For 75 years, Social Security has been a bedrock promise between generations.

The generation working now pays into it so that the generation that has retired can do so in dignity. People who are retired right now have earned that dignity with a lifetime of hard work, and it should be there for them as promised. Those who propose to “privatize” Social Security, allow younger workers to “opt out,” or contribute to “personal accounts” instead, usually fail to mention two hard truths.

Hard truth number one: If enough of today’s workers “opt out” of paying into Social Security, eventually benefits will have to be cut.

Hard truth number two: If enough of today’s workers invest in personal accounts and the stock market takes a dive, benefits will have to be cut.

Social Security is a critical source of income for retired Americans. Nine out of 10 Americans over 65 years of age receive benefits. Without Social Security, half of America’s seniors would live in poverty. This includes 235,000 seniors in Arizona.

I am dedicated to strengthening Social Security’s long-term finances so that it continues to provide a guaranteed base of retirement, disability and survivor’s income for current and future generations.

I oppose the privatization of Social Security. I am unwilling to gamble it in the stock market. I am also unwilling to raise the eligibility age as some in my own party have proposed.

In these difficult economic times, the guaranteed benefits of Social Security are more important than ever.

Like a car, Social Security does not run indefinitely; it requires care and maintenance. The formula has been tweaked in the past — successfully — and it is time to bring Social Security in for service again. But it is hardly time to trade it in.

The Social Security trust fund is solvent, and will remain so into the 2030s. Modest adjustments can extend that solvency.

For example, the system could implement progressive price indexing. This would make initial benefits more accurately reflect prices, instead of simply reflecting wages. This is one factor currently being considered by a bipartisan commission, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is due to report by the end of the year.

We have time to think carefully about how to strengthen Social Security. The Social Security Trust Fund will continue to bring in more money than it expends in the coming years. A spike in Social Security beneficiaries will create a deficit in the Social Security Trust Fund in the 2030s. That is why we are taking steps to identify the gaps and improve the formula now.

The recommendations of the bipartisan commission — staffed by economic experts — should be our starting point for evaluating the steps needed to keep Social Security going strong for the next 75 years.

While these long-term recommendations are being formulated, I am promoting policies that protect Social Security benefits.

• I cosponsored the Social Security Fairness Act to repeal two provisions that short some seniors on their benefits.

• I cosponsored a bill to provide a one-time $250 payment for retirees if there is no cost of living adjustment to Social Security this year.

Social Security is a promise between generations that a lifetime of hard work and playing by the rules will be recognized by future generations. I am committed to protecting that promise and finding practical solutions to ensure it is kept for generations to come.

Encouraging the next generation to “opt out” and walk away from the promise that has been kept for the past 75 years isn’t just dangerous. It’s wrong.

By ROBERT PEAR

The New York Times

September 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced Tuesday that average premiums paid by individuals for private Medicare Advantage plans, which insure about one-fourth of all elderly beneficiaries, would decline slightly next year, even as insurers provide additional benefits required by the new health care law.
The announcement came as something of a surprise. Some members of Congress and some health policy experts had predicted that insurers would increase premiums for Medicare beneficiaries in private plans.

“Despite the claims of some, Medicare Advantage remains a strong, robust option for millions of seniors who choose to enroll or stay in a participating plan,” said Dr. Donald M. Berwick, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Insurers can begin marketing to beneficiaries on Oct. 1 for Medicare coverage that starts Jan. 1.

Medicare officials said they had been able to hold down premiums and co-payments through negotiations with insurers, which sponsor the Medicare Advantage plans.

The new law gave officials new power to negotiate and to reject bids, as they did in a few cases.

“We negotiated more aggressively than in the past,” said Jonathan D. Blum, deputy administrator of the Medicare agency. “As a result, some plans changed their bids to produce more value for beneficiaries.”

“On average,” Mr. Blum said, “Medicare Advantage premiums will be 1 percent lower in 2011 than today. Medicare Advantage plans project that enrollment will increase by 5 percent in 2011.”

About 11.3 million of the 46 million Medicare beneficiaries are in private Medicare Advantage plans, which offer comprehensive care in return for monthly premiums.

In the yearlong fight over health care, President Obama repeatedly said that the government was overpaying Medicare Advantage plans. He denounced what he described as “unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies — subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don’t improve the care of seniors.”

Over objections from insurers, Congress cut federal payments to the private plans. The cuts are expected to save $136 billion over 10 years.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said Tuesday that the negotiations with insurers showed they “remain committed to the Medicare Advantage program.”

While reviewing bids, Medicare officials said, they identified 300 private plans for further scrutiny.

“These plans unfairly proposed to increase out-of-pocket expenses for beneficiaries while increasing their own profit margins,” Dr. Berwick reported. “We said no, you have to do better.”

Medicare officials negotiated changes with most of the 300 plans. “As a result of these negotiations,” Mr. Blum said, “plans improved their benefits by $13 per member per month, or 5 percent, on average. The average reduction of about $155 per member per year for the 966,000 beneficiaries resulted in estimated total savings of $150 million for beneficiaries in 2011.”

Ultimately, seven Medicare plans offered by three insurance companies decided not to change their bids, and “we denied those bids,” Mr. Blum said.

Payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans will generally be frozen next year at 2010 levels, with rates subject to tighter constraints in subsequent years, federal health officials said.

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan=”2″ width=”70%” align=”left” valign=”top”>by Mickey McCarter
Homeland Security Today</td></tr><tr><td colspan=”2″ valign=”top”>Monday, 20 September 2010</td></tr></tbody></table><em><strong>Focus on urban areas seems to leave rural routes unguarded, Giffords says</strong></em>
The state of Arizona has a 370-mile international border with Mexico.
To secure that border, US Border Patrol has deployed roughly 3,600 agents to the state out of a total of about 20,000 agents nationwide. Yet the area surrounding Tucson, Ariz., continues to see the nation’s highest rates of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and border violence.
On the face of it, then, it would seem that Border Patrol has 10 agents for every mile of Arizona’s international border. But it doesn’t really work that way. Border Patrol agents have numerous other responsibilities and they patrol within 100 miles of the border. They also have concentrated their forces in urban areas, according to the Border Patrol National Strategy, last revised in 2007.
To combat smuggling on the US southwestern border, Border Patrol will “deter or deny access to urban areas, infrastructure, transportation, and routes of egress to smuggling organizations through checkpoints, intelligence-driven special operations, and targeted patrols,” among other measures, the strategy says.
The deployment of Border Patrol agents in Arizona has led one of its members of Congress to question whether Border Patrol operations are as effective as they could be.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) initiated a request to congressional investigators at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) last month to examine the problem to determine if Border Patrol were neglecting rural areas, where illegal immigrants have continued to stream into the United States and where Arizona ranchers have seen escalating violence and property damage.
“Despite the statements by some that our border is more secure than it ever has been, legitimate and serious questions have been raised by Southeastern Arizonans about the Border Patrol’s deployment strategies,” Giffords explained in a Sept. 15 statement on the request. “The men and women I represent need to know that our nation’s limited border security resources are being used in the most effective way possible, especially in the rural parts of Cochise County. This is why we are asking for an independent review of Border Patrol deployment decisions.”
Giffords was joined by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, in requesting specifically that GAO take a look at how Border Patrol deploys agents across Arizona. They sought to compare this to how Border Patrol agents are deployed in other southwestern states.
They further asked how Border Patrol strategies for the deployment of agents have increased the rate of apprehensions of illegal immigrants or smugglers in both urban and rural areas in Arizona as well has what actions has the agency identified to obtain operational control of the Arizona border.
Finally, they asked GAO to examine how Border Patrol reconfigures the deployment of its agents in response to spikes and drops in illegal activity along the border.
“Despite significant increases over the past five years in the number of Border Patrol agents and assets deployed to the southwest border, Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector continues to be the primary entry point for illegal immigrants and drug smugglers,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter, dated August 26. “Ranchers and residents in rural areas in particular report an increase in burglaries, home invasions, cut fences, broken water lines, and threats. Recent violence against US citizens in rural areas, apparently committed by smugglers, has added to these concerns.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has long recognized that the Tucson sector has become the domination flashpoint for border smuggling and illegal entry into the United States. As DHS has increased Border Patrol agents since 9/11, it has focused the increase on the US southwest border in general and Arizona in particular.
On August 13, President Barack Obama signed a border security supplemental appropriations bill (Public Law 111-230) that funds an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents, many of which would go to Arizona.
A current one-year deployment of National Guard troops to the southwestern border to support Border Patrol also has allocated the greatest number of Guardsmen to Arizona, which received 524 out of 1,200. Troops went to California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas.

By  Bill Hess

Sierra Vista Herald

9/16/10

SIERRA VISTA —  Are U.S. Border Patrol agents being properly deployed in Arizona? That’s a question Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wants a nonpartisan federal agency  to answer.

She and Democratic U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, signed a letter on Aug. 26 asking the Government Accountability Office to study “the approach used by the Office of Border Patrol … to deploy and manage Border Patrol personnel and resources to secure the U.S.-Mexico border in the state of Arizona.”

Giffords spokesman C.J. Karamargin said the action was the aftermath of a July 9 meeting the two members of Congress held in Douglas. The meeting focused on  border issues, and some people expressed concerns the Border Patrol does not do its work on the international boundary but rather uses a “defense-in-depth” strategy “up to 100 miles away from the border,” according to the letter to the GAO.

The congresswoman’s Republican opponent for the Congressional District 8 seat, which includes all of Cochise County, said the GAO letter is election-year politics.

“Gabrielle Giffords opposes the border fence and Giffords is against (Arizona) Senate Bill 1070, so now she is trying to distract the voters from her record of failing to protect Arizona,” Jesse Kelly said Wednesday.

Now, even though the congresswoman was against the fence in the past, she is expressing concerns that Border Patrol agents are not along the barrier, which has proven successful in the Border Patrol’s Yuma Sector. There, agents along the fences have “proven successful in securing the border,” he said.

However, some Cochise County residents who live along the border have said Giffords has been trying to have the border secured. Among those supporters is veterinarian Dr. Gary Thrasher, who says the congresswoman has been working hard on border issues.

He supports her re-election by being in a TV ad.

He said he constantly has questioned officials with the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector “to explain, reconsider and re-evaluate the strategy, to no avail.”

During the July town hall meeting covered by the Herald/Review in the border city of Douglas, the consensus of those attending was that the situation will not improve until federal agents inundate the border instead of patrolling miles from it.

At the meeting, Thompson listened intently and when Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever told him about the lack of ability to communicate in rural areas, the Mississippi congressman said he was told the issue had been handled. Saying he doesn’t like to be “told a lot of bull,” he promised he would look into the issue.

The sheriff’s view

As for requesting a GAO study of the Border Patrol strategy in Arizona, Dever said something must be done to get the attention of others in the administration and Congress.

People who live in rural Arizona, especially in the border areas, want security, and although there are Border Patrol agents on the international boundary, more are “many, many miles deep into the interior (of the state),” the sheriff said.

If a GAO study will turn the situation around, it will be a good thing, he said.

“There seems to be a disappointing number of people deployed along the border,” Dever noted.

The congresswoman noted in a Wednesday news release announcing the GAO letter that while there have been statements that the border is more secure than it ever has been, “serious questions have been raised by Southeastern Arizonans about the Border Patrol’s deployment strategies.”

In the letter to GAO, she and Thompson stated that the defense-in-depth strategy prioritizes border enforcement in urban and more populated areas, “which has diverted drug and human smuggling activities to more remote areas.”

Even with increased numbers of agents and assets, the area covered by the Tucson Sector of the Border Patrol continues to be the primary entry point for illegal immigrants and drugs, according to the letter.

“Ranchers and residents in rural areas in particular report an increase in burglaries, home invasions, cut fences, broken water lines and threats,” the letter states.

Earlier this year, Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz was killed, allegedly by a suspected illegal crosser from Mexico. The case is still under investigation.

THE REQUEST

In an Aug. 26 letter to the Government Accounting Office, two Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives — Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi — requested:

• A determination of how the Border Patrol deploys agents in Arizona and how it compares to strategies in gaining control in Texas and California.

• The extent to which the deployment strategies have increased the rate of apprehensions in both rural and urban areas of Arizona.

• How the Border Patrol decides when and at what level to redeploy staff and resources in response to changes in illegal activities in specific locations.

By Luige del Puerto

Arizona Capitol Times

September 13, 2010

After weeks of being hammered on his position on Social Security, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly countered the criticism in a television ad to be aired this week in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

In the ad, Kelly said U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the incumbent Democrat, is “distorting” his Social Security plan in order to distract voters from her record of supporting the federal bail-outs and the federal health care law, and of opposing SB1070, Arizona’s most recent immigration law.

Kelly’s position on Social Security and Medicare has been a central narrative of the Giffords’ campaign.

The Giffords campaign is seeking to portray Kelly as an extremist with “dangerous ideas.” A recent ad produced by the campaign called Kelly a “risk we can’t afford.”

“What kind of guy says that Medicare is a scam, or a Ponzi scheme? His ideas are dangerous,” Giffords’ campaign manager Rodd McLeod, stated in a news release.

Kelly’s new ad counters that his Social Security plan calls for “(honoring) our commitments” to seniors while giving younger workers a choice.

Kelly said he would keep the benefits at their current level for those who already receiving Social Security and for those who already are paying into it. For those who are just entering the work force, Kelly said he wants to provide an option to put a portion of their contributions into a personal savings account.

“We need to save Social Security by transitioning to a more sustainable financial model,” he said. “My plan guarantees that will happen. Giffords has no plan and has done nothing to work toward a solution.”

Giffords’ campaign said Kelly is attempting to give himself a “makeover” after calling for the elimination of Social Security and Medicare during the primary election season.

Meanwhile, Giffords also released a television ad that seeks to show her as tough on border security. The ad shows Cochise County veterinarian and rancher Dr. Gary Thrasher saying the congresswoman is “probably the best advocate for border security that we’ve ever had down here.”

By Ellen Sussman

Green Valley News

For World War II Army veteran Archie Jackson, Wednesday was a day he thought he’d never see.

More than six decades after earning the Bronze Star Medal, it was finally and formally presented to him by U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at American Legion Post 131 in Green Valley.

Giffords also presented Jackson, 86, with a Good Conduct Medal, the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with four bronze service stars, the World War II Victory Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, First Award, and the Honorable Service Lapel Button.

“Private First Class Archibald Jackson truly was a member of our Greatest Generation and served heroically at the Battle of the Bulge and in the D-Day invasion,” Giffords said at the brief ceremony. “It is an honor for me to present him with these medals that represent the thanks of a grateful nation.”

Giffords said presenting medals to her constituents has been one of the highest honors as a member of Congress.

Drafted in 1942 at age 18, Jackson served until Oct. 5, 1945, as a member of the 5th Infantry Division, 11th Regiment as an observer in the Intelligence and Reconnaissance Patrol.

He participated in the D-Day invasion on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, and fought in the Battle of the Bulge until it ended Jan. 25, 1945, and was trapped behind enemy lines for two days.

Bronze Star Medal

Awarded for bravery, the Bronze Star Medal is the fourth highest combat award in the armed forces. It was awarded to Jackson for the danger he faced Oct. 12, 1944, in Metz, France.

Metz had fallen to German forces when France was captured in 1940. The Battle of Metz was fought between allied forces and German forces following the Normandy invasion. The battle lasted several weeks and U.S. forces prevailed near the end of November 1944.

Though Jackson had been told he earned the Bronze Star Medal, Giffords said his valor has not been recognized and the medal was never awarded.

“Sir, unfortunately this ceremony has come too late,” Giffords said.

“My mother received a citation in the mail for my Bronze Star Medal, but I never saw the medal,” Jackson said before the ceremony. “I finally bought the medal myself so I could have it.”

“Penetrating deep into the enemy lines heedless of the great danger, Private Jackson and the patrol located the enemy weapon and returning through the enemy-infested area succeeded in reporting its position.

“His courageous actions enabled our forces to liquidate the enemy strongpoint and reflect great credit upon himself and the military service,” the citation reads.

In 2009, Jackson decided he wanted to be awarded the medal he had earned and spoke with a representative at the Veterans Administration to start the process.

Jackson said the government didn’t issue the medal and he’s not sure why.

“There are no answers,” he said.

Jackson also sustained a shrapnel chest would in that incident but wasn’t awarded the Purple Heart. Two witnesses to his injury were killed in action, and records that may have supported his entitlement for the Purple Heart were destroyed in a July 12, 1973, fire at the National Personnel Records Centers in St. Louis.

Man with a mission

In addition to contacting the Veterans Administration, Jackson also contacted Green Valley veteran resident Bob Berry, who helps veterans cut through red tape.

Giffords said as a veteran of World War II and the Korean War, Berry continues to serve his country and continues to work for Jackson’s Purple Heart.

“My staff will continue to work on your behalf for the Purple Heart,” Giffords told Jackson.

“I almost cried,” Jackson said when he learned he would be presented the medal. “I didn’t expect to have it presented to me… this has been going through my mind for years.”

Green Valley News Editorial – Campaigns Still Fudging

Saturday, September 4th, 2010

See that first letter on the right by Andrew Miller of Green Valley? I promise I didn’t ghost-write it. But I sure could have.

I’m tired of all this, too, but we press on…

The Arizona political world was all atwitter this week over two campaign gaffes. One, it turns out, wasn’t a screw-up at all but still could be costly; the other was ugly, but might not really matter in the longrun.
They’ve been rehashed over and over, so I’ll keep it short.

Jesse Kelly, who’s running against U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords for U.S. House, was the beneficiary after a commercial hit the air paid for by Conservatives for Congress, a Tucson group that is quickly losing credibility with anybody who can think clearly.

The ad states that the group put out the commercial on its own and is not affiliated with any candidate. Technically, that’s true. Realistically, it’s not. If you’re a Republican, they like you. If you’re not, they don’t.

The ad would have you believe that with young soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, Giffords was only interested in one thing as she questioned Gen. David Petraeus during a congressional committee hearing: solar-powered street lights.

On the surface, it looks bad. But if you look at Giffords’ full question and Petraeus’ full response, she was right on target because the discussion was about the threat to military supply lines, and, ultimately, how to save the lives of U.S. troops by trucking in less fuel.

Giffords’ camp responded to the ad with a press release backed by a slew of military types who are disgusted. They should be.

On Saturday, I tried to reach several people with Conservatives for Congress and managed to go back and forth with one committee member via email. He didn’t call because he was busy with family. (Somebody should tell him politics isn’t a Monday-Friday gig; newspapering isn’t either.) Their Web site says they are “delighted” by Giffords’ reaction to the ad because it allows them an opportunity to explain it.

“The point of our ad is that Giffords’ dogmatic obsession with peripheral items such as solar street lights is but one example of the myopic and leftist views she holds …”

Great explanation, except that Giffords’ exchange with the general overseeing the Iraq/Afghan war isn’t about dogma, it’s about saving lives.

Kelly had nothing to do with the ad but will benefit from it, I told his communications guy. So will he ask them to pull it?

“He really has no statemtent on a third-party ad like that,” John Ellinwood told me. “What he’d like to do is have a serious discusion about issues like Social Security, and he’s sorry to see Gabrielle Giffords demagoguing that ad.”

While Kelly didn’t pay for the ad, he does bear some responsibility because the group is acting on his behalf, whether or not they’ll admit it. But Kelly is sitting on the sidelines twiddling his thumbs. Why? Because the ad — accurate or not — could help his cause. Unless, of course, it continues to backfire like it has.

One last oddity in this. One member of the Conservatives for Congress committee is Rick Stertz, who is heavily involved in the Tucson Business Fellowship, a group of Christian business leaders. One of their tenets is “To teach, encourage and exhort Christians to employ biblical principles in their businesses.”

I think he fell short here.

Apparently the WWJD on Stertz’s bracelet stands for “What Would Jesse Do?”

By Andrea Kelly

Arizona Daily Star

A national veteran’s group that supports clean energy has called on the local Conservatives for Congress Committee to remove its ad criticizing U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ inquiry about renewable energy in America’s wars.

The Operation Free organization includes thousands of veterans, including more than 700 who have participated in lobbying activities in Washington, D.C., gone on a multi-state tour, or signed letters asking Congress to take action to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

They are responding to an ad Conservatives for Congress is airing on local television stations this week, which highlights an exchange between Giffords and Gen. David Petraeus about the American troops’ oil dependence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The heavily-edited video in the ad includes just a few words from each, carefully selected from a four-minute question and answer exchange in a congressional committee meeting.

U.S. Marine Corps veteran Jonathan Murray called the ad “inaccurate and even insulting” during a news conference Wednesday. Murray is an Operation Free director.

The news conference also included former Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Commander Lt. Gen. Norman Seip, who said reducing dependence on oil will reduce the number of dangerous convoys to transport the fuel. “Which means less opportunities for our enemy to attack our young men and women and put them in harm’s way,” Seip said.

Also Wednesday, Giffords released a list of 20 veterans condemning the ad and supporting her for taking on a life-and-death issue for troops.

“The bogus ad by Conservatives for Congress takes an issue of life and death for our troops and turns it into fodder for a cheap political attack. What a disgrace. Shame on them for disrespecting our brave men and women in uniform,” the group says in a joint statement. Included among the 20 is Retired Gen. John Wickham, former President Ronald Reagan’s U.S. Army Chief of Staff.

Conservatives for Congress has rejected the request.

“We’re not going to take it down,” said Steve Christy, chairman of the Conservatives for Congress Committee.

In a written statement, he said the groups calling for the ad’s removal are associated with “leftist” or “progressive” agendas, including the Huffington Post, the Truman National Security Project and the Progressive Policy Institute.

“The point of our ad is that Giffords dogmatic obsession with peripheral items such as solar street lights is but one example of the myopic and leftist views she holds that place her outside the mainstream of the people she supposedly represents,” Christy said in the statement.

By Francisco Barrios

Douglas Dispatch

U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords visited Douglas Sunday to meet with over 80 Douglas residents at the Gadsden Hotel for a pancake breakfast.

Francisco Barrios/Douglas Dispatch U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords thanks to Ken Davis for attending her invitation to the breakfast at the Gadsden Hotel, Sunday, August 29.

Francisco Barrios/Douglas Dispatch U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords thanks to Ken Davis for attending her invitation to the breakfast at the Gadsden Hotel, Sunday, August 29.

Giffords spoke to all at the event before making a brief statement concerning her upcoming campaign.

“Elections are about choices, she said.

“My job is to be your Congresswoman. To fight for you; to be your voice; to advocate for you and for your family and I take my job seriously.”

Giffords also spoke about her values.

Values, she said, that are reflected in her work as a Congresswoman. She is convinced that to work together and progress it is necessary to listen

She also praised Cochsie College and pushed for the continuing need for renewable energy, like the solar energy plant recently placed at the college.

“It is important, since America pays billions of dollars to import oil and other types of energy from other countries, mostly hostile to the United States.

“America’s energy needs to be made in America. And clean, renewable energy makes all the best to the world, that’s why we need to be investing.”

Investing in public education is also a strong point in her campaign, she said education is the key for a better future and a strongest United States.

Finally, Giffords asked to the community members to “Stand with her” in her race to make America a better and safer place with higher level of education, renewable energy, more health care benefits and making progress no matter the ideology.

She later said that the border is and will continue to be an important issue for her. Part of the most recent Border allocation is just for more Border Patrol agents but more money to investigate and prosecute those from other countries that break our laws.

She also stated that more technology has be made available in the area, not only to catch illegal entrants but to catch and prosecute drug and human smugglers.