Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, I wanted to talk about border security. Obviously it's a topic of hot discussion on the floor. I just wanted to put in perspective what has actually happened and what may happen, especially in light of the President's presentation on Monday night.

I have the good fortune, I guess, to chair the appropriations subcommittee which has the responsibility for border security. I took this over a year and a half ago. When I took the committee over it became apparent to me that the priorities within the Department of Homeland Security were not necessarily focused on what I considered to be the primary threats.

So we reoriented the funding within the Department to look at threat first, the highest level threat being of course, a weapon of mass destruction which might be used against America. So we started to significantly increase funding in that account. The second highest level threat in my opinion was the fact that our borders were simply not secure. They were porous. We didn't know who was coming in. We didn't know who was leaving. We did know a large number of people were coming in illegally, especially across the southern border. We know on the northern border that although we don't have the issue of a human wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country, we do have a serious issue of who might come across the northern border who represent clear and present threats to us, probably even more so than across the southern border in some cases.

So we implemented funding within the programs through our bill -- the first bill that I was in charge of. Now, at that time, the Administration sent up a proposal which essentially continued what I would call the benign effect of border security. That would call for border agents and no increase in capability -- or in infrastructure or in the capacity of ICE. A proposal in the Coast Guard area was anemic.

So we took that proposal which came up from the Administration and we reoriented that, too. We said we're going to increase the number of border security agents on the border by 8,000. We're going to spend about four years to five years doing that. We had to begin slowly because the training facilities simply weren't there for this type of a huge increase in border security staff. So we began with a supplemental number of 500 and we followed that up with additional agents in the next regular bill that came through. So we added 1,500 new agents.

Agents are not the only issue. Boots on the ground are not the only issue. Technology is an issue. But probably more important is the issue of what you do with an illegal immigrant who has come across the border once you capture that person once they cross the border. Most of them are Mexican on the southern border, about 85%, and you put them on a bus and they come back a week later. A number of them are non-Mexicans and they were given a catch and release status where you essentially gave them an indictment that said that they must return to be heard in a hearing, two or three weeks, maybe a month later, then you release these individuals. Of course, most of them never come back. I think 66% never return for that hearing. So that wasn't working so we felt we should significantly increase the number of detention beds so that we would have the capacity to actually hold people, especially non-Mexicans coming across our border and who we couldn't immediately return to their country. So we started to expand the number of beds. We increased the number by 1,800 in that first budget cycle.

After having done that, it was ironic and I guess appropriate, that the White House came forward and said “what a great idea.” That's our idea. Let us take credit for this idea. So they held a press conference and said what a wonderful idea that you had to increase the number of border agents by 1,500 and the number of beds by a couple hundred and that we had actually taken the money and put it into border security. That was a year ago.

Now the new budget came up again. The Administration sent up a budget that was oriented towards border security in that they represented that they were going to increase the number of agents by another 1,500 and the number of beds by 6,000 and that they were going to put more money into the Coast Guard initiative, what is called Deepwater. It's not really deep water. It would be better called protecting our coastline from deep threat. This is threat protection along our coasts.
They made these commitments within the budget they sent up. What they failed to do, however, was fund the commitments. They sent up a hollow budget in that they put in a system for paying for border patrol agents and new beds by increasing the fees on people who are traveling on airplanes by $1.2 billion. Of course, that fee proposal was rejected a year before. The chairman of the committee who has jurisdiction of that fee proposal had rejected it out of hand this year when the budget was sent up and everybody knows that it's not going anywhere. It's what's called a plug. It happens around here. People send up a budget and they put a plug in it that is essentially a number they know they won't get but put it in to make the budget look correct. This was a plug.

Clearly airline fees, if they are going to be increased that revenue should go towards airline traffic protection, TSA activities, maybe visa activity, but it's not appropriate to put an increase on the airline traffic passenger, on people using the airlines, and put the fee on the border. If you want a fee on the border, put a fee on the border. But a 50 cent charge. If people want to come across the border maybe it should cost the people 75 cents. That wasn't proposed.

We raise the airline fee and we have a plug number. Even though they sent up a budget which alleged they were going to increase the number of agents by1, 500 and the number of beds by 6,000 as a practical matter it would be very hard for us to do that under the numbers that they sent up to back up those commitments. But at least the commitment was there. Which, as chairman of that subcommittee, put me a difficult position because basically I have to go find that $1.2 billion to fill that hole to get the funding to get those agents which we have intended to do. That means I have to convince the chairman of the full committee, Senator Cochran, to take money from some other committee in order to do that within the confines of the budget – obviously a difficult position for Senator Cochran and a position he shouldn't be put in, nor should I.

Now as we looked hard at the border patrol issue and the securing of the border issue it became apparent that not only were boots on the ground an issue but actual physical capital assets were a huge issue.
For example, the planes flown by the Customs agents are 30 to 40 years past their useful life. The helicopters being flown by the Border Patrol agents are 20 years past their useful life. The Coast Guard has a fleet which is very aged and which is not fast. They have one or two planes that are up to snuff but most of their planes need to be refurbished. And in addition the unmanned technology along the border, specifically the unmanned aerial vehicles, there was one. Regrettably it crashed two weeks ago. That's been discussed on this floor. There are actually none right now. There won't be a new one until August.

The aircraft fleet is so bad that about a month ago the entire fleet was grounded. We had no planes in the air. You have the vehicle issue, which is that these vehicles wear out very quickly because they are used very aggressively in very difficult terrain, and then you've got the issue of training facilities. As you dramatically expand the number of people in the border patrol, you need training facilities. They've been upgraded but they need to be upgraded further to handle the people they are going to put in there.
I suggested about a year and a half ago we do a capital infusion into the border security effort which would essentially accelerate the Coast Guard refurbishment, taking it from completion to 2026, which I thought was a little long to wait, to 2016; get the new planes for the Customs agency; get new helicopters for the Border Patrol; have instead of one Predator that no longer exists on the border, three or four Predators on the border or like facilities. There are other technologies that are a lot cheaper and that should be pursued using technology for land protection; and to give the Border Patrol physical facilities so when we get the agents together in their facilities they have a place to sit down and they have desks to work at and vehicles that allow them to go out in the field and do their job.

To accomplish that was a $1.9 billion effort. So I initially put that forward in the defense bill last year. It got knocked out. It went in on the Senate floor, went to conference, got knocked out. I then put it in the Reconciliation bill. It got knocked out. I then put it in, with the strong support of the Senate, especially Senator Byrd, who has been just a pleasure to work with as the ranking member on this subcommittee, I then put it into the most recent supplemental that came across the floor, $1.9 billion for capital activity.

Well in the presentation by the President on Monday night which suggested that we bring in the National Guard to basically, as I understand it, free up Border Patrol agents from desk jobs and get them out in the field- to simplify the statement of what they'll be doing. Although they'll be doing more than that I'm sure.

Essentially this is funded by taking the $1.9 billion and moving it from capital refurbishment over to operational exercises. That, in my opinion, is not necessarily...well, I'll let people assess that. But it would mean the capital initiative would no longer exist and the dollars would go to pay for the National Guard and other activities that are operational in nature, including adding an additional 1,000 border agents on top of the 1,500 which we did plan to add this year, which would be good if we could actually accomplish that.

However, the technical restrictions on the ability to hire takes about 40,000 applications to get 1,000 agents. And the capacity to train is extremely limited. Is limited. Not extremely limited. But it is limited so you probably can't do 2,500 agents in the time frame this proposal is put forward. Maybe you can. I doubt it. The track record of this Department in this area is not stellar.

So essentially what's happening is that the $1.9 billion which was supposed to go to capital improvement to get the planes so they could fly, the helicopters so they could fly, the Predators so they can be in the air, the vehicles so they can drive around the border, it doesn't exist anymore.
I was told by the chairman of the conference yesterday, good luck in getting this money. If you want to break the President's hard number of $94 billion and claim it as an emergency, you can get the money and get it that way. Of course as Chairman of the Budget Committee, I'm not -- when I put this proposal forward I had it actually paid for, and that was the key to this. I took it out of an across-the-board cut on defense. Not my first choice on how to pay for it, but on the request of Senator Stevens and Senator Warner, I did that. I'm not going to put forth a proposal which exceeds the $94 billion and is unpaid for.

There is no way to pay for this, it appears, within the money going to the Defense Department within this supplemental as an add-on to the initial $1.9 billion. You would need obviously $3.8 billion at that point.
This capital improvement exercise is essentially dead as a result of the money being moved, migrated over to the operational side relative to the national guard. The practical effect of that also will be that the outyear pressure on the budget for appropriations relative to this account will be significantly higher because we will be putting in place a budget item-- essentially paying for the National Guard or the people who replace the National Guard which will be at least $1.9 billion in costs annually on top of the presently appropriated plan.

To do it correctly, we should not only use this $1.9 billion for this operational activity, but there should have been a supplemental request for the budget of the Department of Homeland Security, to reflect the, what you might call the expense that's going to be generated by the ongoing cost of putting this type of initiative in the field if you're going to be sure that the initiative will continue and will be robust. And I would be very much in support of that.

Because clearly that number's going to have to be paid for, and I already have a $1.2 billion hole in that budget which I have to pay for in order to get the full 1,500 complement in place of additional agents. Now I will have a $1.2 billion hole plus a $1.9 billion hole on the operational side. And in addition, of course, I will have a $1.9 billion hole on the capital expenditure side because we still have these airplanes that have to be replaced and helicopters that have to be replaced, unmanned vehicles that have to be put in the air and a Coast Guard that really shouldn't have to wait until 2026 to be able to adequately defend our coastline.

So I just wanted to outline the specifics of where we are now on the dollars relative to border patrol and border security. Because when you get down to it, this is not a complex issue, securing our border. We all know that with 8,000 more agents, with about 10,000 more detention beds, we have a decent technology on the border relative to unmanned vehicles and sensors, we have a Coast Guard that's up to snuff, airplanes that are up to snuff; we can essentially control the border, to the extent you can control it without a guest worker program in place.

A guest worker program still, is, in my opinion critical to any long-term resolution of this program because human nature says people are going to cross the border if they're getting paid $5 in Mexico and $50 in the United States for a day's labor and they've got a family to support. So that's an element of it.

But the first element, I think everybody agreed to that, is decent border security. And decent border security only requires resources. We've got the capacity to do it. We have the technology to do it. It would be nice if the Defense Department would share a little more aggressively with Homeland Security or Homeland Security, on the other hand, would go out and actually actively try to get the Defense Department to share.

But we've got all the parts sitting there in the box. What we have to do is pay the price of taking them out of the box and put them in the places they should be. And so I just wanted to outline where we stand relative to the issue of resources, because I think there's been considerable confusion, especially in light of the speech by the President on Monday.