failed, refused to do what they asked them to do. And what have the American people asked? They have asked that we create a lawful system of immigration and we create a policy of immigration that is in the national interest of the United States of America, that we allow a number of people to come in every year, that we make a rational judgment about how many that should be. People should not come in illegally. They should come in in accordance with law. And if they come in illegally, they expect the Government to stop them or apprehend them and deport them. What is wrong with that? Is that harsh? Is it mean-spirited to say that we need to have a legitimate legal system involving immigration in this country? I suggest not. I have been looking at the numbers. I think it is adversely impacting the wages of working Americans. And I am prepared to debate it. But regardless, this is a matter we need to deal with. We are going to maintain a flow of legal immigrants into our country, and we should. We should set up a system that identifies people who are most worthy of coming into our country and approve them in a meritorious way, in an effective system. We do not have that today. The bill we have passed pretends to be a comprehensive bill for immigration reform, and it is an utter failure. It should never, ever, ever become law. It is a total disaster. They say: Well, we will just send it over to the House. The same people who may well vote against funding this amendment say: We will just send this bill now over to the House, the House of Representatives, who they made fun of a few months ago for passing a border enforcement bill first. We will send it over there, and maybe we will fix all this. How does it work in conference? The majority leader of the Senate appoints a group of conferees, the Speaker of the House does, the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate appoint conferees, and this group of hand-picked Senators and Congressmen meet. They go meet someplace, and they work it all out, basically in secret, without any real input from the American people. We have a bill from the Senate that has comprehensive review and reform, so-called, of the entire immigration policy of the United States of America and the House of Representatives has a law enforcement security bill only. And these are going to be just written out of thin air by these hand-picked people in secret? I don't think that is healthy, not on a matter this important. Let me ask you, do the American people have a right to expect that this Senate and the House of Representatives are going to protect their interests and do what they have been asking them to do for 30 years. Or do they have a right to be cynical and expect that they will meet, plot out some sort of immigration bill, trumpet it as solving all our problems, bring it on the floor of this Senate, not subject to amendment, and drive it through and pass it? And it will not work again just like 1986. How can you test what we do here? How can the American people have a test of this Senate? I submit to you, one way is to watch the vote on the funding of the enforcement issues that are dealt with in the amendments I have offered. So let's see. Are we going to pass a fence amendment or not? If we pass it, maybe we are beginning to get serious over here. But even that can be fixed in conference. That is not the final passage of the bill. They can still go into conference and take it out. But it would be a step. I say this to my colleagues: If we vote down funding the agents, the fencing, the detention beds that we have authorized in this bill, why shouldn't the American people really look at us askance? Why shouldn't they say: they just authorized it, and they are not even going to fund this fence? They are not even going to add the agents? They are not going to even add the bed spaces? I think that is what the American people are going to ask. And the truth is, they are correct. Now, some will say: Well, we don't have the money. We don't have the money? We spend over $2 trillion a year in this country. What do you mean we don't have the money? We could do a ``Cadillac'' program for $2 billion or $3 billion. That is a lot of money. We are spending $100 billion on hurricane relief, $85 billion, in the supplemental, on the war. Let me tell you some other things we spend money on in this country, when people say we don't have the money to do what the American people are demanding that we do: According to the Congressional Budget Office--this is from March 2006--spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone is expected to increase by $106 billion from 2006 to 2007, a 9.5-percent increase. It is a 9.5-percent increase in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone, with the increase totaling $106 billion. And we can't find $1 billion or $2 billion to make the border secure? Give me a break. Defense spending: We spent $76.8 billion in 2005 on that. How about $32 billion to fund this Department, the whole Department of Homeland Security? The bill budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $32 billion. We cannot find another $1 billion or $2 billion to follow through on the commitments we made to make the immigration system in this country lawful? And within that Department of Homeland Security money is all the funding they will get. It is all the money we are going to get to increase immigration enforcement efforts. It is just not there. In this appropriations, the money has not been funded to meet the authorizations we passed and made a commitment to. I am not here to break the budget. I am tired of that. I know the Presiding Officer is. He has fought harder than anybody I know in this Senate to bring integrity to spending, and I have been pleased to support him. But I will tell you, he has been a breath of fresh air and a great addition to the Senate. He has called our attention to the wasteful spending we carry on in this body on a regular basis. We cannot afford everything. We are paid to set priorities. Has anybody ever listened to the people in their States about what they want us to do? I am telling you, they want us to make the immigration system a legal one, not a lawless one. They want us to spend the money that is necessary--no more but they want to spend whatever it takes. That is a priority with the American people. It should be a priority of those of us who are here because they are right. In the scheme of things, the money we spend is not that great, but it is important for us to do it correctly. I will be offering amendments that will deal with five different areas. Those amendments will be offset, will not add additional spending to the budget or increase the debt in any way. We will set some priorities. We will set some choices. That is what the people pay us to do. What do we need? We need strategic fencing and vehicle barriers at the border. We need an interior investigative agent increase--that is for the ICE agents, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents--to increase worksite enforcement. We need to increase the detention bed spaces. Detention beds are critical. The reason is, we still are carrying out a catch-and-release policy. What do you mean ``catch-and-release''? This is what happens: Someone comes into the country from a country, say, other than Mexico. They are referred to as OTMs, other than Mexicans--Brazil, Central America, South America, Asia--and they are apprehended here illegally. What happens then? Well, you say: They try them and deport them. Wrong. Not really. What has been happening is, these particular people who are apprehended in this country illegally are not from Mexico, so they cannot be readily taken back across the border. They are then detained and then given a trial date. Since there are no bed spaces, they do not have a place to keep them. What do they do? They release them on bail. They catch them and they release them on bail. They sign their name because they do not have any money to put up for the bail. They just allow them a signature bond, and they are asked to come back at a certain date to have their trial on whether or not they are going to be deported. How many do you think come back? They have already entered the country illegally. They are apprehended and released. They do not come back for trial. One reporter did an interesting article that showed that 95 percent did not show up. What a joke that is. The only way to end the catch-and-release problem is to have enough detention beds so they could be detained until they could be deported from the country. Secretary Chertoff is making some progress in this regard but not enough. We will never get there without some more beds. So if we are serious about making a legal system here work, then we need more bed spaces. Everybody says we need worksite enforcement. We have a pilot program that has been played with for a number of years that is supposed to work. It really has the potential to work, but it is not working today. We need some more money for that to make that system work. If you don't want the workplace enforcement system to work and you are President of the United States, you don't ask for funding for a program that will work, and if you are a Member of Congress, you don't vote for the money to make the program work. If you are part of Homeland Security, you don't come and demand money so you can make it work. Everybody's hands are dirty on workplace enforcement. We know that. Let's be frank about it. We need agents. You have to have law enforcement agents. Those law enforcement agents can have a tremendous impact on the worksite. It does not take that many prosecutions, frankly, to have a complete change in behavior. I strongly say we need that. We need to protect the funds that were already appropriated for section 287(g). The 287(g) program is the cooperative immigration enforcement effort with State and local law enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security has this program. They train local law enforcement. They set up abilities to work together. If they apprehend someone for speeding and find out they are here illegally, then they call the agents and they can transfer them for processing and deportation. Wouldn't we want to see that happen? Wouldn't we want to take the help of State and local law enforcement agencies? Well, we don't have the money for that. We put the money in. It was in there for a while. Now they have spent it on something else. It is a bargain, a real bargain to do that. Finally, we need to fully implement the exit portion of the US-VISIT system to track visitors who leave the country as well as when they come in. That is what the system was set up to do. We have been working on it for 10 years. It has not been completed, they say, because of various problems. Let's be frank. It hasn't been completed because Congress and the President over the last 10 or 15 years have not wanted it completed. There has been plenty of time to complete it. Agencies hadn't come forward and demanded the money necessary. They haven't told us what they needed. The President hasn't put it in his budget, and Congress hasn't spent the money. So it hasn't been completed. That is just it. I don't know any other way to say it. We now can track people when they come in the country, and we need a good biometric card so people can enter really easily. If they have a legal right to come, they present their card. It clears immediately. They come right on through. If they work in the United States a week, they can go home and see their family, come back on Sunday or Monday, travel back and forth. They can do all those things. We would like to see this system work. It can work. We are close to it, but we don't have the exit system working. Unless the exit system works, you have no idea of who is in the country and who has stayed, who did not go home when they were supposed to. That is where we are. We will have some of those votes tomorrow. I don't mean to be unfair in my comments or unduly harsh, but the truth is the American people are watching us this time. They saw what happened in 1986. They don't want that to happen again. We should not want that to happen again. We should do what we promised to do. We should follow through and fund the projects that we have authorized. When we authorized these projects, we knew they were necessary to make this system move from a lawless system, a system that makes a mockery of law, to a lawful, decent system. It can be done. It actually can be done. It will not take an excessive amount of money, but it will take a significant amount of money. Then there will be a tipping point. When people find out that the way to come in and work in the United States is to have a biometric card to come lawfully, that will be successful. If they wait in line, they can work. When they find out they can't get a job and it is very hard to get across the border, maybe impossible almost to come illegally across the border, they will quit coming illegally. When they can't get a job and it is too hard to get across the border, they will decide then to wait in line and get their card and come and work in due course lawfully. Right now the system is a mockery of the law. It is not working. Let's fix that. When we vote tomorrow, we will send a signal to all those people back home that we are committed now to creating a lawful system of immigration. We are going to follow through and put up the money, a significant amount of money, but in the scheme of the size of the United States budget, it is a very small amount to make this system work. If you went back home and asked the American people, do you want to see us follow through, do you want to spend a few more billion dollars, $2 to $3 billion--that would be super; maybe we could do it for less than that--a couple billion dollars more than what we are spending today to make us move from a lawless system to a lawful system, they would say: Do it--in a heartbeat. That is where we are headed. I thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership and commitment to creating a lawful system of immigration for the United States.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the amendment we are debating is short and to the point. It contains only 17 words: Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. We are discussing this today because in 1989, in Texas v. Johnson, five members of the Supreme Court held that flag desecration-- specifically burning the American flag--was a form of first amendment- protected speech and Texas's law banning desecration of the flag was unconstitutional. Adding insult to injury, when Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, codified as title 18, section 700 of the United States Code, five members of the Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional, too, in United States v. Eichman, 1990. I believe the amendment we are considering today is entirely appropriate, and I am proud to cosponsor it. I wish to respond briefly to some of the criticism I have heard. Some would say: Well, you want to limit free speech when you want to stop burning the flag. Now, it is true that the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 majority, held that the act of burning a flag is free speech. Well, I don't agree. The Supreme Court for a long time has allowed reasonable ``time, place, and manner'' restrictions on speech. Moreover, the Supreme Court has long recognized that: [t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or `fighting' words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in his dissent in Texas v. Johnson: ``Far from being a case of `one picture being worth a thousand words,' flag burning is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others.'' It is not really ``speech'' at all, but if you consider it some sort of expression, it is certainly inarticulate. It is not of great value compared to the unifying symbol of the flag. The first amendment is about intelligent debate, argument, concern over policy issues--not whether you get to ``grunt'' or ``roar'' by burning a flag. I don't believe flag-burning was ever intended to be covered by the Constitution. So I believe the Supreme Court got it wrong in Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman. More importantly, the American people agree that the Supreme Court got it wrong. All 50 States have asked Congress to propose an amendment prohibiting flag desecration. In our democracy, the people have the last say on the Constitution. If the people think the Supreme Court is wrong, they have every right to amend the Constitution and tell it so. In my view, the flag of the United States is a unique object, and prohibiting its desecration will not in any fundamental way alter the free expression of ideas in this country. It seems to me if burning the flag is speech and if the Court is correct in saying it is speech and the people of the United States care deeply about protecting the flag, then they should adopt a restricted, narrow constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to stop flag desecration. Indeed, it would be healthy for this country to adopt a constitutional amendment that would allow the protection of the flag. More Medals of Honor have been awarded for preserving and fighting to preserve the flag than any other. We know the stories of battle when time after time the soldier carrying the flag is the target of the enemy. When he fell, another one would pick it up. When he fell, another one would pick it up. When he fell, another one would pick it up. That is the history. We pledge allegiance to the flag, not the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. We pledge allegiance to the flag because it is a unifying symbol for America, and having a special protection for it is quite logical to me. I do not believe we should never amend the Constitution. I do not think we amend the Constitution enough. But we want to have good amendments that are necessary, that are important, that enrich us, and that make us a stronger nation. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.'' Jefferson disagreed and proposed amending a constitution every 20 years or so so that it could ``be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can last so long.'' I don't know whether we need to amend the Constitution every 20 years, as Thomas Jefferson proposed, but I do think a constitutional amendment is a healthy way for us to remind ourselves that this Nation is a democratic republic. We are not a nation under the rule of the Supreme Court. The Constitution belongs to ``We the People of the United States,'' as its preamble states--not the judiciary of the United States. The Constitution was democratically adopted. It was meant to be democratically amended. It must remain democratically accountable--or lose its legitimacy as the foundation for a democratic republic. Let me finally address one more concern about the language of this amendment. It is short. It is concise. And it leaves it to Congress to address the details on what specific forms of conduct to prohibit. I trust Congress to do that. Congress did it in 1989 with the Flag Protection Act codified at title 18, section 700 of the United States Code. Concern has been expressed that the term ``desecration'' is too broad, too vague. I don't think so. I think it will clearly grant Congress the power it needs without any restriction on our great freedoms, particularly real speech. Mr. President, the flag of the United States is a unique, unifying symbol of our country and all it embodies. Brave men and women have fought and died for that flag and what it represents. Let us today act to protect the flag and adopt S.J. Res. 12.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to.

Mr. SESSIONS. I don't think the Senator will find that objectionable. It dealt with funding allocations, the offsets.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. Mr. President, I would just say that the projected launch from North Korea has caused us to focus intensely on the missile defense system. To celebrate what we have accomplished, we have nine missiles now in place in Alaska and two in California that are capable of knocking down such an attacking missile. This amendment would allow the capability for continued testing and, at the same time, be on 24/7 readiness to knock down an incoming missile. We think it is a good amendment, and it is offset. I urge my colleagues to support it. In effect, we would also be sending a message to North Korea and Iran and other rogue nations that we would be ready to defend this Nation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments, and in particular I want to express my appreciation to him for his steadfast leadership to ensure that this Nation has a ballistic missile defense. He was active in this long before 9/11. Ever since he has been in the Senate, this has been a long passion of his. I am delighted that he could be here today to share some thoughts about it. The system is not yet where we want it to be. But it has been proved. We have demonstrated hit-to-kill technology on two occasions. Now we have this entire system in place where we have ship-based radar, ground-based radar, our missile satellite system, and the computers are tied all together. I ask my colleague, Senator Kyl, a Member of the leadership in this Senate, if he remembers those debates in the late the 1990s--I guess it was when the Cochran-Lieberman bill passed to deploy this system. Maybe he could share some of his thoughts. He must feel some satisfaction to know that we now have a system in place that can give us at least some protection from a missile attack.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, recent concerns over a long-range ballistic missile launch or possible launch toward the United States by North Korea is an event that many experts have predicted and an event of serious import for the world. President Bush, in December of 2002, directed the Department of Defense to begin fielding a missile defense system to protect the United States. There were many concerns expressed at that time, but Congress followed his orders and has moved forward. Today, we have nine GBIs--ground-based interceptors--in Alaska in silos in the ground, and two in California that are able to be launched to attack and destroy incoming missiles. The system and those missiles that we have are not complete nor fully perfected, but the Commander of Strategic Command, General Cartwright, says it does have capability to defend our Nation. So I would first like to give my thanks to President Bush and to the Department of Defense for moving on this issue some time ago. I would also like to express my appreciation for a bipartisan effort that was begun not long after I came to the Senate by Senator Thad Cochran and Senator Joe Lieberman and the legislation they passed that called on this Government to deploy a ground-based missile defense system as soon as feasible. That was a major step forward. Following that, President Bush's actions in 2002 have moved us farther forward. These missiles that we have in the ground are able to be launched, they are able to attack and destroy incoming systems. So it is a remarkable thing that has been accomplished. Many doubted it. We have a lot more testing to do to deal with decoys and other matters to make sure the entire system works in an harmonious and effective way, from the ground-based radar, sea-based radar, to launch sites and our intercept capabilities and all of the computer systems that are necessary to make these missiles move at incredible speeds to collide in the air with such great force that they basically vaporize without any explosives being involved. So I think, Mr. President, it is an important event in our lifetime as a nation to note that this defense shield is now being employed. I also was pleased that our Democratic leader a few days ago noted that: ``We live in a dangerous time and the threats to our Nation are many.'' He said, ``They range from terrorist attacks like those on 9/11 to rogue nations with nuclear ambitions like North Korea and Iran.'' He went on to note the: ``Headlines about North Korea's new missile test.'' He discussed that and noted: ``It is important that we as a country address each of these threats.'' Mr. President, I suggest, based upon the events of the past few weeks, that the debate over the need for missile defense is no longer an academic one, but it is a debate that must now take place in the reality of current events. As we convene today, North Korea may perhaps still be preparing to test launch its Taepo-Dong II long-range ballistic missile. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, this missile has the potential to reach the shores of the United States, given its purported maximum range of 9,000 miles, far enough to hit the west coast of the U.S. mainland and all of the Pacific bases, according to an article in the Washington Post earlier this week. The leaders of South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, and the United States are warning, as Secretary of State Rice did Monday, that, as she said, ``The launch of a ballistic missile would be a provocative act that would deepen North Korea's isolation.'' She urged the North Koreans not to end their moratorium on long-range missile testing. Japan's warning was even stronger. Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi said that Japan ``would have to respond harshly'' if there were a missile attack. North Korea also fields some 200 medium-range No-Dong ballistic missiles that can reach Japan, and it deploys some 600 short-range ballistic missiles tha could reach throughout the Korean Peninsula, where we have some 30,000-plus troops. Likewise, on the other side of the world, Iran continues to enhance and test its SHAHAB-3 medium-range ballistic missile to extend its range and effectiveness. U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Iran could have an ICBM capable of reaching the United States before 2015 with continued foreign assistance. According to press reports, Israeli intelligence noted in April of 2006 that Iran received a shipment of North Korean-made BM-25 ballistic missiles which have a range of 2,500 kilometers. This activity was noted by the Prime Minister of Israel, who stated in a press conference with President Bush on May 23 that: There is a major threat posed by the Iranians in their attempts to have nonconventional capabilities and the ballistic missiles that can hit major centers all across Europe, not just the Middle East. These are real, not hypothetical, threats to the United States and its allies posed by these ballistic missiles. These missiles are threats that require a multifaceted response, not the least of which is by means of an effective ballistic missile defense system. I would imagine that over the past 5 weeks, the Department of Defense has been carefully watching the arrival and fueling of Taepo-Dong missiles at its launch pad on the eastern coast of North Korea. And I would suspect that our missile defense capabilities have been carefully integrated into our diplomatic and deterrent options for dealing with the situation--a situation that Secretary Rice said is an ``abrogation of obligations'' of North Korea, a path not of compromise or peace ``but rather instead to once again saber-rattle.'' So our Secretary of State has called the situation correctly. The Nation and Congress should heed her words. While I have no direct knowledge of any administration plans beyond what is being said in the press, I would hope that our U.S. Navy ships, which are capable of tracking and potentially intercepting ballistic missiles, have been deployed in the area. I saw this part of our fleet last year when I was in Pearl Harbor right after they conducted a series of successful intercept tests in the Pacific. I would also hope that the ground-based midcourse defense system, with missiles deployed in both Alaska and California to provide protections against long-range missile attack, has been activated in case it is needed. To be sure, these systems are still undergoing testing. They have been designed to be available in an emergency, and I would think an imminent Taepo-Dong launch falls into that category. At the very least, such a capability would add to the options available to our President. In a radio interview last week, Ambassador Vershbow, the top U.S. envoy in South Korea, commented on a potential North Korean launch saying, ``Since it would be clearly a provocative step vis-a-vis the region and international community, we should not simply let it pass without some response.'' I don't know what response the Ambassador had in mind, but certainly the ability to intercept that missile before it struck a populated area would be high on my list. My main point to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress, Mr. President, is that missile defenses must now be considered an integral and important tool of U.S. diplomacy and national security policy. This is all the more reason to support the administration's efforts to develop test and field effective missile defenses against missiles of all ranges. So I am pleased to report that the Defense authorization bill reported out of the Armed Services Committee fully funds the President's request for missile defense to include $56 million for site survey and design work associated with the European defense missile defense site. The European missile defense site, scheduled to begin construction in 2008 with full fielding expected in 2011, will allow 10 ground-based interceptors capable of protecting both the United States and much of Europe against a long-range missile fired by Iran. If you look at the globe carefully, you could indicate a long-range missile launched towards the United States from Iran would fly over northeastern Europe. That would be an excellent site to protect both the United States as well as protecting Europe. Congressional support for this activity is timely for our defense and to support Western diplomatic efforts aimed at halting Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon capability. Should diplomacy fail, a European missile defense site will be critical to defer Iranian ballistic missile threats aimed at attacking or intimidating the West. Our NATO allies recognize the threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles. In 2010, the alliance expects to have the capability to protect deployed troops against short- and medium-range missiles. The alliance is now reviewing the results of a 4-year feasibility study that examines options for protecting alliance territory--that is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance--and population against a full range of missile threats. Congressional commitment to a U.S. missile defense site in Europe at this time would be a significant factor in shaping NATO's decision to provide missile defense protection in Europe. Our commanders tell us that. They tell us it is very important. I realize some of our colleagues are concerned that funding a European site would be premature at this time. They suggest a slow fielding program until more extensive tests and evaluations have been completed. While I appreciate that concern, I do believe that current Missile Defense Agency approach of simultaneously fielding and testing a GMD system has proven to be wise, as we see the threats to our Nation increase in just recent days. The Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command has testified that the current missile system provides a thin line of defense that could be used. The independent Pentagon Director of Operational Tests and Evaluation stated on April 4 of this year: With the current program and the tests that have been scheduled, it's very likely that the GMD system will demonstrate that it is effective. The things that are needed to turn this thin line of defense into a robust defense system are more interceptors coupled with more flight testing, both of which are programmed by the missile defense agency and funded by our bill. While we have crafted a good funding stream in our committee--and I thank my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and others, for the bipartisan way he worked on this--we have worked hard at containing costs and keeping the costs under control. The possible launch of a long-range North Korean missile that could even reach the United States of America calls for us to evaluate this year's authorization to ensure that all necessary funding exists to move forward with deployment as well as testing, and to be sure that throughout that time we are ready. General Trey Obering, who directs the program, understands these challenges. My review of this authorization has convinced me that an additional appropriation of $45 million is critically important in allowing us to, in the words of our amendment: accelerate the ability to conduct concurrent tests and missile defense operations [and] to increase the pace of realistic flight tests. The funds that I am talking about and the projects that I am talking about are already in the 2008 budget. This would allow them to move forward to the 2007 budget. The amendment for which I am seeking support today will help ensure that we can continue testing and always remain ready; not have to have the readiness of our system degraded by testing that we need to be doing. This is necessary so that we can respond to any possible missile launch that may threaten our Nation. The key matter is that we test and we test regularly. But we cannot shut down the readiness of our system that could have the capability to knock down incoming missiles that could be aimed at us. Congressional support for this amendment, I think, will send a strong message to any nation, North Korea or Iran, that we will be constantly, 24/7, ready to respond and knock down and destroy any missile that would be directed at our Nation. It will also reassure our allies that we will be ready to protect them and help us create the kind of umbrella of defense that we have dreamed of for many years and accelerate our ability to make that a reality. I thank my colleagues. I thank those who indicated they would accept this amendment. I think it is a good step forward. It is great to see my colleague, Senator Allard, here. He used to chair the subcommittee that I have now, the Strategic Subcommittee. He has been a long-time champion of national missile defense. I say to Senator Levin, he is due to be recognized next, but I know Senator Allard is here also. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I further ask unanimous consent that Senators Allard, Kyl, Thune, and Vitter be added as cosponsors.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 4471 and ask that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.