Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his hard work on this amendment and his thoughtfulness. The Senator from Arizona just tells us that he and a few masters of the universe have met somewhere in some room to which I wasn't invited--I am not sure many other Senators were invited--and they have decided that this bill as written is the compromise and if any of it is changed, well, the compromise collapses and the bill fails. So, if I am hearing the Senator from Arizona correctly, he thinks we should all just give it up and quit offering amendments. But I don't think that is the way the Senate does business. I know the Senator from Arizona is a smart man and so are some of the others who have worked on this bill and worked out all of these compromises with Senator Kennedy. When they were working out these compromises did they consult the American people? I submit they haven't consulted the American people. The American people, when they find out what all is in this bill, they are going to be more upset with it than they are today. More is wrong with this piece of legislation than can be explained. I took an hour or so Friday, not condemning the philosophy of comprehensive immigration reform, not condemning steps to make the legal system work properly in a way that we can be proud of, I talked about why the legislation is insufficient and flawed and is unable to do what the sponsors say. Senator McCain doesn't back down from a challenge, and I don't intend to back down either. I am not going to just hide under my desk because he and Senator Kennedy have worked out a compromise. They think we shouldn't even make an argument against it, I suppose. Let me just show you what the bill says. In big print up here: ``Title IV--Nonimmigrant And Immigrant Visa Reform.'' All this rubric at the top in big letters: ``subtitle A, Temporary Guest Workers.'' It says, ``Temporary Guest Workers'' in big print--not even the normal print. It says ``temporary'' and ``guest'' I don't know how many times in this provision. The President told me--and he has said publicly a half dozen times-- he believes in a temporary worker bill. I suppose his lawyers, maybe they thought it must be temporary, right? Well, it is not so. Let's take the people who will be allowed to enter our country in the future under this bill. This bill say that they can come in as a guest worker, temporary, and they can come for 3 years and then they can extend and stay another 3 years. So that means it is temporary, right? Wrong. All you have to do is read the language of the bill, and as Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn have pointed out, and you discover that the first day the temporary workers are here they can apply for a green card through their employer. And what is a green card? It makes them a legal, permanent resident. Permanent resident, not a temporary guest workers. Five years after that green card is issued, they are entitled to apply for citizenship, every single one of them that enter under this so-called temporary provision. That is the truth, but it is not the message we are being told. Earlier today I thought about offering an amendment or a resolution to bar anyone in the Senate from using the phrase ``temporary guest worker'' when they talk about this bill because it is so bogus. It is an utter and total misrepresentation. As I just explained, and as the Senators have just explained, everyone coming in under this provision for the indefinite future get to become permanent workers. I challenge anybody to dispute that. They have the ability to become a legal permanent resident, and after that, they get to go and become a citizen. So it is just not a temporary worker program, it is permanent immigration. That is the deal. Now, President Bush, as much as he believes in immigration and has been supportive of it, he has made clear that this is not what he wants. He supports the principles behind the Kyl-Cornyn amendment. We need to listen to him. This is a big amendment. And I do not think the Members of this body should feel in any way that they are not able to reject this bill and improve it by legislation because some group says they have reached a compromise and nobody can fix it, when they have made mistakes, and there are a lot of mistakes. This is just one of them. But I don't believe this Senate has ever seen--since I have been here, a piece of legislation of such monumental consequence have a misrepresentation as great as the allegation that the bill deals with temporary guest workers when it absolutely creates an automatic path to citizenship. So why don't we do it right? Why don't we do what Senator Kyl and what Senator Cornyn say and fix it, make it actually do what we the bill claims it does, make it temporary? A green card is valuable. It entitles people to great benefits of the United States alone, even short of citizenship. So we have benefits that accrue like the earned income tax credit, like the food stamps and benefits of that kind as you come to be on the path of legal permanent residence. A legal permanent resident can bring their family into the country, their wife, and their children. When they become a citizen, which they will have a right to do in 5 years, they will then be able to bring in their parents who would probably soon, as a matter of demographics, be eligible and in need of substantial health care as they age, which the American taxpayers would provide them in one form or another. They can bring in their brothers and sisters. They all are eligible to come under the chain migration provisions of existing law. This is a huge provision of the bill, is all I am saying. It is a major increase in the amount of people who will come into the country lawfully. It is a program that allows permanence and citizenship for every single person who comes in under this provision. It is not a temporary guest worker program. It is contrary to the whole message the American people have been told repeatedly that they are somehow dealing with, which is a guest worker program, when it is a permanent citizenship track. It is against what the President of the United States believes in. In fact, he has now endorsed the Kyl-Cornyn amendment because he has been saying all along he thought we ought to have temporary workers in not such a large number that would be coming in permanently under this provision. There will be other provisions by which people can come and get on the citizenship track. But the temporary guest worker provisions of the bill should be simply that. I think that will meet the needs of workers; I think it will meet the needs of businesses. I think it will be the right way to handle this matter. I think it is what the American people have in their minds and think we are talking about. Unfortunately, if they heard that message and think that is what we are doing, it is not. Unless the Kyl-Cornyn amendment passes, we will not have a temporary guest worker provision in the bill. The choice is clear. If Senators actually believe what they have been saying about what they are trying to pass, that they want a temporary guest worker program, then they should support Kyl-Cornyn. If not, they ought to come out of the shadows and stand before the American people and say that the temporary guest worker words printed right here in this bill--well, they don't mean what they say. They ought to tell us plainly and simply that they know that this is a provision that takes people straight to permanent resident status and straight to citizenship, so when we vote, Americans will know where we stand. I thank the Senators from Texas and Arizona for offering the amendment and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, regarding the Ensign amendment, I will say a few things. No. 1, Social Security is a benefit this country provides to American citizens and people lawfully in this country. That is what it is about, the benefit. For the most part, people get more out of it than they put into it. That is one reason it is going bankrupt. The people covered by Senator Ensign's amendment have done a number of things that are illegal. They have come into the country illegally or they would not be here, or they would be legal and would be not covered by his amendment. They have worked in the country without authorization, and you are not allowed to work in this country if you are not here legally. So they have committed a second illegal act. In the course of working in this country, they may have submitted forged, false, stolen, or bogus Social Security numbers--a separate crime, if you examine the U.S. Code. Maybe they have even broken other laws. As Senator Ensign pointed out, so many of these numbers are other people's numbers, seizing their identity and causing all kinds of confusion and disruption in their lives. Under the language of the bill, not only do they get protection from prosecution for violation of these laws, they would be given the benefits of Social Security. Although he clearly makes--properly so--an exemption for those who came into the country legally under a visa, got a legal Social Security number but overstayed, at least they had a legitimate Social Security number. Mr. President, I had an opportunity, for strange reasons, in my career as a prosecutor and as a private lawyer to deal with contracts based on illegality. I had a situation in which a client--a young man-- was sued by a home builder on the note that he signed to the home builder. The reason he signed that note was the home builder loaned him the downpayment to buy a house. The mortgage and the Federal act required that the deposit or downpayment be your own money or you could not fund it by a mortgage. The builder was in on the deal. He was there at the closing of the loan. He got the big check, so when it came to suing on that note, I defended the client and said the court had no jurisdiction over the case. There is a principle of law--in our English American tradition--founded on fraud, stating that a contract founded on illegality cannot be enforced in court. So that person who comes into our country illegally and submits a false Social Security number has no legal right to expect to ever collect on that amount. Also, in addition to legally not having a right to that, they have no moral right to that. To have a moral right to come to court, you ought to have clean hands. You should be a person that is legitimately here and then you can make a legitimate claim. I see no reason these persons who come here in order to work and, as a cost of doing business, accept and sign up for Social Security without any expectation whatsoever that they would ever draw those Social Security benefits, should now be awarded by this legislation that would allow them to get it. They would say they paid into it, so they are entitled to it. Not so, in my opinion. I see how you can make this remark, but I think we are too far down the road of an entitlement mentality. This whole bill contemplates people having an entitlement to come to America, to bring in their parents and children, and they are entitled to have them ultimately be on Medicare and go to hospitals and be treated, even though they are not properly here. We need to clarify our thinking. We are a great nation, a nation of laws. Let's think this through. That is all I am saying. I submit to my colleagues that the process by which an immigrant who comes here illegally, works illegally, and illegally submits a false, bogus, fraudulent Social Security number as a price to get the job and be paid, that is no entitlement to claim that money--not legally because it is founded on a false claim and a false premise, and not morally because they knew they weren't entitled to it when they came. They knew they were here illegally and they never expected to receive it. I think the Senator from Nevada has proposed an amendment that is important. It asks us to think, for a change, in this body about what it is going to do, and what it will do to our Nation's bottom line and with regard to the message we send regarding whether we are serious that people should follow the law. We need to quit rewarding unlawful conduct. Unlawful conduct should have penalties and should result in detriments, not benefits. That is what we are saying. If we don't get that straight in this debate, whatever new laws we pass about immigration, whatever new policies we set, how much of a joke will they be? Will they be the same joke, the same mockery of law that we have had for 20 years since the last amnesty we issued? That is what the American people are asking us to do. Let's create a system that actually works. Sometimes you have to make decisions. Somebody who came here illegally and worked illegally and submitted an illegal Social Security number is not entitled to draw on the Treasury of the United States. I thank the chairman and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say with regard to what has just taken place, these are complex areas, and we need to be careful about protecting our free speech rights. Nobody denies that. But you have to be careful, too. I was thinking that if a spy comes into our country and gets secure information and gives it to our enemy, we put him in jail, and they can be convicted, I guess, of treason. If a reporter gets information and publishes it to our enemies and to the whole world, they get the Pulitzer prize. I think we have to be careful about how we word this. I am sure we will come up with a pretty good solution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say with regard to what has just taken place, these are complex areas, and we need to be careful about protecting our free speech rights. Nobody denies that. But you have to be careful, too. I was thinking that if a spy comes into our country and gets secure information and gives it to our enemy, we put him in jail, and they can be convicted, I guess, of treason. If a reporter gets information and publishes it to our enemies and to the whole world, they get the Pulitzer prize. I think we have to be careful about how we word this. I am sure we will come up with a pretty good solution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled, Progress or More Problems: Assessing the Federal Government's Security Clearance Process.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2006, at 4 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the roles and missions of the National Guard in support of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2006, at 4;30 p.m., in close session to receive a briefing from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a hearing on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to consider the following pending nominations: Dale Klein to be a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Molly O'Neill to be an Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Physician-Owned Specialty Hospitals: Profits before Patients?''

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iran's Political/Nuclear Ambitions and U.S. Policy Options.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Section 5 Pre-Clearance'' on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness List Panel I: Fred Grey, Senior Partners, Gray, Langford, Sapp, McGowan, Gray and Nathanson, Montgomery, Alabama; Drew S. Days III, Alfred M. Rankin, Professor of Law, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut; Abigail M. Thernstrom, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, New York, New York; Armand Derfner, Attorney, Derfner, Altman and Wilborn, Charleston, South Carolina; Nate Persily, Professor Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Robert J. Portman to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Suicide Prevention Programs and their Application in Indian Country.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to claim the floor afterward.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire wanted to speak on a different subject, and I believe he has cleared that, and it would not count against the time on this amendment. I would be pleased, if there is no objection, to allow him to speak on that subject now.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, my colleagues need to know that we still, after the positive step we took last night, are looking at increasing immigration into our country by a significant amount. Those totals will range, depending on how it plays out, from a minimum of 63 million to 93 million. That is 3 to 5 times the current number we now allow, and would expect to allow, over 20 years, which is 19 million people allowed to come into our country legally. This would raise that number to between 63 million and 93 million. It is better than where we were yesterday, but I still submit that it is a number that has not been carefully thought out. We have not analyzed how to do this with a number that is still too great, in my opinion. We hear over and over that this is a guest worker proposal, it is a guest worker plan. There is nothing ``guest'' about it. Every person who comes in under this legislation, as it is now written, as it is now on the floor of the Senate, will be able to enter for a significant period of time. They will be able to apply for a green card shortly thereafter. That means you are a legal, permanent resident. After 5 years, you can apply for citizenship. So this is not temporary. As President Bush mentioned yesterday several times--a temporary worker program--it is not temporary. It is a permanent move for people to enter our country to become citizens, and that is a matter far more significant than some have suggested to us. I think it is important for us to all know that. Please, we need to know that. Anybody who says ``temporary worker'' in discussions with the media or on the floor of the Senate ought to have their hand spanked a little bit. Next, the legislation continues and accelerates an emphasis on low- skilled workers. All of the economists that we have heard testify in the Senate Judiciary Committee--and we have not had a lot--agreed that low-skilled workers tend to be a net drain on the economy and utilize more in Government benefits, welfare, and health care than high-skilled workers. Any program that we pass ought to emphasize high-skilled workers. This bill doesn't do that. This bill does nothing about the chain migration in which people who work their way to citizenship can bring in their parents, their brothers and sisters, adult children, regardless of the needs of the United States for workers, regardless of what skills they may have and whether we need them in the United States. Under this bill, citizenship is an automatic right. That ought to be confronted. The economists and public policy experts we have heard from raise that point and say other countries are not that way. So this is the Senate. We are supposed to be the thoughtful branch. This is one of the most important issues this Senate has faced in decades. The people of the United States really care about this. They are concerned about it. They want us to do the right thing. That will include creating a legal system that is enforceable and will increase the number of legal immigrants into our country. But how will we do it? Will we do it in a principled way that is helpful to our Nation's future or will we continue to willy-nilly provide, in effect, entitlements to people from all over the world to come here regardless of the needs of the United States? Some say: We just need to pass something. Don't be nitpicky, Sessions, just pass something. We will get it to conference and somehow it will be fixed there. I have my doubts about that, No. 1. No. 2, this is the Senate. We will be casting votes on this legislation, and we ought not vote for anything that we know is not good public policy. A critical part of the immigration reform that we need to effect for our country is to make sure that our legal system, which is so utterly broken on this issue, is repaired. It needs to work. Can anyone dispute that? Today, we understand that 1 million people come into the country legally each year. The estimates are that 500,000 to 800,000 will be coming in illegally each year--almost as many legal immigrants. I see Senator Vitter in the Chair, who is such a knowledgeable and articulate spokesman on this issue. I happened to see the mayor's debate in New Orleans last night, and Hard Ball asked them what about illegal immigrants? They had to have them to do the work in New Orleans. There was a discussion about it. What is the answer to that? Of course, you don't need illegal immigrants to do the work. Of course, if we craft a good immigration bill, when you have a crisis like Hurricane Katrina, we would be able to have temporary workers come in in whatever numbers are necessary to do that work. That is what a good bill would do. That is a crisis that calls for an unusual amount of workers. Why don't we draft something that would actually work in that circumstance? Not anybody, no one, should come in and justify illegality. If the law is not adequate, let's fix it. The truth is, I think it is adequate today. A critical part of moving us to an effective, enforceable, honorable, decent, legal immigration system is to send the message to the world that our border is not open, our border is closed. There are a number of ways to do that. I think that is important because we need to reach a tipping point where the people who want to come to our country know without doubt that coming here illegally is not going to be successful, and their best way to come here is to file the proper application and wait in line. Isn't that the right policy? So how do we go from this lawless system, a system that makes a mockery of the laws of this great Nation, the United States of America, to a system that works? We send some signals and we do some things appropriately. President Bush did one of them the night before last when he said we were going to use the National Guard. That is a signal to the world that business as usual has ended, that we are going to create a legal system that works. We want him to follow through on that and with all of the other requirements that go with it. But it is a good step and a good signal, and it will help us improve that system. Another way is to have more Border Patrol agents. We need that. We have authorized some more in this bill but not enough. It is a matter of critical importance, and we will need to fund that--the Senate and House--and not just to authorize it. Isn't that an essential part of it if we are going to change from a lawless system to a lawful system? Another thing that we absolutely need, and every expert knows, is to increase the retention space. We have to end the catch and release. When you catch someone who comes into this country through Mexico or Canada from a country that is other than Mexico or Canada, where they are not contiguous to the United States, how do you get them home? How do you return them? You have to put them on a boat or train or plane, and that is not always easy to do. So do you know what has been happening, friends and neighbors? They catch them around the border, and they are released on bail and asked to come back at a certain time so they can be taken out of the country. How many do you think show up to be deported? They violated the law to come here, so we release them on bail and ask them to show up so they can be deported. How laughable is that? One reporter did an analysis in one area of this system, and 95 percent did not show up. Surprise, surprise. Why do we release them? Why do we not hold them until they can be deported? Because we don't have sufficient bed space. Part of reaching a tipping point in creating a legal system is to make sure we don't eviscerate the work of our law enforcement agents by having them turn loose the people they just went out in the desert to catch. How simple is that? But it is critical, and it is not there yet. So people who say they want a stronger border have to support, in my view, more detention spaces. This amendment also deals with a critical component of creating a legal system that works, and that is fencing. It sends a signal that open border days are over, and it will greatly enhance enforcement. It will pay for itself many times over the years. It is a reasonable proposal. It does not overreach. It builds on the provisions that are in the bill. Senator Kyl in committee had a number of provisions dealing with Arizona and fencing along that border. It builds on those provisions and keeps that language in the bill but provides and directs that we have 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of barriers sufficient to keep vehicles from crossing the border. We are at a point where we need to take this step if we are serious. The bill before us today, S. 2611, is the fundamental base bill from which we are working. Its language calls for repair and construction of additional fencing in very limited areas along the southern border, mostly in Arizona, as I just mentioned. But for the most part, this provision simply calls for the repair of fences that already exist in the Tucson and Yuma sections of Arizona. Other than this limited amount of fencing, provisions contained in title I of this bill call only for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive plan for the systematic surveillance of the border, and section 129 calls for only a study to assess the necessity, feasibility, and economic impact of constructing physical barriers along the border. Just a study. This amendment attempts to go forward and create a real solution to the problem. It directs that the Secretary of Homeland Security construct at least 370 miles of triple-layered fencing, including the fencing already built in San Diego, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations along the southwest border. These are not extreme numbers in any way. In fact, they are the numbers given to a number of Senators in a briefing a few weeks ago by Secretary Chertoff himself, President Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security. He said this is what he believes at this point in time he needs. It directs that this be done. It sends a signal to our appropriators that it should be funded, and it authorizes the President and the executive branch to go further than this and build such other fences as they may find appropriate. We will have objections for reasons I am not sure why, but I suspect we will have objections. One of the points I have been making for some time when it comes to fixing our immigration system is that we have quite a number of Members of the House and Senate and members in the media who are all in favor of reforms and improvements as long as they don't really work. If it really makes a difference and will actually tilt the system from one that is illegal and will change the status quo and move us to a legal system, somehow, someway, there will be objections to it. I submit that we are going to have objections to this modest proposal to build 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of barriers according to the request of the Secretary of Homeland Security because it is going to work. That is why. We will have a lot of other reasons, such as it might send a bad signal. But good fences make good neighbors. Fences don't make bad neighbors. Go to the San Diego border and talk with the people. There was lawlessness, drug dealing, gangs, and economic depression on both sides of the border. When they built the fence and brought that border under control, the economy on both sides of the fence blossomed, crime has fallen, and it is an entirely different place and a much better place. That is just the way it is. We have to do this, and it is time to move forward. A state-of-the-art border security system should be robust enough that it would not be easily compromised by cutting, climbing, tunneling, or ramming through with a vehicle, when combined with high- tech detection devices, motion sensors, body sensors, and seismic or subterranean sensors. A good barrier should make intrusion time consuming enough that a border unit could respond to the attempted intrusion before they are successful. That is what a fence does. To be worth our efforts, it does not need to be 100 percent impenetrable; it simply needs to improve significantly the status quo, and I am confident this amendment will do that. Mr. President, it is great to see my colleague, Senator Ben Nelson, in the Chamber. He is dealing with a number of important issues today, but he has understood the importance of security at the border from the beginning. He has articulated clearly and effectively his vision for that and has recognized that unless we demonstrate to the world and to our own people that we have border security done first, then nothing else is going to be meaningful, and we will be right back where we were in the beginning. I know Senator Nelson has to leave, and I am pleased to yield to him such time as we have remaining to speak on this amendment. I have been pleased to work with him on this issue.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleagues, Senator Santorum, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Vitter, and Senator Bunning be made original cosponsors of the amendment.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3979.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield if I can reclaim the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, perhaps as we go forward, we can finish up in less time than that. Maybe our colleagues on the other side will yield back some time. I think this is an amendment that we need to talk about in some significant way. This amendment deals with barriers at the border. I think this is something for which there is a growing appreciation, and it is not in the bill today. Before I go into that, let me say to my colleagues and those who may be listening that we need to spend yet more time with this legislation. It is a 614-page bill. Few of our Senators have had the opportunity to study it or to understand in any significant degree the breadth of it. There are things in it that absolutely do not represent good policy and need to be reconsidered. I hope our colleagues will do that. The vote last night on the Bingaman amendment was a very important one. It took the maximum number of people who could enter our country under the so-called guest worker provisions from around 130 million over 20 years, at a maximum, down far below that to probably 9 million. That is in only one provision of the bill. However, I remind my colleagues that while that was one of the most egregious provisions in this entire legislation, this legislation still calls for massive increases of legal immigration into our country, even with that change we effected last night. My staff worked hard on this, and I don't think anybody has even considered the numbers until the last week or the last few days. That analysis concludes that as the bill is now written----

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire because it is very important that we have, as the chairman of our Budget Committee, someone who can add and someone who has a memory. We forget how things happen around here, and Senator Gregg has a way of reminding us of how we get in these fixes. It is very valuable to us. I would respond to my colleague from Massachusetts that $4 billion to $5 billion is an estimate for the fence across the entire 1,980 miles of border. This amendment calls for 370 miles, some of which has already been built. It is called for by the Secretary of Homeland Security. It does, indeed, focus mostly on urban areas, and it gives him great flexibility in deciding where to put it. Does it cost some money? Yes. But I want to tell every Member of our Senate community that the American people expect this. If it takes a sequester across the board and takes a half of 1 percent of every budget to get this thing done and fix immigration, that is what they want us to do. I am delighted that Senator Vitter of Louisiana is here and also wants to speak on this issue. He is an original cosponsor. I would also note, and add for the Record, that Senator Graham, our Presiding Officer, and Senator Inhofe wish to be original cosponsors, as does Senator Kyl from Arizona. I ask that be part of the Record.