[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Page 10027]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            BORDER SECURITY

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a subject that has 
certainly had a lot of press coverage, and that is the trip by the 
Arizona Governor to Washington to speak with the President about the 
immigration issue in Arizona, recent legislation that was passed, and 
what we can do to secure the border. Something caught my eye in the 
Congress Daily which I want to quote and discuss.
  The article is entitled ``Arizona Gov. Pushes for Obama's Help.'' It 
was dated Thursday, June 3, and it talked about the meeting between the 
Governor and the President. It says they didn't appear to come to any 
agreements, and then it reads:

       White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that both 
     sides expressed their viewpoints, with Obama stressing that 
     border security must be coupled with comprehensive 
     immigration reform.

  Why is that? Why is securing the border being held hostage to 
comprehensive immigration reform? The President has a responsibility 
and we have a responsibility to enforce our laws. That includes 
securing our border. So why does the President insist we are not going 
to secure the border until we have comprehensive immigration reform?
  The reality is, if we do secure the border, it will be easier for 
Congress to pass comprehensive reform, because people will then 
understand that the Federal Government is serious about securing the 
border. They don't believe that today. With articles such as this, why 
should they? In effect, the President is saying: We are not going to 
secure the border until we have comprehensive reform.
  We don't need comprehensive reform to secure the border, and I submit 
we do need to secure the border for comprehensive immigration reform.
  I have talked a lot on this floor--and so has Senator McCain--about 
efforts to secure the border and the different segments of the border. 
In the State of Arizona, there are two segments. One is called the Yuma 
sector and the other is called the Tucson sector. The Yuma sector has 
basically been secured in terms of illegal immigration. There is still 
a lot of illegal drugs crossing in that sector. They are working on 
that. The Tucson sector is not secure in terms of illegal immigration 
or drug smuggling. In fact, about half of all illegal immigration comes 
through the Tucson sector.
  Why is the Yuma sector pretty well secured and the Tucson sector not? 
There are a variety of reasons. First, the Yuma sector pretty much 
completed the fencing, particularly in the urban area there, the double 
fencing that has enabled the Border Patrol to apprehend illegal 
immigrants who try to cross. Secondly, there is an adequate number of 
Border Patrol agents. Third, in the Yuma sector, there is a program 
called Operation Streamline, the essence of which is, instead of catch 
and release, where illegal immigrants are apprehended and then returned 
to the border in a bus, these illegal immigrants are taken to court and 
provided a lawyer. But the reality is, almost all of them end up 
pleading to having crossed the border illegally, and they spend at 
least 2 weeks in jail. About 17 percent of the people are criminals. 
Obviously, they don't want to do this so they don't cross in that area 
anymore. The rest want to come work and make money so they can send it 
back to their families. They obviously can't do that while they are 
serving time in jail. The net result is that there is a big deterrent 
to crossing in the Yuma sector. If they cross there, they go to jail. 
So they cross somewhere else.
  If we had a similar operation in other segments of the border, it 
appears to me we could go a long way toward having operational control 
of the border.
  The reality is, we can secure the border. I know there are some on 
the other side who believe if we secured the border, then there would 
be less incentive for Republicans to support comprehensive immigration 
reform. Think of that. That is holding national security, border 
security, hostage to passing a bill in Congress. That should not be. We 
have a job to secure the border. We should do that irrespective of 
whether Congress then passes comprehensive reform.
  I remind my colleagues that in 2007, I helped to draft, along with 
Senator Kennedy, the legislation we brought to the floor. 
Unfortunately, it was not successful. It was opposed by both 
Republicans and Democrats. It was supported by both Republicans and 
Democrats. In the end, it didn't have the votes to pass. The point is, 
there were many on our side of the aisle as well as the other side who 
were willing to draft and support legislation for comprehensive reform. 
It is not true to say that if we secure the border, many of us will, 
therefore, not have an incentive to support comprehensive reform.
  The American people don't believe the Federal Government is serious 
about securing the border. They are not going to support comprehensive 
reform until they see some seriousness on the part of the Federal 
Government. When we hear comments such as those from Robert Gibbs, who 
says the President stressed that border security must be coupled with 
comprehensive immigration reform, I say the American people are 
apparently right. The Federal Government--at least the President--does 
not appear to be serious about enforcing the laws at the border and 
securing the border. Otherwise, he wouldn't couple that with a 
requirement that we have to pass comprehensive reform. We are not going 
to pass comprehensive reform this year for a variety of reasons. That 
is a fact. But that doesn't mean we can't secure the border. Indeed, we 
should.

                          ____________________