Posted on 03/17/2005 7:03:53 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To fully fund the level of Border Patrol Agents authorized by National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 and as recommended by the 9/11 Commission)
On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $352,400,000.
On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $317,000,000.
On page 23, line 21, increase the amount by $35,400,000.
On page 9, line 15, decrease the amount by $352,400,000.
On page 9, line 16, decrease the amount by $317,000,000.
On page 9, line 20, decrease the amount by $35,400,000.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment cosponsored by myself and Senator Ensign. Senator Ensign has done so much work in this area on the intelligence reform bill, assuring there would be 2,000 authorized Border Patrol agents. We also have as cosponsors Senators Domenici, Cornyn, McCain, Kyl, and Feinstein. Mr. President, I would like to be notified at the end of 10 minutes, after which I will yield the rest of the time to the Senator from Nevada.
Earlier this month, FBI Director Mueller told Congress that people from countries with ties to al-Qaida are crossing into the United States through our porous border with Mexico.
Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security James Loy recently said that intelligence reports suggest al-Qaida is considering using the Southwest border to infiltrate into the United States, either with falsified documents or by crossing the border in other illegal ways.
We have today 11,000 Border Patrol agents for the borders between Mexico, the United States, and Canada, as well as in the Border Patrol centers that are throughout our country. It is clearly not enough.
Mr. President, 97 percent of illegal intruders are filtering through the Southwest border. But they do not stay in the South. They go throughout our country.
The Border Patrol does an amazing job. We applaud their work. But we need to give them more help. Recent stories and intelligence reports show that terrorists are planning to use our border, and it should be a wakeup call.
Since 2001, 1,300 agents have been added to the force. But we have 6,900 miles of border with Canada and Mexico. My State of Texas alone has over 1,200 miles of border with Mexico. In most places there are no fences. In Texas, the Rio Grande River can sometimes be waded across or is completely dry.
We are seeing an increase of 137 percent in immigrants who are from countries other than Mexico. These immigrants, which are called OTMs, ``other than Mexicans,'' are coming into our country in the largest numbers we have ever seen. But due to a lack of resources, they are often caught and released, or they are not caught at all.
Recognizing our serious border vulnerability, Congress passed the intelligence reform bill last year and authorized an increase of 10,000 Border Patrol agents over 5 years. It included provisions to add 8,000 detention beds and 800 additional interior investigators. Unfortunately, the budget before us only allocated enough to cover 210 agents, 143 investigators, and 1,920 beds for detention.
The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently said:
We do not have enough agents; we don't have enough technology to give us the security we need.
Let me give you some examples of recent happenings.
In Detroit, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani was indicted in the Eastern District of Michigan on one count of conspiracy to provide material support to Hezbollah. Kourani was already in custody for entering the country illegally through Mexico and was involved in fundraising activities on behalf of Hezbollah.
The two groups of Arab males were discovered by patrol guards from Willcox, AZ. One field agent said:
These guys didn't speak Spanish, and they were speaking to each other in Arabic. It's ridiculous that we don't take this more seriously. We're told not to say a thing to the media.
This is a field agent for the Border Patrol.
Last July, in Burlington, VT, police raided an international syndicate that forced Asian women to work as sex slaves. The women told investigators they had been smuggled from Asia to Mexico, entering the United States through Arizona, Texas, and other States. They ended up in Vermont.
Take the example of the capture of terrorist suspect Jose Padilla. The Justice Department says Padilla and an accomplice planned to enter the United States through Mexico to blow up apartment buildings in major cities such as New York.
Or the case of suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Mohammed Junaid Babar, who told investigators of a scheme to smuggle terrorists across the Mexican border. He is tied to a terror plot to carry out bombings and assassinations in London.
Further stories indicate there are real concerns about terrorists entering our country through the southern border.
Along the Mexican border there have been stories of suspicious items picked up by local residents, including Muslim prayer rugs and notebooks written in both Arabic and Spanish. These items came from OTMs and a subcategory called special interest aliens, who are illegals coming from terrorist-sponsoring countries.
Intelligence reports suggesting that 25 Chechen terrorism suspects have illegally entered the United States from Mexico have refocused attention on a porous border from which many believe the next major attack on Americans could come.
Patrol agents told one Arizona newspaper that 77 males ``of Middle Eastern descent'' were apprehended in June of last year in 2 separate incidents. All were trekking through the mountains and are believed to have been part of a larger group of illegal immigrants. Many were released pending immigration hearings.
Also last July, an Egyptian man United States authorities described as one of their most wanted smugglers of humans was arrested on charges of operating a ring that illegally brought people from Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries to the United States. The indictment says Abdallah and his associates would direct people seeking to reach the
United States to travel to one of several Latin American countries, and from there to Guatemala. They would then be transported to America through Mexico in return for payments of thousands of dollars in smuggling fees.
The amendment we are offering tonight will add $315 million to the President's request for the Border Patrol. This will provide for the training and equipping of 2,000 agents. This would be the full amount authorized and will have a dramatic impact on the security-related problems we have on the border.
In order to maintain a fiscally responsible bill, and not increase the top cap of discretionary spending, we are offsetting this increase with an equal reduction in the international affairs section of the budget because protecting our borders from foreign threats is an international affair.
Today, with my colleagues Senators Ensign, Domenici, Cornyn, McCain, Kyl, and Feinstein, I am calling on Congress to do more than add 210 Border Patrol agents that are in the underlying budget. We are asking for the full contingent authorized of 2,000. This is still not enough. And I hope we will be able to come back next year and get up to the full 2,000 again.
But the warning flag has gone up. We must heed the warnings we have been given. Every incident I mentioned is a call to the United States to make sure that our borders with Mexico are secure. We need more Border Patrol agents and more detention facilities to make our borders secure.
The people of our country deserve this security, and our amendment will take one step in the right direction. I hope my colleagues will work with me to pass this in the budget and then later in the Appropriations bill. We must do everything to heed the warning call we have gotten.
Mr. President, I yield the rest of our time to the Senator from Nevada, who has also worked very hard on this amendment. I appreciate very much his cosponsoring this amendment with me today.
Did we send half our BP's over there ?
Or did some go over there to TEACH the Iraqis on how to stop the terrorists from trying to harm and kill our troops??
IMO ... I don't see a problem in sending some BP over there to help.
Maybe others do .. but I don't
You aren't really addressing the concerns that Happy2BMe was raising when he said "The fact is that they went in the first place while an invasion was occurring on their own territory (at the direction of the president.)" In reply you said you guessed he had "a problem with the facts," yet in the same post your facts were off about the Border Patrol agents who went to Iraq.
We have millions of illegal aliens in this country and millions of illegal border crossings every year. Our current Border Patrol doesn't have adequate manpower to secure our borders, and sending some of them to Iraq gives us an even less adequate force here at home.
In December the President signed an Intelligence Bill that authorized the hiring of 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents every year for the next five years, for a total of 10,000, in addition to the 10,000 or so we currently have. Those 2,000 new agents would make the assignment of the agents to Iraq less of a concern, except the President only wants to hire 210 of those first 2,000, as per his February Budget Request.
This very thread is about an effort to restore the new BP funding to the levels authorized by the bill the President signed just last December.
Do you see why people have a problem with diverting BP agents to Iraq while simultaneously declining to adequately man the Border Patrol at home?
She wasn't claiming that 70% thought it was the "best way" to address the problem.
Here's how the polls should be interpreted:
60% (not 70%) support some form of guest worker program, but only 10% think a guest worker program is the best way to solve the illegal alien problem.
I completely agree, which brings us back the question I first asked you on this thread. Which guest worker plan in the poll you posted do you prefer?
FGS, beat a point to death, why don't you?
You knew what I meant; you even tried to skew what I said with a poll that wasn't one we were discussing.
And I repeat: ANY poll can be worded to get the results you want.
That is exactly what they are doing.
Do you have a problem teaching Iraqis to help prevent terrorists from Iran and Syria that want to harm OUR soldiers?
Not at all.
That's one agent for about every 3 or 4 miles of border, and they have to stay on duty 24 hours a day.
LOL!
Manpower won't solve this. It's gonna hafta be solved with technology.
No, we sent almost 20%. That's a big chunk of our own Border Security that we no longer have.
And she said this in capital letters at the bottom of the Poll she posted to Happy. If that's not what she meant, then she needs to clear that up on this thread. Keep in mind I am saying this is a "Discussion Mode".
In a previous post to me, (Not by you) it was implied that the BP were over their guarding there borders
Reword post #48 (specifically at the bottom in bold print), and I will stop pointing out that you posted one thing and are now saying another.
Well, I am dealing with what's on the table with "tweaks" since I don't believe anybody will pass a law sending them back.
I believe if we don't get something like that, we aren't going to get anything.
And I know all the arguments; I'm just saying something is better than nothing.
Say what you want; heck, you'll make stuff up if you want to; who can stop you?
Technology won't solve it either. It has to be a balance of both manpower and technology.
Here is a good example of good technology without proper manpower.
Well, who ever implied that is wrong.
Typical response. Ahh well #48 proves my point, and with that I am out of here.
Thanks for proving my point!
What's to clear up? You inferred something Howlin hasn't said.
If you aren't clear on that, see her post to me at #123.
Yep. That's what I meant, but it's good that you said it. I should have.
If by "sending them back" you mean widescale roundups, I agree. But a lot of the proposals floating around involve encouraging the illegals to return voluntarily. The Tancredo plan is one, and Tom DeLay has also expressed interest in the idea. In fact, DeLay brought it up with President Bush at the GOP retreat earlier this year, and said that Bush was open to discussing it.
Is that the kind of tweak you mean?
Just to clear up my misconception then, you also think that 70 percent of the people on this forum support some sort of Guest Worker's plan? Whereas the latest poll says otherwise?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.