Senate Floor Statement of Senator Sessions SENATOR SESSIONS SPEAKS ON HIS BORDER SECURITY AMENDMENTS Thursday, July 13, 2006 AMENDMENT NO. 4659 Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama [Mr. SESSIONS], for himself, and Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 4659. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 4659 (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $1,829,400,000 to construct double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border and to offset such increase by reducing all other discretionary amounts on a pro-rata basis) At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. __. (a) The amount appropriated by title II under the heading ``Customs and Border Protection'' and under the subheading ``construction'' is hereby increased by $1,829,400,000, which shall remain available until expended. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, of the amount made available under the subheading described in subsection (a)-- (1) not less than $1,184,000,000 shall be used for the construction of 370 miles of double-layered fencing along the international border between the United States and Mexico; and (2) not less than $645,400,000 shall be for the construction of not less than 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the international border between the United States and Mexico. (c) All discretionary amounts made available under this Act, other than the amount appropriated under the subheading described in subsection (a), shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by $1,829,400,000. AMENDMENT NO. 4660 Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama [Mr. SESSIONS], for himself, and Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 4660. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 4660 (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $85,670,000 to enable the Secretary of Homeland Security to hire 800 additional full time active duty investigators to investigate immigrations laws violations and to offset such increase on a pro rata basis) At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. __. (a) The amount appropriated by title II under the heading ``Immigration and Customs Enforcement'' and under the subheading ``salaries and expenses'' is hereby increased by $85,670,000. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, of the amount made available under the subheading described in subsection (a) not less than $104,000,000 shall be available to increase the number of full time active duty investigators employed by the Department of Homeland Security to investigate violations of immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) by not less than 800 more than the number of such positions for which funds were made available during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, pursuant to section 5203 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3734). (c) All discretionary amounts made available under this Act, other than the amount appropriated under the subheading described in subsection (a), shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by $85,670,000. AMENDMENT NO. 4659 Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4659. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending. The Senator from Alabama is recognized. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, on May 17, my colleagues, by a vote of 83 to 16, approved [Page: S7479] GPO's PDF 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 [Page: S7480] GPO's PDF 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? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit in effect at this time. 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 [Page: S7481] GPO's PDF 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. Mr. President, we are going to proceed with construction over 2 years. Since we don't know what will happen next year, the Congress voted to build a fence, and we ought to fund the fence, in my opinion, when we promised to build it. But we could build it over 2 years and split the money each year, I suppose. It would ultimately slow down completion. It would probably take some time to get it constructed. I don't know whether my colleagues would agree to cut that price in half and do it over 2 years, and whether it would gain their support. If so, I would be prepared to accept that reduction in the amendment. Let me just say that we know what happened. Senator Gregg did his very best in the supplemental. Judd Gregg, chairman of our committee, is a fine Budget Committee chairman. He also chairs this Homeland Security Subcommittee. He was able to force into the supplemental additional money for border security which was not in the President's request. I salute him for that. But that is not getting us there. We are still talking about nickles and dimes. We are still talking about business as usual. Somehow we need to find this money. We spend over $800 billion a year in discretionary spending. We spend nearly $1.4 trillion a year in entitlement spending, entitlement increases--an increase of over $100 billion next year. So we can't find a couple of billion dollars to fulfill the commitment we made to the American people? We know how the system works around here. There is no one way that [Page: S7482] GPO's PDF it works. There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say. We need a vote for this amendment. And that would send a signal to the Appropriations Committee and send a signal to the White House that this Senate is serious about fulfilling its commitments. Some way between now and then, some way they will find this money through whatever sources are appropriate to fund it. That is where we need to be. That is what we need to achieve. If we allow it to go through without any money for this fencing, we will rightly be accused of not being serious about the commitments we have made to the American people with regard to actually enforcing the laws of immigration in America, which many Americans already believe we are not serious about. They do not respect what we have done in the past, and they should not; we have failed. It is time for Congress to try to fix it and do better. In fact, we must do better. The Secretary of Homeland Security has told us this kind of barrier fencing is necessary for his success. Now, we build a bridge in immigration that goes about 8 feet across the 10-foot cavern, and we never quite close the loop. As a result, we never reach the tipping point where it becomes much more logical for someone who wants to come to America to come legally than illegally, so they continue to come illegally. They are rewarded for that. They get to the head of the line, and they get amnesty when they get here after a period of time. That is a bad signal. We need to stop that signal. By building more barrier fencing, by following up on the President's commitment to call out the National Guard, those activities send a signal to the world that our border is no longer open. Isn't that the message we want to send? We do not have an open border. We have a generous immigration system, far more generous that any nation I am aware of in the world. More generous than Canada, more generous than England, more generous than Mexico. We have a generous system. Don't let anyone put us down that we are somehow an anti-immigrant Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are very generous, but we do need to have a system that is lawful. About a million people come into our country legally. About 750,000 or 800,000 come into the country illegally. Almost as many come illegally. That is not right. It cannot continue. This is not an extreme position to take. Let's build the fences that the Secretary of Homeland Security discussed. I don't know where the Senator would get the money for it and exactly how it would be worked, but I believe if we voted a strong vote to fund this fencing, somehow, some way, the leadership of the House and the Senate would get together and figure out a way to fund it appropriately. I 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 [Page: S7483] GPO's PDF 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENTS NOS. 4659 AND 4660 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. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENTS NOS. 4659 AND 4660, AS MODIFIED Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk for the two amendments I have proposed. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify those two amendments, as we have proposed them. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments (Nos. 4659 and 4660), as modified, are as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 4659, AS MODIFIED At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. __. (a) The amount appropriated by title II under the heading ``Customs and Border Protection'' and under the subheading ``construction'' is hereby increased by $1,829,400,000. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, of the amount made available under the subheading described in subsection (a)-- (1) $1,184,000,000 of which shall be used for the construction of 370 miles of double-layered fencing along the international border between the United States and Mexico; and (2) $645,400,000 of which shall be for the construction of not less than 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the international border between the United States and Mexico. (c) Discretionary amounts made available under this Act, other than the amount appropriated under the subheading described in subsection (a), shall be reduced by $1,829,400,000. AMENDMENT NO. 4660, AS MODIFIED At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. __. (a) The amount appropriated by title II under the heading ``Immigration and Customs Enforcement'' and under the subheading ``salaries and expenses'' is hereby increased by $85,670,000. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, of the amount made available under the subheading described in subsection (a) $104,000,000 of which shall be available to hire an additional 800 full time active duty investigators employed by the Department of Homeland Security to investigate violations of immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) pursuant to section 5203 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3734) which requires the hiring of not less than 800 more investigators than the number for which funds were made available during fiscal year ending September 30, 2006. (c) Discretionary amounts made available under this Act, other than the amount appropriated under the subheading described in subsection (a), shall be reduced by $85,670,000. 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. 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, 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.