ORTIZ OPPOSES BORDER FENCE; BILL PASSES HOUSE

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz today opposed the border fence that the Congressional leaders brought before the House of Representatives - again.  Ortiz has repeatedly opposed the notion of a border fence, maintaining it will be too expensive, that it won't work, and that the money spent on it would be better spent on Border Patrol agents, detention beds, and implementing the components of the 9-11 Report. 

Ortiz supported an alternative bill requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to obtain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States through significant workforce, security, surveillance and physical infrastructure enhancements. The alternative also included developing a comprehensive, technologically superior, round-the-clock, fully interoperable surveillance system to monitor every mile of the border.  The alternative also included 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents every year through FY 2010 (a total of 12,000 new agents), 2,000 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents every year through FY 2010 (a total of 8,000 new agents), and 25,000 additional detention beds every year through FY 2010 (a total of 100,000 new beds).

Ortiz' statement follows: 

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Border Fence bill.  It is yet another instance when the leaders in this Congress chose to ignore the real issues facing Americans and consider legislation this Congress has already passed.  I opposed the legislation for the border fence when it was before the House earlier this year and I will oppose it again this time.

There is an awful practice this House has consistently gotten into ... passing bills with great fanfare, then not funding them.  That's what we have done with the 9-11 report ... the Majority was guilted to pass into law the reforms the 9/11 Commission told us would prevent us for another attack.  Then we never funded it.

This border fence is a profoundly bad policy because it won't work.  Yet it is already included in 2 bills passed by the House this year.  This is election year politics at its worst.  The $2.2 billion it is estimated this bill would cost could fund almost 2,500 new Border Patrol agents for five years, a 22% increase in the force. 

This is not about security.  You want security?  Then you want comprehensive immigration reform.  This President and this Congress brought us to this place ... where our Border Patrol agents routinely release OTMs (Other than Mexicans) into the U.S. population because we have no room to hold them.

It is in the national security interest of this nation to know who is living inside our borders, and we cannot do that without offering them a path to citizenship so they can come out of the shadows and be part of this economy.  THAT'S how you secure this country - not with a fence.

As the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Border Caucus, I have been advocating for adequate border security funding before it was a political issue this year.  In particular I have been concerned with the lack of detention space, the need for adequate technology for our United States Border Patrol, the need for more immigration judges, prosecutors and customs agents, and the importance of sanctions on employers illegally employing immigrants. 

None of those issues are addressed in the bill before us today.  Rather, this bill simply authorizes 700 miles of fencing - again - along the 2,000 mile U.S.-Mexico Border. 

The Southern part of my district rests along the U.S. - Mexico border and my constituents want real solutions.  We have 8 - 10 million people living in this country that we have absolutely no information on.  This is a national security issue.  In a post September 11^th world, we must comprehensively address immigration and border security.  When Congress last addressed immigration reform it was in the late 1980s and they did not do it together - that was a mistake and this Congress is going down that same wrong path. 

Border security and immigration enforcement are very serious issues which deserve solemn debate and discussion in Congress.  They are not getting them with this controversial political ploy.

Here's a real solution:  provide a virtual fence to substantially improve border security and immigration enforcement, as the Reyes-Thompson substitute proposes.  Their motion includes provisions to provide the technology, personnel, and equipment needed to monitor and secure every mile of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

I urge the members to vote no on the border fence, and to support the Reyes-Thompson substitute.