Speech #1100051765

I believe. is the need and the desire to secure the border. to make sure that people coming across our border are coming across legally. that we know who they are. and that we are able to manage our border. It is a national disgrace that we have been unable to control the illegal flow of people into our country. especially the massive illegal flow of people across the southwestern border into this country. So I dont believe there is really ever going to be a consensus around major immigration reform. which I happen to strongly support. I supported last years bill introduced by Senator KENNEDY and Senator MCCABIN. I support the effort this year in concept. although I still want to see how it is going to end up in detail. But there will never be a consensus support for major immigration reform. which we need so dearly in this country. unless the American people can be confident that the border is secure as the first condition of immigration reform. Thus. I think it was really a touch of geniusand 1 dont think I overstate thatby Senator ISAKSON from Georgia to come up with this idea of a trigger over a year ago so that it would be clear that the precondition of major immigration reform would be that the border would be secure. especially the southwestern border. I congratulate Senator ISAKSON for that initiative. and it is included in this bill in concept in that the trigger is in place. The concern I have is that the elements which exercise the trigger. so that we then move on to the policies of this bill relative to other elements of immigration reform. such as the guest worker program. making sure we have adequate employer verification. doing the things that are necessary in the area of creating more capacity for people to come into this country who are qualified in the area of skills. those elements are subject to a trigger today which is in this bill. and I believe the specifics around that trigger do not lead. unfortunately. to what we want. which is a secure border. It is a movement down the road. but it is a movement down the road which appears in some way to have been set not on the basis of what is necessary for controlling the border but on the basis of what would be necessary to make sure the operative part of this bill goes into action or occurs within 18 months of passage of the bill. So it seems that the numbers which have been put down in this bill relative to how many Border Patrol agents we need. how many detention beds we need. relative to how many observation facilities we need along the border for a virtual fence. relative to other structural needs of the southern border control. those elements were not defined in terms of what would lead ultimately to full security and operational control of the southwestern border. but those elements were defined as to what was perceived as being doable in the next 18 months. The difference between what is necessary for operational control of the border and what those numbers are is not dramatic. quite obviously. but it is significant. very significant. I had the good fortune for a number of years to chair the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. and 1 served on it for a long time. So I do believe I am fairly familiar with this issue. as familiar. probably. as anybody in this body with this issue since there were a number of initiatives which I began both as a chairman of the CommerceStateJustice Subcommittee. which was a precursor to the Homeland Security Subcommittee. and then as chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee which were targeted directly on the issue of upgrading the Border Patrol capability. the port control capability. the Coast Guard capability. and the detention bed capability so that we could get operational control over the border. Throughout this period. as we have been ramping upand we have ramped up dramatically. We have come really from a marginal capability of controlling the southwestern border to a capability that is quite high. and we are making dramatic strides every day in that area.