Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there might be a contest between which of these amendments is most poorly drafted. The Reid amendment that kicked off this event, that surprised me when it came up in this last minute, says that ``No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed classified information . . . '' And goodness, that has already been disclosed. It is something that has already happened. Apparently, it is not a violation of the law. Now we are going to reach back and make it a violation of law. That is ex post facto law. It would come back from the Supreme Court, if anybody were ever charged and convicted under it, like a rubber ball off the wall.

Mr. SESSIONS. No, 2 minutes is all I have. It also says ``no Federal employee,'' and the Senator says that includes Senators. He can say it includes turnips, but it doesn't include Senators. It says Federal employees, and that does not cover Senators. It also says a covert agent, and there is no intent or knowledge required. So a person could mention a name not knowing they were a covert agent and be subject to this punishment. Frankly, I don't think the other amendment is much better. Both should be voted down.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is another example of the poor drafting of this statute, to hold somebody accountable for a perfectly innocent mistake--a strict liability statute that requires only the revealing of information that somebody happened to be a covert agent when the person did not even know it.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Minnesota is an experienced prosecutor and understands these things. It also, as I read it, says, if you reveal the identity of a covert agent without an intent--you might not even know that person was a covert agent, isn't that right?--you would be in violation of the statute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that we would have such an amendment offered at this time in our American process of passing a Homeland Security bill. Karl Rove has served this country exceedingly well. One reason people do not want to involve themselves in public service is they go out and try to do something and somebody accuses them of a crime. He had no intent whatsoever to do anything wrong, to violate any law or out any undercover agent. And if the reports in the paper are so, and I assume they are, those are the facts. Victoria Toensing, the former Assistant Attorney General of the United States, was quoted this morning on television. I happened to catch it. She is a skilled lawyer and articulate person. Asked: Was this statement that allegedly had been made that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, did that violate the law--a law she wrote; she was involved in writing the bill to deal with the deliberate outing of undercover operatives of the United States--she answered in one word, ``No.'' So what we have on the floor of this Senate is an attempt to pass an ex post facto law to remove the security clearance of one of America's finest public servants. Look here. ``No Federal employee who discloses or has disclosed.'' We are going to change the law now? After somebody has done something that was not a violation of the law? What kind of principle of justice is that? This is a political charade. It is a game to embarrass the President of the United States, who is attempting to conduct a war on behalf of the American people, a war this Congress has voted to support, overwhelmingly, by three-fourths vote. And I do not appreciate it. I think it is beneath this Senate's dignity. It is contrary to the quality of debate and effort to amend the laws we ought to have in this country. I am shocked by it. I prosecuted for over 15 years in Federal court. You don't pass a law to go back and grab somebody who did something that was not a violation of the law in order to embarrass the President of the United States over nothing. He intended no harm here. He had no intention to out an undercover agent of the CIA--if these allegations are true, and I haven't talked to him about it. I say this: Mr. Rove has served in the center of this Government since the President took office. He has conducted himself, I believe, with high standards. Yes, the colleagues on the other side probably have not been happy with the success he has had in helping President Bush in his campaign and other efforts. But he has not been accused of corruption or deceit or dishonesty, or certainly not anybody would suggest he would ever do anything to intentionally harm an agent of the United States who is out serving our country. I say, this language is unacceptable. We ought to vote it down flatly. It is not proper and we ought not to be doing that at this time. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 173 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3071, which was received from the House.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1395 introduced earlier today.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the Homeland Security bill. Under a previous order, at 10 a.m., the Senate will proceed to a series of votes on five pending amendments to the bill. Following those votes, we will continue working through the remaining amendments. There are currently a dozen pending amendments, and more are expected to be offered tomorrow. We will complete action on the bill this week. Therefore, Senators should expect a very busy day with votes throughout.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will make some remarks on an amendment I have offered--S.A. 1140--along with Senators Hatch and Grassley that is dealing with the appropriation of $5 million, with that amount equally divided between two purposes. One, facilitating the Department of Homeland Security entering into memorandums of understanding with States and localities under section 287(G) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. That is, the ability to enter into memorandums or agreements with States and localities in order that they may participate in a positive way in helping enforce the immigration laws of the United States. And, two, reimbursing States and localities for the costs they incur in training their law enforcement officers under these memorandums of understanding. Reimbursement would be permitted for expenses such as those related to travel and transportation to the training location, subsistence payments or per diem allowance and costs for securing temporary replacements for law enforcement personnel who are participating in the Federal training. I am pleased Senators Hatch and Grassley have cosponsored the amendment. I hope each of my colleagues will carefully consider it and vote for its passage. The amendment is needed to confront two issues currently prohibiting the nationwide advancement of agreements under INA section 287(G). This is a provision in the Immigration Code that provides for cooperative agreements to be entered into--it is a section that is not being adequately utilized. First, there is a lack of Department of Homeland Security personnel tasked with negotiating and overseeing the entry into 287(G) training agreements with the States. There is also a shortage of DHS resources and trainers to conduct State and local training courses in a timely manner, including annual refresher courses for States such as Alabama that have already entered into 287(G) MOU. Second, States that enter into MOUs must currently absorb the cost related to pulling their law enforcement officers off duty and sending them to an intensive 5- to 6-week training course. They are extensively trained under these agreements. If a State does not have the money to pay for these extended leaves of absence or to hire replacements for the law enforcement officers wanting to receive immigration enforcement training, then costs related to the training under the MOU can prohibit States from being able to participate. If costs are prohibitive, many States will simply choose to go forward in the realm of immigration law enforcement either without training, or generally not participate in any meaningful way. Immigration training for State and local officers is important to many of my colleagues. I hope they will recognize that this amendment is the way to show their support for such training. In the realm of immigration law enforcement, the State of Alabama struggled for years to achieve effective cooperation between Federal enforcement entities and our State and local law enforcement officers. All too often I heard the same story from our Alabama sheriffs and police chiefs: We call Immigration and Naturalization Service when we arrest an illegal alien, and they say they do not have the time to pick them up. They tell us to let them go. They have told me, on occasion, that INS told local officers unless they had 15 or 18 individuals at one time, don't bother to call them. As a result, Alabama requested that additional Federal immigration agents be assigned to the State, Alabama advocated that extra immigration detention bedspace be established in the state, and Alabama requested the Immigration and Naturalization Service be responsive to requests that illegal aliens be taken into Federal custody. Though some progress was made, most of the requests were only partially met, at best. To address the problems, I arranged for an Immigration and Customs enforcement officer to travel to the State of Alabama for 2 weeks to train all of our State troopers on cooperation with the Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. State troopers reviewed fake documents, were taught about different categories of aliens, legal and illegal, and were shown how to use a computer database at the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), a database that had been used only three times in the State of Alabama the year before the training because the officers simply did not know how to use it. In September of 2003, Alabama followed in the footsteps of the State of Florida and became the second State in the Nation to enter into an INA 287(G) agreement with the Federal Government. This law has been on the books for over a decade, but was not used until after 9-11. It is a tragedy we fail to take now advantage of the opportunity this law provides. That agreement allowed for a select group of 21 Alabama State troopers to receive extensive immigration enforcement training and gave them the authority to perform immigration and enforcement functions which resulted in their active communication with the Federal immigration agents stationed in the State--these agreements ought to be done routinely in every State in America. After the MOU was negotiated and signed, the Department of Homeland Security sent personnel to Alabama to train the first class for a 5- week period. I thought 2 weeks was more than sufficient to my way of thinking. A deputy sheriff or city police officer can arrest a Senator for committing crimes in his community, but I suppose we have to have a 5-week training before they can arrest somebody who is not a citizen for violation of our immigration laws. They were trained in how to identify fraudulent immigration documents, and in how to work together with federal agents to enforce immigration laws. I strongly believe that the MOU has been the most important step in Alabama in the realm of immigration enforcement. As a result of the MOU, Alabama State troopers have performed close to 200 criminal and illegal alien apprehensions, largely of aliens involved with document fraud, drug trafficking, and human smuggling, and have seized close to $750,000 in drug, document and human trafficking related cash. Because of the MOU, new Federal immigration agents have been assigned to the State of Alabama, dramatically increasing the Federal immigration enforcement presence in the State. This February, DHS announced the Alabama MOU would not only be continued but would be expanded, a second class of 25 State troopers is scheduled to be trained by DHS this October. The MOU Alabama entered into has added to the knowledge and resources available to Alabama's Department of Public Safety and has changed the level of cooperation we receive from the Federal immigration enforcement entities on a daily basis. I am certain the State of Alabama will seek to continue the agreement for many years to come. I am hopeful other States will follow the lead of Alabama so that they, too, can benefit from the cooperative partnerships fostered by 287(G) MOUs. Why is this important? It is important for one reason. We have just over 2,000 federal agents nationwide who are not on the borders of our country and charged with the responsibility of apprehending and enforcing immigration laws throughout the heartland of America. There is no way those 2,000 officers can ever adequately patrol our streets for immigration violators and do a good job of handling these problems. But we have 750,000 State and local law enforcement officers who are on our streets and in our communities every single day, apprehending people for DUIs, apprehending people during fights, apprehending people for other activities that bring them to the notice of law enforcement. In the course of that, they often discover these people are here illegally. They, as a result, should be subject to the enforcement of immigration laws by the State and local officers that discover them. If we have any respect for law in this country at all that is what should happen, but that is not occurring. So how do we get to that point? They tell us they have to have all this training to be qualified. OK, let's give them training. I do not know that we need a full 5 weeks for every officer out there, but I think it is quite helpful that some of these officers have a good and sincere training to be more effective. If we train them and clarify their authority, we will have thousands of new officers patrolling our streets all over America at no cost to the Federal Government, watching out on our streets and in our communities for those who violate our laws. That is what we ought to be doing if we are serious at all about enforcing the laws of this country. I think the American people are. I think those of us in Congress need to get serious about it. I think MOUs under 287(G) of the INA are a good place to start and need to be expanded. Under these MOUs, officers receive good training. The program creates good cooperation between local law enforcement and Federal agents. They learn how each others' systems work, and they develop memoranda as to what will happen if somebody is apprehended, whom they should call, how they should be detained, how long they should be detained, where they should be taken, and who is going to be compensated for that effort. In conclusion, I think this amendment will make it financially attractive for more States to participate in these agreements. After all, they are helping enforce Federal immigration law. Why shouldn't we assist them in paying for the training we want them to receive? State and local police forces can make a difference in these efforts. I am excited we will perhaps be moving forward with this amendment. It will make a big difference. I understand the managers are not here tonight and will not call up the amendment or attempt to do so, but I have talked with the manager and, hopefully, we can make some progress on that. Mr. President, I will share briefly that also tomorrow I expect to call up the S. 629, the mass transportation bill I have offered and believe strongly in. We had a hearing on it in the Judiciary Committee. I will seek unanimous consent to call up and to adopt S. 629. I understand there may be an objection. There is not an objection on the Republican side. There may be an objection on the Democratic side, although it did come out of our Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. I am hopeful we can move this important bill forward. We have seen now in Spain and in London that there are people who desire to attack our mass transit transportation systems. What the Department of Justice tells us is that we have gaps and loopholes in our current laws that deal with those that would attack our mass transit systems, and that those laws need to be tightened up. If we do so, it will help the investigators and prosecutors be more effective in prosecuting those who may seek to do us harm. I think it is time to move on that legislation. After all, we have been working on it for over a year. I think everybody has had good opportunity to review it. I think it is in every way professional and fair and ought to be passed. I look forward to moving it. If there is some objection from Members, and they would like to share that with me, perhaps we can solve those difficulties and reach an accord and move this important piece of legislation forward. We absolutely do not need to have an attack on our mass transportation system in America and not have the tools for our prosecutors and investigators to prosecute it adequately. That bill, as I noted, the mass transportation bill, is S. 629. It is not an amendment to the appropriations bill on the floor tomorrow, but a piece of legislation that I expect to be offering. Finally, Mr. President, I will also be offering tomorrow and would be calling up an amendment to this appropriations bill that deals with making sure our Federal officials enter into the National Crime Information Center the names and identifying factors of people who have absconded after having been arrested for illegal immigration. That amendment is S.A. 1139. We have hundreds of thousands of absconders, people who have been apprehended in our country for being here illegally. Amazingly, this is what happens: They are apprehended, they are given a date for a deportation hearing, and they are released on bail prior to that hearing. Or sometimes they have the hearing and are to be deported on a given date, and they are released on bail at that time, with the order to show up for deportation. For those who have been ordered deported and released on bail, to show up for deportation, we now have learned that over 87 percent of them do not show up to be deported and in some counties over 90 percent never show up for their initial hearings, these percentages really make a mockery of the law. It has to be discouraging to the agents who have gone out and worked these cases, just to see them released on bail, and nobody even enters their names in the National Crime Information Center database. What is the National Crime Information Center database? This is the database that every police officer in America accesses when they apprehend someone to see if the person is wanted anywhere in the country. If you had a DUI in Washington State, and you did not show up for your trial, and they catch you in Mobile, AL, and you are entered in the NCIC because of your DUI in Washington State, the officers in Mobile will hold you, and send you back to Washington State for your trial. But if you jump bail and do not show up for your immigration hearing or for your deportation proceeding, you are not treated the same way, your information is not currently being entered into the NCIC. So I have been raising this and talking about it for quite some time now, and I have raised it with top officials in the Department of Homeland Security, and they say they are working on it and trying to enter the names faster. I know they as of December of last year they only had about 15,000 names entered into the Immigration Violators File of the NCIC which is really pathetically small. We ought to have them all of the absconder immigration violator files entered in there. This amendment would provide $1 million to make sure those names are entered into the system. Tomorrow we will proceed, hopefully, to call that amendment up and I will seek to have it made a part of the appropriations bill that is moving forward. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for your time tonight.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 14. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill; provided that the time until 10 a.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that at 10 a.m., the Senate proceed to the series of stacked votes, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bunning be added as a cosponsor to S. 629, the Railroad Carriers and Mass Transportation Act of 2005.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe we have, on behalf of the majority leader, Senator Frist, some closing remarks and matters.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague Senator Allard on his ability to move that legislation so rapidly. It makes you wonder maybe if we could do more things around here that way. My colleague from North Dakota raises a concern about trade deficits. This is something I have worried about, too. A lot of people seem less concerned than we, but it does bother me. There is some good news out there. We are getting jobs outsourced to our country. Alabama just had a number of good news items. Our Mercedes, Daimler-Chrysler plant has doubled its employees to 4,000. Honda just doubled its plant in Alabama to 4,000. Hyundai, a South Korean company, just rolled out its first new automobile in a plant that will have 4,000 employees and 7,000 employed by suppliers who provide parts and components. Toyota has some 600 in the state as well. Austal, an Australian company, is building ships in Alabama. I don't know exactly how trade works. I am not able to comprehend it all. Sometimes it works good for you, and sometimes it doesn't. I am not religious about free trade. I think there are some people who have it in their heads that if we have free trade, there will be peace in the world and cancer will be cured and there will be no problems left. That is not exactly so. But trade is good. The more we trade, the better we get along, the more prosperity that appears to exist. In my home State, unemployment continues to fall and is now below 4.5 percent. It has been falling regularly. I am not able to explain exactly why, because we are losing textile jobs. But high-paid automotive jobs are coming in large numbers. That is playing a good part in our advancement. I have been concerned about this CAFTA agreement. I had not made up my mind about how to vote on it. I have voted for some trade agreements and against other trade agreements. I think we should look at these agreements and see if it is a good deal or not. I had a particular concern on the question of socks. Fort Payne, Alabama, is known as the sock capital of the world. It is also the hometown of the great singing group, Alabama. There are many wonderful people there that are concerned about CAFTA. I spoke with one of them today about his concerns. I also met with Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez and spoke with Trade Representative Portman today to discuss my concerns with them. I now feel much better about our ability to address them. They have indicated to me they understand the problem. They are concerned about it, and the Administration will look for meaningful opportunities to be helpful in ways that can make a difference for our sock industry. I feel a lot better about that question. Looking at the matter as a whole, this is not a large agreement. There exists about a $31 billion trade relationship between the United States and the six CAFTA countries. That is, in the scheme of things, not large. We have an almost balanced trade relationship with these countries now. Without this agreement, when we ship domestically manufactured goods to these countries, they face a much higher tariff than when those countries ship goods to us. So if we execute this trade agreement, clearly more barriers will go down in those countries than in the United States. The experts tell us that under these circumstances, we should certainly move to a trade surplus with these countries. That is good. If we are concerned about a trade deficit, we ought to vote for things that might help us go to a trade surplus. The picture worldwide, however, is not so good. Looking at our trade with the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, one sees a $140 billion trade relationship. And we have a $65 billion trade deficit with those countries. Look at China. We have a $231 billion trade relationship with that country including a $160 billion trade deficit. Look at Mexico and Canada, the NAFTA countries. We have a $266 billion trade relationship with Mexico and a $445 billion trade relationship with Canada--$711 billion with just those two countries--with a trade deficit of $110 billion. The CAFTA nations are small countries by comparison. They want to progress. They are young democracies. They are our neighbors south of us--many virtually directly south of my hometown of Mobile, Alabama. And they are good people. They have been friends to the United States. Any trade deficit is a concern, I acknowledge, but I would also point out that the proposed agreement with these countries would likely convert it into a surplus. As you look at trade and the relationships we have with these countries, it is also important that we look at our national security interests. First, I believe this trade agreement will move us into an enhanced trade relationship with these six countries. That enhanced trade relationship will move us from a deficit to a surplus, and it will increase trade between our countries, and that will be good for all of us. I am convinced it is good economics. Second, and very importantly, these are our allies and friends. Let me ask you: how have they proven their friendship? I point out that every one of these six countries supported our efforts in Iraq. Four of them sent troops to Iraq. Four of these countries we are seeking to have a level trade agreement with have actually sent troops to Iraq. Is that true with Mexico, France, Canada, Germany, or China? I submit to you that it is not. These CAFTA countries are our friends and neighbors with whom we have a balanced trade relationship. If we pass this bill, we can even move to a surplus. Mr. President, I think it makes good economic sense. It makes good sense in terms of national security. Let me just say one other thing, quite frankly. One reason our trading relationship has not been as productive with Mexico and other Latin American countries as some had predicted, I think, is because of the incredible surge of imports from China. China got out ahead and they are moving forward and they are very aggressive. We ought to take what steps we can, without hesitation, in my view, to make ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, and our allies more able to compete on a level playing field with China. Why would that not be a good thing? I think it would be a good thing. Mr. President, there are a number of considerations that I have evaluated as I have considered this trade agreement. I am convinced that compared to most of them, if not all of them, this is probably the most worthwhile trade agreement we have had presented to us. I think we ought to ratify it and establish a closer bond and partnership with these countries, our friends and neighbors. It will be good for our economy and our national security. I yield back such time as I have remaining.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. With regard to this feasibility study, the study is really to determine the effect of the casing that we use on nuclear weapons--hardened casing--and how deeply that would penetrate. It is not going to be a feasibility study in which a nuclear weapon would be detonated; is that correct?