I think if they do, they would argue in favor of a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I would just say this, though, to the Senator from Arkansas. There obviously have been some concerns raised by the program. He has raised some of those concerns today, and they have been the subject of various articles. But we have not in the Immigration Subcommittee up until this point yet conducted any hearing or examination to determine the degree to which these concerns are appropriately warranted. It is my understanding, though, that the Immigration and Naturalization Service is currently making some significant internal changes to the program that many believe have been previously undermining the goal of the program. I want to look at what the INS is proposing. Based on what I have heard so far, I have some concerns about the approach they are taking, but I want to get a better feel from that before I believe we should move forward with a specific fix--whether it is the fix proposed here, of eliminating the program, or some modified approach. This amendment, if accepted, would simply eliminate the use of these visas.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about an immigration program and the implications of an amendment to eliminate visa use.
Share
More from Ralph Lee Abraham
Well, I guess that is my concern, is that I don't want---- Venezuela or Russia or China paying Cuba's bill because then they become a puppet government of that country.
I consider our farmers and ranchers our thin green line, and I think that maybe our Achilles' heel in this nation as far as our national security is concerned is if we have a breach in our food security.
The commodity title, specifically, Price Loss Coverage, is the cornerstone of our safety net because of its ability to provide certainty over multiple years for farmers.
It would have been substantially more helpful for DHS to have been present today, to be part of the dialogue, inform the American public, and answer questions about their work in this area.





