SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
BORDER VULNERABILITIES AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND NONPROLIFERATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 5 AND 7, 2006
Serial No. 109–203
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BORDER VULNERABILITIES AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
28–499PDF
2006
BORDER VULNERABILITIES AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND NONPROLIFERATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 5 AND 7, 2006
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 109–203
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
DARRELL ISSA, California
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
CONNIE MACK, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
PETER T. KING, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
DARRELL ISSA, California, Vice Chairman
MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TOM SHEEHY, Subcommittee Staff Director
DON MACDONALD, Democratic Professional Staff Member
EDWARD A. BURRIER, Professional Staff Member
GENELL BROWN, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
DATES
July 5, 2006
July 7, 2006
JULY 5, 2006—WITNESSES
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Darryl Griffen, Chief Patrol Agent, San Diego Sector, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
Mr. William Kolender, Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Mr. Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Mr. Rick Flores, Sheriff, Webb County (TX) Sheriff's Department
Mr. Gregory Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Mr. T.J. Bonner, President, National Border Patrol Council
Kris Kobach, J.D., Professor of Law, University of Missouri—Kansas City School of Law
Mr. Andy Ramirez, Chairman, Friends of the Border Patrol
JULY 7, 2006—WITNESSES
Mr. Reynaldo Garza, Acting Chief Patrol Agent, Laredo Sector, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
Mr. Rick Flores, Sheriff, Webb County (TX) Sheriff's Department
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Sigifredo ''Sigi'' Gonzalez, Jr., Sheriff, Zapata County (TX) Sheriff's Department
The Honorable Raul G. Salinas, Mayor of Laredo, Texas
The Honorable Elizabeth G. Flores, former Mayor of Laredo, Texas
Mr. Gregory Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Mr. Blas Nunez-Neto, Analyst, Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Service
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARINGS
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation:
Prepared statement, July 5, 2006
Prepared statement, July 7, 2006
The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Prepared statement
The Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Prepared statement
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Prepared statement
The Honorable Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee: Prepared statement
The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Prepared statement
Mr. Darryl Griffen and Mr. Reynaldo Garza: Prepared statement
Mr. William Kolender: Prepared statement
Mr. Leroy D. Baca: Prepared statement
Mr. Rick Flores, Sheriff, Webb County (TX) Sheriff's Department
Mr. Gregory Kutz: Prepared statement
Mr. T.J. Bonner: Prepared statement
Kris Kobach, J.D.: Prepared statement
Mr. Andy Ramirez: Prepared statement
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Honorable Silvestre Reyes, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: Prepared statement
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: Prepared statement
The Honorable Rubé Hinojosa, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: Prepared statement
Mr. Sigifredo ''Sigi'' Gonzalez, Jr.: Prepared statement
The Honorable Raul G. Salinas: Prepared statement
The Honorable Elizabeth G. Flores: Prepared statement
Mr. Blas Nunez-Neto: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
Roll call votes submitted for the record by the Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Response from Mr. Reynaldo Garza to question submitted for the record by the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Michael D. Antonovich, Mayor, Los Angeles County, CA: Prepared statement
Union-Tribune editorial titled ''A Policy of Lunacy,'' dated July 2, 2006
Raytheon: Project Athena Maritime Domain Awareness System
Office of Border Patrol, Buffalo Sector: Report dated August 30, 2005 titled ''Operation Lake View''
Mr. David V. Aguilar, Chief, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Statement before the House Committee on Armed Services, May 24, 2006
Border Patrol Officers: Rate of Increase chart
Impact of 9/11 on Border Patrol Agents charts:
Rate of Growth
Additional Agents
Ms. Juanita Valdez-Cox, La Union del Pueblo Entero (LUPE): Statement on border vulnerabilities and international terrorism
LULAC on Immigration reform
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Letter dated July 6, 2006, to the Honorable Edward R. Royce and the Honorable Brad Sherman from the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Rapid Response Border Protection Act of 2005 introduced by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
Pictures of Luis Alfonso Diaz-Deleon and family
Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations, December 5, 2005
Sister of Mercy handouts on immigration
BORDER VULNERABILITIES AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM (PART I)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International Terrorism
and Nonproliferation,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 o'clock a.m., at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station, 1802 Saturn Boulevard, San Diego, California, Hon. Edward R. Royce (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROYCE. This hearing of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation will come to order. This Subcommittee is meeting outside of Washington; at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Facility in San Diego. The Subcommittee welcomes the participation of several non-Subcommittee Members, including Congressman Bob Filner, in whose congressional district this hearing is being held.
The purpose of this hearing, titled ''Border Vulnerabilities and International Terrorism,'' is to assess the threat of international terrorism and scrutinize our nation's response. The number one priority of U.S. Border Patrol, as presented in their National Border Patrol Strategy, is to ''establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their weapons as they attempt to illegally enter the United States between the ports of entry.'' The Subcommittee today will be focused on this critical mission.
In April, this Subcommittee conducted a similar oversight hearing, ''Checking Terrorism at the Border,'' which critically looked at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Subcommittee heard testimony of fraud, corruption, and national security compromises within that agency, which terrorists and foreign intelligence services are likely exploited. The 9/11 terrorists entered our country this way, most by fraudulently securing documents and violating their terms of stay. Our hearing caught the attention of USCIS leadership, and, hopefully, its operations will improve as a result of a new director and a new directive. This week, with field hearings here in San Diego today, and Laredo, Texas on Friday, the Subcommittee will examine our physical vulnerabilities to terrorism.
It's elementary that to defend ourselves against our determined and resourceful enemies our border must be secured. As the Border Patrol says, ''We must have operational control.'' The Border Patrol acknowledges that we don't have this now, which is obvious, especially to those Americans who live in border communities and suffer consequences of illegal immigration. As we'll hear today from our panel of sheriffs—drug cartels, smuggling rings and gangs operating on both the Mexico and United States side are increasingly well-equipped and more brazen than ever before in attacking Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials. Border Patrol agents are being assaulted in increasing numbers. Some border areas, such as Laredo, Texas, can be accurately described as war zones.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These border vulnerabilities are opportunities for terrorists. Last year, a top Department of Homeland Security official testified in Congress that al-Qaeda has considered crossing our southwest border. It may have already happened. Admiral James Lloyd, then the Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary, also noted that al-Qaeda leaders believe that illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons. The National Border Patrol Strategy warns of an ever-present threat of potential terrorists employing the same smuggling and transportation networks illegal aliens used to cross our border. These terrorists, the Strategy states, could cross the border undetected with biological or chemical weapons. One of our witnesses, a Federal investigator, smuggled radioactive material to make a ''dirty bomb'' through two land ports of entry—one on the northern border, one on the southwestern border. Our Border Patrol witness will testify that reducing illegal entries across our border is now more than ever a matter of national security. Post-9/11, I don't know how you look at the porous, and in some places, violent state of the border, including the sophisticated cross-border tunnels that I've been through, without being very concerned.
Lately, there has been a spike in the number of individuals from countries other than Mexico illegally crossing our border. Last year, the Border Patrol apprehended individuals from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia crossing the southern border. These countries are either designated state sponsors of terrorism or countries where al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations are active. In 2005, over 30,000 Brazilian nationals were apprehended. That's a 900 percent increase from the previous year. Hezbollah is active in the Argentina-Paraguay-Brazil border area. The FBI has testified in Congress that individuals from countries where al-Qaeda is operational are changing Islamic surnames to Hispanic surnames—a cause of concern.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Too often, illegal immigrants who are not from Mexico are apprehended, released with a promise to report to court, and are never heard from again. Immigration reform must be national security reform.
In December, the House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. The Senate has passed a very different immigration bill. The House bill does more to gain ''operational control'' of our border. The House bill requires more miles of fencing, while the Senate bill hinders fencing our southern border by requiring what one witness will testify to be unprecedented and problematic consultation with Mexican authorities. This witness will testify, also, as to how the Senate bill ties the hands of State and local law enforcement officials in combating terrorism.
No one is eager to devote more resources to border security, frankly, or build border fences. These policies have costs which we wouldn't accept in a better world. But we live in an age where dedicated terrorists want to hit us as hard as they can. They want to knock us out. So we need to be responsible. Our country has made progress in fighting terrorism since 9/11. But in some areas, we're losing ground, including the most fundamental task of securing our physical borders. It's my goal at this hearing today to help advance this cause, much in the way that I think we did with our Citizenship and Immigration Services hearing earlier this year.
This hearing, I should note, will end at 12:45, at the request of the Border Patrol. I will now turn to Mr. Brad Sherman, the Ranking Member, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Royce follows:]
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND NONPROLIFERATION
This hearing of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation will come to order. I should note at the outset, for the record, that the Subcommittee is meeting outside of Washington, at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Facility in San Diego. The Subcommittee welcomes the participation of several non-Subcommittee Members, including Congressman Bob Filner, in whose congressional district this hearing is being held.
The purpose of this hearing—titled Border Vulnerabilities and International Terrorism—is to assess the threat of international terrorism, and scrutinize our nation's response. The number one priority of the U.S. Border Patrol, as presented in its National Border Patrol Strategy, is to ''Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their weapons as they attempt to illegally enter the United States between the ports of entry.'' The Subcommittee today will be focused on this critical mission.
In April, the Subcommittee conducted a similar oversight hearing—Checking Terrorism at the Border—which critically looked at the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services. The Subcommittee heard testimony of fraud, corruption and national security compromises within that agency, which terrorists and foreign intelligence agencies are likely exploiting. The 9/11 terrorists entered our country this way, most by fraudulently securing documents and/or violating their terms of stay. Our hearing caught the attention of USCIS's leadership, and hopefully its operations will improve. This week, with field hearings in San Diego today, and Laredo, Texas on Friday, the Subcommittee will examine our physical borders' vulnerability to terrorism.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It's elementary that to defend ourselves against our determined and resourceful enemies, our border must be secure; or in the parlance of the Border Patrol, we must have ''operational control.'' The Border Patrol acknowledges that we don't have this now, which is obvious, especially to those Americans who live in border communities and suffer the consequences of illegal immigration. As we'll hear today from our panel of sheriffs, drug cartels, smuggling rings, and gangs operating on both the Mexico and U.S. sides, are increasingly well-equipped and more brazen than ever before in attacking federal, state and local law enforcement officials. Border Patrol agents are being assaulted in increasing numbers. Some border areas can be accurately described as war zones.
These border vulnerabilities are opportunities for terrorists. Last year, a top Department of Homeland Security official testified to Congress that al Qaeda has considered crossing our southwest border. It may have already happened. Admiral James Loy, then the Department of Homeland Security's deputy secretary, also noted that al Qaeda leaders believe that illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons. The National Border Patrol Strategy warns of an ''ever-present threat'' of potential terrorists employing the same smuggling and transportation networks illegal aliens use to cross our border. These terrorists, the Strategy states, could cross the border undetected with biological or chemical weapons. One of our witnesses smuggled radioactive material, enough to make a dirty bomb, through two land ports of entry, one on the northern border, one on the southwestern border. Our Border Patrol witness will testify that reducing illegal entries across our border is now more than ever a matter of national security. Post 9/11, I don't know how you look at the porous and in some places violent state of the border, including the sophisticated cross-border tunnels that are being dug, without being very concerned.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Lately there has been a spike in the number of individuals from countries other than Mexico illegally crossing our borders. Last year, the Border Patrol apprehended individuals from Syria, Iran, and Somalia crossing the southern border. These countries are either designated ''state sponsors of terrorism,'' or countries where al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations are active. In 2005, over 30,000 Brazilian nationals were apprehended, a 900 percent increase from the previous year. Hezbollah is active in the Argentina-Paraguay-Brazil border area. The FBI has testified to Congress that individuals from countries where al Qaeda is operational are changing Islamic surnames to Hispanic surnames, a cause of concern. Too often illegal immigrants who are not from Mexico are apprehended, released with a promise to report to court, and are never heard from again. Immigration reform must be national security reform.
In December, the House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. This Senate has passed a different immigration bill. The House bill does more to gain ''operational control'' of our border. The House bill requires more miles of fencing, while the Senate bill hinders fencing our southern border by requiring what one witness will testify to be unprecedented and problematic consultation with Mexican authorities. This witness will testify also to how the Senate bill ties the hands of state and local law enforcement officials in combating terrorism.
No one is eager to devote more resources to border security. Or build border fences. These policies have costs, which we wouldn't accept in a better world. But we live in an age when dedicated terrorists want to hit us as hard as they can. They want to knock us out. So we need to be responsible. Our country has made progress in fighting terrorism since 9–11, but in some areas, we're losing ground, including the most fundamental task of securing our physical borders. It's my goal for the hearing today to help advance this cause, much in the way that I think we did with our Customs and Immigration Services hearing earlier this year.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Chairman Royce. Let me thank you for graciously allowing Members of Congress who are not Members of our International Relations Committee to participate in these hearings. And thank you for your collegiality in general.
It's been widely publicized that House Republican leadership has ordered a variety of different committees, some with jurisdiction over legislation, some like ours with no jurisdiction at all, to hold hearings this summer around the country.
These hearings are not designed to legislate. They're designed to whip up public opinion. So the hearings that our Subcommittee is having here today have been swallowed up by this political agenda.
I'm, frankly, mystified why Republican leadership wants us to start here today with a series of immigration hearings that are really dog and pony shows. The reason I'm mystified is they've got some really ugly dogs and some really mangy ponies. An ugly record of not controlling our border and not providing adequate resources to our Border Patrol. Six years of total control in Washington and an uncontrolled border. And a really mangy record of not adopting and enforcing immigration laws so that we can eliminate this huge magnet that attracts illegal immigrants across our borders and confounds our law enforcement authorities.
Let's first look at the ugly. The ugly failure to provide adequate Border Patrol resources.
If we look at this chart here, we see that under the Clinton Administration, the rate of increase of the Border Patrol was almost four times as fast as under the Bush Administration, where the Border Patrol is growing at roughly 4 1/2 percent. This, in spite of the fact that the Bush Administration had the wake-up call of 9/11, it seems they've been able to go back to sleep.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And then we see how has this country behaved after 9/11. Before 9/11, we were growing the Border Patrol over a 4-year period. It grew almost 45 percent. In the 4 years immediately following that terrible incident, that terrible attack against us, the rate over a 4-year period has been only 15 percent.
Time and again, Democrats have gone to the Floor of the House of Representatives and voted for more Border Patrol resources and more resources for detention beds for those awaiting deportation. Time and again, we're outvoted.
As Mr. Tancredo, one Republican Member of this Committee has stated, we have had to drag the President kicking and screaming toward even providing the modest increases in Border Patrol resources that the Congress has adopted recently.
The terrorist threat is greatest, I believe, on the Canadian border, where we have only 1/20th the coverage that we have on our southern border. The Canadian border where we've had actual terrorists come into our country and be apprehended—not just rumors. I think that the North Koreans have discovered that it is difficult to build an intercontinental ballistic missile, but they also know that you do not have to be a rocket scientist to smuggle a nuclear weapon over America's northern border.
We have the Catch-and-Release program, because time and again, we have failed to provide the detention beds called for by the 9/11 Act which Congress adopted. We have a program where, particularly those who are not from Mexico, including illegal border crossers who are from countries of interest, which the Chairman pointed out to, are caught and then released when they should be detained and deported.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But enough of the ugly record of failure to control our border. Let's turn to the mangy record on immigration law and immigration policy. If you go down to the border here, you'll see two giant signs. One says, ''Keep Out,'' the other says, ''Help Wanted.'' We have failed to adopt an immigration and labor policy that we are willing to enforce. And as a result, there has been a 99 percent decline in the number of enforcement actions against employers. The number of employers fined for hiring those not in our country legally. In fact, in 2004, those fines went to three nationwide.
So, we continue to have this magnet where there are jobs available for those who cross our border illegally where we do not have a system that employers will agree to for bringing the amount of labor into our country that we as a society will agree to.
Furthermore, there is a bill before Congress which the Chairman mentioned that would criminalize 12 million of those who are living in the United States and create a circumstance in which terrorists could hide amongst them and they would be highly unlikely to cooperate with local law enforcement.
I want to thank the witnesses that are here today, and especially thank Sheriff Lee Baca. I don't see him in the audience yet, but I know he'll be here for his panel.
He heads the largest sheriffs' department in the United States. He'll be here to tell us about the terrorism early warning group that he's put together, and also to tell us how California, and especially Los Angeles County, have not been reimbursed at any reasonable level by the Federal Government for those illegal immigrants who shouldn't be in this country here at all—a Federal problem—who commit felonies and are incarcerated.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The SCAAP program which is designed to reimburse our counties and States who face this cost has been zeroed out by the Bush Administration. Democrats and others in Congress have fought to provide some resources.
So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to bipartisan and collegial hearings with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you for graciously allowing members of Congress not on the International Relations Committee to participate in these hearings. I do not agree with us holding these hearings. But you have, as always, conducted yourself in a bipartisan fashion notwithstanding the partisan rancor surrounding the nation-wide gaggle of field hearings that have been scheduled on immigration-related issues this summer.
I want to commend your work on the Committee; we have had a good working relationship, and I know that will continue.
This is a critically important topic, but the way these hearings are designed, we simply are out of our jurisdiction. As an International Relations panel, we have jurisdiction over the foreign affairs agencies and laws of the United States. We oversee the Department of State, not the Department of Homeland Security. The subject of these hearings is more in the portfolio of the Homeland Security Committee, Appropriations Committee, Intelligence Committee or Judiciary Committee. I want to know how terrorists intend to get to our homeland to attack us. I want to know what we are doing diplomatically to urge other countries to improve their own immigration controls, so that Mexico, South and Central America are not gateways for terrorists.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we are not in Washington hearing from the State Department and foreign policy experts, as is the purpose of our committee. We are in San Diego and Laredo this week to hear from Border Patrol, from county Sheriffs, from border security and immigration experts and a citizen activist, focusing on matters that are within the jurisdiction of other committees. Our colleagues look to our committee to oversee our State Department and foreign policy. What we are giving them is the first in a series of traveling political shows designed to inflame partisanship. The only upside is that the hearing will illustrate that the party which controls Washington has failed to control our border—or to adopt a regular legal system for America to get the number of workers it needs legally. I know that was not your intention when you planned these hearings, but that's what we have here, pursuant to the game plan of Republican House Leadership.
That said, let me highlight what I view as the failings of current border control policy.
On several occasions, we on this side of the aisle have tried to get more Border Patrol officers, more detention space for those awaiting deportation and, often working together with Republican colleagues from border states, on getting more help for the states and local government to beef up security. But, to paraphrase our colleague Tom Tancredo, we have had to drag the President kicking and screaming for more resources for border security.
Since 2001, more than 2 million undocumented immigrants have come to the US. Notwithstanding the fact that he signed the 911 Act mandating that 2,000 more Border Patrol agents be added every year from 2006–2010, Bush requested only 210 in his 2006 budget. Just 210. The 2007 funding bill for Homeland Security would provide only an additional 1,200 next year. Even with the additional 1,000 agents provided recently by the emergency Katrina appropriations bill, we are still 800 agents short of the 4,000 promised in the 911 Act for 2006 and 2007.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Canada is a known entry point for terrorists—there is no need to rely on shadowy intelligence there. Remember the Millennium Plot to blow up Los Angeles Airport on New Years Eve? There is one agent for every five miles along our northern border—a whopping total of 952 agents watch that expanse. That's actually a decrease from the 1008 on that frontier in 2005.
And then there is catch and release. Currently, we cannot simply return non-Mexicans who are detained crossing the Southern border. Mexico won't take them. These Other Than Mexicans (OTM) have to be held until we can process them back to their countries of origin, usually by giving them a plane ticket. But we don't have the detention space to hold them.
About 165,000 OTMs were caught by border patrol in 2005. Seventy percent of these OTMs end up on the streets. Most don't bother to appear for their deportation hearing. And yes, some are from so-called ''countries of interest,'' where terrorism is a known threat. The 911 Act called for 8,000 more detention beds in 2006, a modest increase in itself. The 2006 funding bill only provided for 4000. A Democratic proposal to get to the 8,000 was rejected. The 2006 and 2007 funding bills combined leave us 5,000 beds short of what was called for by the 911 Act.
I invited Sheriff Baca to appear today. One, he's my sheriff and I didn't want San Diego and Webb Counties to have all the fun. I wanted to hear about his Department's innovative Terrorism Early Warning Group, which is a model for federal-local cooperation. But he will also testify to how we have completely ripped off states and local governments by failing to take care of our own federal responsibility: the detention of criminal illegal immigrants.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
George W. Bush has repeatedly tried to cut or eliminate SCAAP—the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program—which reimburses states for the costs associated with jailing undocumented criminals. Since it's the feds who didn't stop these criminals from entering our country in the first place, it should be our responsibility to help the states and local governments cover the costs of incarcerating them.
Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that we simply cannot get a handle on border security until we figure out our broader immigration policy. We have two signs up on our border—''Help Wanted'' and ''Keep Out.'' As long as we have a need for foreign labor, and lack a policy to address that need, we will have chaos at the border, illegal immigration and human smuggling. Will terrorists blend in with those entering our country illegally? Will they use the same smuggling networks to gain entry? It is certainly possible. With a normalized process for temporary workers and legal immigrants, we can focus our manpower and resources on those who are real threats to our security.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the witnesses and especially my colleagues for attending.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman, as to your point on jurisdiction, we would actually not be doing our job if we weren't holding this hearing today. Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on International Relations spells out that this Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes oversight and legislative responsibilities over the United States' efforts to manage and coordinate international programs to combat terrorism as coordinated by the Department of State and other agencies.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Clearly, the witnesses that we're going to be hearing from today are dealing with a crucial issue of international terrorism and how government agencies are dealing with it. As I earlier indicated, the Border Patrol states that its top priority is to keep terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States. So I think it's not only appropriate, but it is our job—it is our job to hear from the local law enforcement officers whose job it is to keep us secure, to keep us safe—our sheriffs, our Border Patrol agents.
That's what we'll be doing today.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could interject and respond to that.
Mr. ROYCE. I'll be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SHERMAN. We do have responsibility for what the State Department does to work at the diplomatic level with other countries to control terrorism. But none of the witnesses here today are with the State Department.
Now, it's true that you could say that it's because our Committee deals with foreign policy that we should tour military bases. Because, after all, our military actions evolve from our foreign policy.
But we have an Arms Service Committee that oversees the military, not to mention an Intelligence Committee, not to mention an Appropriations Committee.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And likewise, when it comes to enforcement on the ground, when it comes to the Department of Homeland Security, Congress has a Homeland Security Committee to deal with the Department of Homeland Security. I wish we were in Washington talking to the State Department about how to develop a more effective——
Mr. ROYCE. Reclaiming my time.
I don't doubt that my colleague and friend doesn't wish we were in Washington talking to the State Department. Our first responsibility is the State Department and our agencies. But let's just speak to the State Department. The Senate bill, which we'll be discussing today, gives to the State Department the responsibility of working with Mexico. And should we build a border fence, it says that we will get agreement out of Mexico in terms of building that fence. Clearly, this is in our purview.
I would also share with you that we do travel overseas, for example, to North Africa, to bases to deal with our special brigades that are infiltrating terrorist units. When it deals with terrorists, that's the responsibility of this Committee.
Now, if the intelligence community and Homeland Security Department were not telling us that al-Qaeda seeks to gain entry over our southern border, then maybe we could retreat back to Washington and hear again from the State Department. But in light of the fact that we're dealing with international terrorism, and post-9/11 we know they're serious, I think we are only doing our jobs if we go forward and examine exactly that threat. Which we'll now do by going, first, to the Vice Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Darrell Issa.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would ask that——
The CLERK. Your microphone is not on.
Mr. ISSA. Am I on now?
Mr. Chairman, I ask that by unanimous consent the written statement be placed in the record.
Mr. Chairman, I'll use 1 minute basically to say why we're here today, and echo much of what you have already said.
I first of all would like to note that, for example, Mr. Filner who's on the Transportation Infrastructure and Veterans Affairs thought it was important enough to be here. Ms. Davis, who's on Armed Services, Education, and Workforce thought it was important enough to be here.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is extremely important that every Member of Congress hear and see what every issue is related to immigration reform and border security. And we are ineffective as a result of not having secured borders. We're ineffective because we don't have a plan for a guest worker program while we in fact have 12–20 million people that are here as quasi-guests.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The reality is that, yes, we are here to focus on terrorism, which is in the jurisdiction of this Committee. But more importantly, and I think most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we are here to have a dialogue with the American people, because we must no longer turn our backs on a problem.
The Border Patrol here in San Diego has been facing a—and throughout the southern border—a hopeless problem. One in which there is not enough, cannot be enough, Border Patrol agents under the present systems to totally secure the border. We cannot have enough of all of the other resources necessary unless we change dynamics. And particularly with the Border Patrol having its number one focus on protecting our border from terrorists, and probably the logical number two, being drugs and other trafficking.
We must find today what the strengths and weaknesses and capabilities are, how we're going to get to terrorism, which is a major threat. And, quite frankly, Mr. Sherman, rightfully so, said, well, this is about the President's policy. Of course it is. Because we're looking for a focused change. A change—a bipartisan, bicameral change, a new law that will give us the opportunity for you men and women to testify here today to do your primary job which is securing the border while we do our job which is to deal with some of the economic issues that have brought us here today.
So Mr. Sherman, I look forward to this lively bipartisan debate in good spirit.
I yield back.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Issa follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on our nation's vulnerability to terrorism because of a border that we do not exercise effective control over. I would also like to thank the distinguished panel of witnesses we have here today as well as the many interested citizens in attendance.
Residents of San Diego and other border area communities have long known and had to live with the dangers associated with an unsecure border. Problems associated with traffickers in drugs and human beings, as well as other border related criminal activity, has menaced residents in this area for many years.
No Administration or Congress has made sufficiently strong efforts to establish operational control of our border and break the backs of these ongoing criminal enterprises.
When I compare and contrast the border security provisions of the immigration bills passed by the House and the Senate, I see a bill passed by the House that places an emphasis on gaining operational control of our border first and foremost and another bill passed by the Senate that takes the kind of failed half-hearted measures that have led to the situation we find ourselves in today.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill passed by the House will construct 730 miles of border fencing across the southwest, while the bill passed by the Senate would construct only 370 miles and requires that our government consult with Mexico before building the fence. The bill passed by the Senate, would in fact make enforcement of existing laws that help that make it more difficult to prosecute smugglers and those who harbor illegal aliens more difficult by creating new exemptions from criminal liability for persons or organizations providing assistance to aliens illegally in our country.
Finally Mr. Chairman, I must mention my concern that while our Border Patrol agents are working hard and making a commendable effort to work with limited resources in an effort to secure our border, the Department of Justice is failing miserably to prosecute the traffickers who bring human beings across our borders.
If terrorists want to bypass the expensive investments this Congress has made in tracking who it is that is attempting to enter our country at ports of entry, it stands to reason that they will have to look no farther than the individuals and networks who smuggle human beings into this country and are only rarely given more than a simple slap on the wrist for their crime.
By failing to adopt a zero tolerance policy for prosecuting human smugglers, the Department of Justice has negligently allowed a criminal culture of smuggling networks to fester. Human smugglers, known locally as coyotes, are most often Mexican nationals or U.S. citizens but they are all bad characters. They have smuggled in murderers, rapists, child predators and I believe many would smuggle in terrorists if properly paid.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The continued existence and tolerance of these smugglers puts us at risk to terrorism and is a gaping hole in our border security. I look forward to hearing our witnesses address both our operational security needs on the border as well as the support in terms of detention space and prosecutions our agents on the frontline need to secure our border from the threat of terrorism.
Thank you.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Filner, whose district we're in today.
Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first apologize for the United States Congress to some of the witnesses who are here, because you have been made a part of an elaborate coverup for failure in Washington. That is, the majority party controls the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court. They don't have a bill to deal with immigration. And they haven't protected our borders. This is an incredible failure, and going around the country to try to cover that up.
Since you are here at the border in California, and I represent virtually the whole border from here to Yuma, Arizona, and nobody has bothered to ask me my opinion on it, but let me say one thing that you ought to consider.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need a smart border if we're going to deal with the issues of terrorism and the issues of illegal immigration. Right now we have a dumb border. And what I mean by that, let me tell my colleagues something like 300,000 people every day cross through my district back and forth, across the border legally. Three hundred thousand—legally. There's no place like that in the world. We ought to be dealing with those legal immigrants in a far more technologically advanced way. We can put all kinds of biometric data on ID cards. We can make sure we know who these 300,000 are. Let's let them go back and forth with some efficiency, and concentrate our resources on the bad guys. That would be a smart border.
We have long lines, it takes sometimes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 hours to cross the border legally. We're wasting our resources. Let's focus on the bad guys and let's help those who regularly cross for family and jobs and housing and education and shopping to cross that border efficiently.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
I'll remind the Members to hold your statement to 1 minute.
Mr. Poe, from Texas.
Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having these hearings. I think the purpose of these hearings is to find out the truth of what's going on. And as a former judge in Texas for 22 years, I believe in the rule of law, and it's real simple: It's illegal to come in the United States without permission, and that includes everybody.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And the purpose of these hearings, of course, is to concentrate on the real outlaws, those terrorists who want to do us harm, from whatever border they want to come into the United States from. It seems to me that as the United States is protecting the borders of our nation, as we ought to protect our own border as well.
There are two wars going on. There's a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and there is a border war. Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned it correctly, down in Laredo, it is a border war. It's a war zone. And I want to thank Sheriff Flores for being here today from Laredo for those types of intrusions into our country.
Several concerns that I have are about the fact that we have intrusions from foreign nations. There have been over 200 incursions in the last 10 years. The Department of Homeland Security chief says that those are probably not military incursions. I want to find out what they are, even though he says they don't occur. I guess it's people playing the Mexican Military, wanting to dress up and come over to the United States.
Concerned about al-Qaeda sales, south of the American border, North American border they have assimilated and wish to move into the United States. And, of course, this absurd policy of having to go to all the trouble of border security agents of having arrested people from other nations, other than Mexico, and then released them on their own oath to come back to the United States and what we can do about that absurd policy.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
We'll go now to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With complete control of legislation and enforcement for 6 years, Republicans are now calling for a series of hearings across the United States. And I think it's pretty obvious that this is a political effort. It's more talk and, again, no action.
Since 1995 when the Senate and House were taken over by the Republican party, 5.3 million additional undocumented immigrants came to the United States. The 9/11 Act mandates an additional 800 immigration enforcement agents, but the Congress controlled by the Republicans has only 350.
The 9/11 Act mandates an additional 2000 Border Patrol agents over each of the next 5 years, but we failed to do that as well.
Since Bush became President, workforce enforcement has fallen apart. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in '99 to 4 in 2003. Fines collected declined from 3.6 million to 212,000. In 1999, United States initiated fines against 417 companies. And in 2004, three. Three.
So we know that little has been done. And I remember that, in politics, when the going gets tough, you talk. And when it's real tough, you talk a lot.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That's what we're doing today, and I think it's a shame.
[The prepared satement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
We are finally turning our attention to a serious issue—border vulnerabilities and terrorism. Unfortunately, this hearing and the all others the Republican leadership has scheduled are a day late and a dollar short. Correction—we are six years late and millions of dollars short.
President Bush took office in 2001. The Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 1995. The Senate, with one exception, has had a majority of Republicans since 1995. The Federal government, charged with making and enforcing the laws of this nation, have been under the sole control of Republicans for the last six years.
With complete control of legislation and enforcement of law for six years, you would think that a party that now calls so vigorously for border security and enforcement of immigration law could have solved problems of illegal immigration by now.
But, Mr. Chairman, the Republican Party seems to be all talk on this subject.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Even the latest so called ''border security'' bill that passed the House of Representatives in December, H.R. 4437, does next to nothing to solve the problems of vulnerabilities on the border.
Title I, named, ''Securing United States Borders,'' appears to be a promising title. However, of 17 provisions, only two actually provide additional border resources.
Take for example section 101, ''Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.'' Why should we have to wait 18 months for the Secretary to control our borders? Is this not his job already, as required by existing law? More importantly, if the Secretary is not doing his job now, why would another law telling him to do what he's already required to do change anything?
H.R. 4437's ''solution'' to border security and terrorism is to make 11 million people felons. Throwing 11 million in jail and prosecuting them provides each one of them with constitutionally guaranteed government-paid defense counsel. The costs for arrest, prosecution, court, and incarceration could reach 1/3 of a TRILLION dollars. Do we think Republicans, who can't pay for the cost of enough Border Patrol agents, are really serious about this?
H.R. 4437 would also make priests, ministers, and other humanitarian volunteers guilty of a felony and subject to up to five years in prison for simply feeding and helping undocumented immigrants in desperate situations.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately, H.R. 4437 is not the only Republican failure on border security. Here is just a partial list of others:
Since 1995 when the Senate and the House were taken over by the Republican Party, 5.3 million undocumented immigrants came to the United States.
Since 2001 when President Bush came to power, over 2 million undocumented immigrants have entered the United States.
In 2004, Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform Act (or the 9/11 Act), which mandated an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents being hired over each of the next five years, but the President's FY 2006 budget called for only 210 additional Border Patrol agents and Congress, with both the House and Senate controlled by Republicans, only funded 1,200 additional agents.
The 9/11 Act also mandated an additional 800 immigration enforcement agents over each of the next five years. And yet, for FY 2006, the Congress funded only 350 additional agents.
The 9/11 Act also mandated an additional 8,000 detention beds, but for FY 2006, the Congress funded only 1,800 additional detention beds.
According to the Washington Post, between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95% by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to only four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000. In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to only three.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Little has been done to secure our northern border. The Congressional Research Service says that Canada is a ''favored destination for terrorist groups [as] a safe haven, transit point and place to raise funds.'' While the Republican leadership in Congress focuses on the Southern border with 10,000 Border Patrol agents stationed along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico, only a fraction of that force is on the Canadian border. Recent news stories state that people drive, walk, sail, ski, and sled across the northern border all the time. We have, at any given time, about 200 Border Patrol agents along a 5,000 mile northern border
On December 16, 2005, all 219 House Republicans voting that day, including the ones here today, opposed a proposal that would have required more border agents, ended ''Catch and Release'' by authorizing 100,000 additional detention beds and incorporated state-of-the art surveillance technology, including cameras, sensors, radar, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles. [HR 4437, Vote #660, 12/16/2005, 198–221]
In 2005, of 227 House Republicans, 226 voted, including all Republicans here today, voted against a proposal to commit $41 billion to secure the nation from terrorist threats—$6.9 billion more than the President's budget. The proposal contained $28.4 billion for border and transportation security, immigration processing, and other security functions—$4 billion more than the President's budget. [HR 1817, Vote #188, 5/18/2005, 199–228]
In 2005, 225 of 227 Republicans, including all the Republicans here today, voted against an effort to add $284 million to an emergency spending bill for securing the nation's borders. The added funding would have hired 550 additional border patrol agents and 200 additional immigration investigators, and provided funding for unmanned border aerial vehicles. [HR 1268, Vote #160, 5/5/2005, 201–225]
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of tough talk these days about immigration, but the record of those promoting that talk on real action is poor. That's been the pattern for a decade. And it continues today.
This looks like a political effort, not a serious government effort.
It seems to me that this hearing on border intelligence is just another in the long list of hearings held and planned by this Republican-led Congress that do not lead to solutions to a problem the American public cares about. The Republicans are all talk and no action on border security and terrorism. Full of hot air, you are the GOP—the Gab Only Party.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
Congressman J.D. Hayworth from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have a full statement I'll submit for the record and I ask for unanimous consent for its enclosure in today's proceedings.
Mr. ROYCE. Without objection.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I listen with great interest to the preceding statements from my friends on the left and would welcome their active sponsorship of my enforcement first bill. Because on one point we can agree. We need a lot less talk and a lot more action.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we have before us, ladies and gentlemen, is not a Republican problem, not a Democrat problem. It's inherently an American problem. And unless and until we face up to the fact that national security is border security, and unless and until we face up to the fact that we need active interior enforcement of our laws, all the proceedings and all the posturing and all the political speeches in the world matter not one wit.
It is fascinating to hear that Committee hearings are part of the cover-up. Well, that is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that I haven't seen in a long time.
Well, I look forward to having this hearing today to hear what's on the minds of the witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time and for the opportunity.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
We'll now go to Mr. Xavier Becerra from California.
Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to begin by thanking all of our witnesses, our law enforcement personnel who are here, and, certainly, the public that has taken the time to attend.
But I'm not certain that this is the most prudent use of official resources to hold this public hearing which is being paid at taxpayer expense in an effort, in essence, to gain an upper hand in an internal squabble that's going on between Republicans in the House and Republicans in the Senate. They cannot agree on what to do on immigration reform. And so here, we have these hearings held by Members in the House, and the Senate now will hold hearings as well. And we have two bills that have been passed by the House and the Senate, and they both sit idle waiting to be negotiated for a compromise. And so while we sit, the public waits. And right now, if we were to look into the crystal ball and say what will happen by the end of this year? It looks like nothing.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These hearings, unless they move us somewhere, are going to be a prescription to a do-nothing Congress. And once again, after many, many years, we will see nothing being done. So Americans want solutions, not political grandstanding. Hopefully we can move beyond these hearings and actually get to the work of coming up with a compromised bill between the House and the Senate and the Republicans stop their squabbling so we can get there and give America what they want. And Americans wanting a solution.
So I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
Now we'll go down to Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We know that you are too busy to come to Washington, and this is why we have come to you.
You have a tremendous task in front of you which is securing the border of this nation. And we know that many of you agree with us in the House, that the very first action that we should take is to secure this border. And then we should be talking about other issues.
And we know the issue today, first and foremost, is the issue of illegal entry. The discussion we're going to have today happens when people, and it has to happen, when people choose to illegally cross our border, choose to break our law to enter our nation.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We know that the American people are frustrated with this issue. We know that they are frustrated with Washington, DC, and the apparent lack of understanding the impact of illegal entry has on this great nation.
We agree that people have truly grown ill and fatigued with the talk and with the bureaucracy, and they are ready for action. And the action that most Americans would like to see taken is the action proposed in the House bill.
We hope that the Administration, the bureaucracy in the Senate, will agree with us and with the American people and sign that bill into law that puts the focus on securing the border, worker enforcement, and no amnesty for those who have illegally entered our country. We know that the issue of——
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blackburn follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Border Security is one of the most important issues for my constituents and Americans. They want to see immediate action to secure the border and prevent illegal entry into this country which often involves drug smuggling, human trafficking, and terrorist infiltration. President Bush recently instituted an important step by sending military troops to supplement border patrol agents. But this is not enough. We need to drastically increase the number of agents at the border and construct physical barriers, such as fences and walls, which will prevent the entry of illegal immigrants and terrorists into our country. Until these steps are completed, I am in favor of sending more troops to secure the border.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Once the border is secure, then Congress must insist on worksite enforcement. Over the past few years, this area has been a low priority for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement as they have continually devoted less and less resources to this area and often lowering the amount of fines in negotiations with employers. GAO has stated that this policy undermines effective enforcement and allows the company owners to view the fines as simply the cost of doing business. GAO also stated that U.S. employers will continue to hire illegal immigrants because of these lax enforcement efforts and as the proliferation of fake documents increases.
I believe it is a vital to ensure that federal contractors, who often oversee work at these critical infrastructure sites, verify the legal status of their employees to ensure security is not compromised. Also, these contractors also must not be allowed to negotiate these fines down and therefore to continually ignore the law.
I have introduced two bills to address these problems. One of my bills, H.R.2049, the Federal Contractors Security Act, would ensure that federal contractors are not using taxpayer dollars to pay the wages and salaries of illegal immigrants. Another bill of mine, H.R.3262, the Employee Verification Accountability Act, would not allow ICS to negotiate the fines down, but instead would level a standard fine of $10,000 if the employer knowingly hires an ineligible worker.
Together my two bills would greatly reduce the ability of contractors and ICE to turn a ''blind eye'' towards the employment of illegal immigrants. I am pleased that the House Judiciary Committee inserted many of the provisions of my bill into H.R.4437. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROYCE. Time has expired. We're now going to go to Congressman Raul Grijalva.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In coming to this hearing, I was hopeful that this hearing is about receiving information from expert witnesses today in an effort to craft a legislative relief to the very real issues on the border, to the need for immigration reform, to the needs around security, to reconcile the differences that exist in two pieces of legislation, and to work toward a common ground.
But sadly, I have come to the conclusion that this hearing, like the others, is about justifying an outcome. And that it's either the House legislation, which is 44/37, or nothing. And what a failure on the part of this Congress not to act responsibly, but instead to inflame, posture, and pander to emotions and divisions of this country.
There are real issues on this border. I represent a big portion of this border in Arizona. Issues of security. Economic issues. Issues of—humanitarian issues. People dying—400–500 a year in the Arizona desert.
These are real issues. And I think the responsibility of this Committee of jurisdiction is to look about how we internationalize the solution. How we have a shared responsibility with our neighbors to the south—on enforcement, on economic development, and on security.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I—thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROYCE. Without objection, we'll put all these statements on the record.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, that will apply to both witnesses and Members?
Mr. ROYCE. That is correct.
We'll go to Congressman Rohrabacher from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. First and foremost, let us all admit that our primary responsibility to the people of the United States is to protect their interest. And the United States Government has not been protecting the interests of the people of the United States, for whatever reason.
And I want to congratulate the Border Patrol and those law enforcement officers who have been trying to do their job down here when the rest of us have not been doing our job in Washington, DC.
And the fact is, that no matter how tough we try to make it in the border, Mr. Chairman, unless we have an overall program that includes cutting off the benefits and jobs that draw people across this border, we can't just rely on the Border Patrol who's trying to do their job.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we need to act in Congress. We have not done so. This is both about this Administration as well as Democrats on the other side of the aisle bear responsibility on this, as we do. Let's get going, let's do our jobs, so that these people down on the border can do their job and stop this invasion of the United States which is hurting the American people.
Mr. ROYCE. Congresswoman Susan Davis from California. Congresswoman Susan Davis.
Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses and I want to welcome my colleagues to San Diego. I can't stress more deeply the strength of emotion that I feel around this issue when I talk to residents in my community here in San Diego and face in the discussion today. And I certainly hope that what we hear today on the inside of the game, if any, will really contribute to genuine decision-making. That is my hope.
And I have some fundamental questions, Mr. Chairman.
What are the most effective, the most realistic, and the most workable ways to protect our borders? How do we shut out terrorists and WMD and how do we stem the flow of undocumented workers? How do we take the information and intelligence and share it amongst the professionals who are working to do just that, to protect our borders? What kind of cost-benefit analysis should we perform for the various approaches? And, are we willing to commit the necessary resources so these are not more solutions done ''on the cheap'' without any real hope of success?
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For years, San Diegans have been asking these questions. We've all been asking them. We've been looking to our Republican leadership in Washington for those answers. And quite frankly, they haven't been provided.
So we're here today. This is a serious problem. And I hope serious people who truly want to solve it will be central to the debate.
We know that there should be shared responsibility for both success and for failure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll submit a full statement for the record.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
We'll go to Congresswoman Grace Napolitano from California.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'd certainly like to ask to leave the record open for inclusion of any testimony.
Mr. ROYCE. Without objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir.
You've heard all the arguments—I was born and raised in Brownsville, Texas. So talk to me about carrying your birth certificate because they want to know where you were born. I've lived with that.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have a problem, ladies and gentlemen. And all the talking in the world isn't going to do it. So if we're going to fund the ability for highway patrol, for Border Patrol, for Customs, for everybody to do their job, it has to be funded.
You have not, gentlemen, been funded properly.
Since 201, there have been submissions of bills that would have increased the number of patrol officers. And guess what? My colleagues voted against it. Just on 207, 1.5 billion voted against.
Now, are we talking or are we acting?
I think it's time that we begin to look at it seriously, about the employers sanctions, about what do you do with formal versus informal deportations, ladies and gentlemen. And where are you going to put all of these criminals? Supposedly criminals.
So there are many, many questions that cannot be answered. It's not a one-size-fits-all. It is a serious problem but also understand that the economy rests on a lot of this immigrant population. So we need to be able to determine how we're going to handle it. How much funding are we going to provide. And are we serious about making a dent in what we feel is stemming the flow of antiterrorism or any other type of criminal activity coming into our country from our countries.
And with that, I yield back.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Ms. Napolitano follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to address this important issue.
We are here today to talk about border security. What we should be talking about is the fact that Republicans are holding these sham hearings instead of going to conference and enacting much-needed comprehensive immigration and border security reform legislation.
Democrats have offered numerous amendments in the last four and a half years to enhance border security resources. If these Democratic amendments had been adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 more immigration agents along our borders than now exist. Each time, these efforts have been rejected by the Republican majority.
Democrats are sincere about border enforcement proposals, while some in the immigration debate seem more inclined to rely on rhetoric and won't even live up to their own requirements. Performance on border resources and immigration enforcement has actually fallen under the Bush Administration, so what we should be talking about now is how to find a sensible approach to border security, which would include the following:
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Provide guest workers with a pathway to legalization, which would free up federal agents to focus their energy on protecting Americans against terrorists and criminals.
Provide better technology for the border, including unmanned aerial vehicles, infrared cameras and drones.
Enhance our efforts to combat human smuggling and increases coordination and information sharing among authorities responsible for border control.
Create a workable employer verification system, which would mandate strong penalties for employers who knowingly violate immigration laws.
These sham hearings won't fool the American public. Republicans can't run away from their record of failure on border security and immigration enforcement. We need comprehensive immigration reform to address the failed and broken immigration system. I am looking forward to hearing constructive proposals from our witnesses to fix this system from our witnesses today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
We'll now go to Congressman Brian Bilbray who's going to go to the dais and borrow Mr. Rohrabacher's microphone for a minute.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While we're doing that, let me explain this is a field hearing. And so to be fair to the witnesses and under the rules of the House, as we commence with the testimony of our witnesses, we'd like to ask you to refrain from outbursts of applause. That's the rules under which we operate the field hearing.
I'll now recognize Mr. Bilbray for 1 minute, and then we'll go to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here in Ms. Davis' district. It is obviously deja vu for some us that have grown up here. I actually grew up about three blocks from this location, right here on the frontier. But it's nice to see that, finally, it looks like people are getting serious about looking at a situation that has been ignored for much too long. And, hopefully, a reasonable, common sense approach will be addressed to this. And Mr. Chairman, I just hope that people are willing to get the facts of the huge mistakes that were made in '86 with a proposal of rewarding people for coming into this country illegally.
And the way that made us lose control along the border, even though the Border Patrol agents were working hard and extensively at trying to control the flow that was not just a problem for those of us that lived along the border, but a major crisis for the nation.
And, hopefully, people across America will learn what those of us along the frontier have known for decades. And that is, the United States has not been serious enough about our national sovereignty and defending our neighborhoods. I think too often people talk about the border as if it's somewhere over there.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The problem, Mr. Chairman, is not, and the threat, is not at the border. The problem is coming across the border and not being regulated. The real problem is in our neighborhoods. And anybody can go to street corners across America and see where the problem is moving to.
But I think after 9/11, there has been a change, and that change means we need to listen and we need to act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to be heard.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
Now we're going to go to our first panel. We have three panels. Let me introduce San Diego Sector Chief Darryl E. Griffen. He's a 25-year Border Patrol veteran. He's held several leadership positions in the Border Patrol since 1981, and has served as chief Border Patrol agent for the San Diego Sector since 2004.
Before the Border Patrol, he worked for the Warsaw New York Police Department and the Wyoming County Sheriff's Department. It's good to see you again, Chief.
Next to Chief Griffen is Ms. Adel Fasano, the director for field operations of border protection. She will not be testifying but she's available to answer any Member's questions today.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chief Griffen, we have your written testimony, so we're going to ask you to summarize to 5 minutes so that Members can then get to their questions.
Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF MR. DARRYL GRIFFEN, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, SAN DIEGO SECTOR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. GRIFFEN. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Sherman, and Distinguished Members of the Committee. On behalf of the Command Staff, and the men and women of the San Diego Chapter, welcome to the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station.
I want to extend our collective thanks to all the Members of Congress for all that you have done, for all that you are currently doing, and for all that you will do in the future in supporting our efforts to gain operational control of our nation's border.
Chairman Royce, as you and the Members of this Committee have traveled across the country to gain a field perspective regarding border security, it will be beneficial this morning to provide a brief overview on how the men and women of the San Diego Sector strengthen national security and protect America and its citizens.
In support of our priority mission to prevent the entry of terrorists and terrorist governments from entering the country between the ports of entry, the goal of the San Diego Sector is to gain, maintain, and expand operational control of our border by utilizing the right combination of personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In pursuit of this goal and in support of our national strategy, we have identified three objectives that guide the implementation of our enforcement approach: A secure and safe border. Coordinated border enforcement management. And a highly skilled, highly trained, multidisciplined workforce.
The San Diego border region is an attractive site for criminal organizations that traffic human cargo, narcotics and contraband across our border between the ports of entry.
Three factors that influence this illicit activity in the San Diego border region are the diversity and complexity of trade features being the most densely populated border region along the southwest border and the presence of an extensive, sophisticated transportation network on both sides of the border.
This is validated by the historical precedent that once made San Diego the gateway for illegal immigration into the United States.
During the 1980s, early- and mid-1990s, we effected approximately 50 percent of all the apprehensions along the southwest border. During this period of time, due to a significant lack of resources and infrastructure, the border was out of control and crime was rampant, which adversely impacted the security and well-being of our border communities.
To remedy this situation, the Border Patrol developed and implemented a deterrence-based enforcement strategy, supported by the proper combination and application of personnel, technology and infrastructure.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Further, we have prioritized intelligence-gathering analysis, dissemination and predictive modeling to support intelligence-driven operations. This has allowed us to do more with less, by economizing the deployment of resources to maximize operational effectiveness. In San Diego, this unified and seamless enforcement approach has created a common operational picture, where Border Patrol stations share resources across the board to address and abate illicit activity in a real-time environment.
In addition, strategic partnerships with Federal, State, and local offices, both domestic and foreign, have strengthened the fence-and-death posture and pushed the border outward, allowing us to rapidly identify, mobilize, and respond to emerging threats or trends.
As a result of these cumulative efforts, from 1995 to 2005, apprehensions decreased by 76 percent. Border deaths decreased by 55 percent. And economic vitality was returned to the border area.
Although progress has been noted, there is still much work to be done. Eight-two years of dedicated border enforcement have taught men and women to be vigilant, courageous, flexible, and devoted to duty.
To effectively meet the challenges of the 21st century, we'll continue to rely on our workforce and respected law enforcement professionals to successfully carry out multiple and varied missions to provide for a secure and safe homeland.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman Royce, seated beside me is Adel Fasano, U.S. Customs and Border Protections Director of Field Operations for San Diego.
Director Fasano and I know that securing the areas between the ports of entry is just as important as securing our ports of entry.
With this one face of the border in mind, Director Fasano and I look forward to any questions that you or the Committee might have regarding border security and the threat of terrorism.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffen and Mr. Garza follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. DARRYL GRIFFEN, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, SAN DIEGO SECTOR, AND MR. REYNALDO GARZA, ACTING CHIEF PATROL AGENT, LAREDO SECTOR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Sherman, Members of the Committee, it is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss our latest efforts along the border, including the role the National Guard will play in assisting the Department of Homeland Security, and especially U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in our mission of securing our Nation's borders.
The DHS and CBP remain steadfast in our commitment to gain control of our borders, and the announcements in May by the President will move us rapidly forward on that commitment. Let me first state that National Guard support of and coordination with DHS and the Border Patrol is nothing new. While this new infusion will be on a larger scale, the Border Patrol has a history of nearly two decades working with National Guard units to utilize their unique expertise, workforce, technology, and assets in support of our mission and as a force-multiplier. Today there are currently hundreds of National Guard troops assisting DHS, primarily in our counter-narcotics mission.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CBP acts as the guardian of our Nation's borders, safeguarding the homeland by protecting the American public against the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism, while enforcing the laws of the United States and fostering the Nation's economic security through lawful travel and trade. Within CBP's larger mission, the Border Patrol's time-honored duty of interdicting illegal aliens and drugs and those who attempt to smuggle them across our borders between the ports of entry remains a priority. The nexus between our post September 11th mission and our traditional role is clear, terrorists and violent criminals may exploit smuggling routes used by migrants to enter the United States illegally and do us harm. Reducing illegal entries across our borders is now more than ever a matter of national security.
Since 2001, border security funding has increased by 66% and the Border Patrol has increased to over 11,700 agents. Since 2001, the Border Patrol and DHS components have apprehended and returned more than 6 million people entering America illegally. In fiscal year 2005 alone, the Border Patrol apprehended nearly 1.2 million undocumented aliens attempting to enter the United States illegally. .
Despite the progress we have made, we do not yet have control of our border. This is evidenced by the fact that as of June 1, 2006, there have been 527 violent incidents between the Ports of Entry, 57 such incidents at the Ports of Entry, and 3 in the CBP Air & Marine environment. The port of entry violence primarily includes aggravated assaults, vehicle assaults, and rockings. Furthermore, during this same period of time, the Border Patrol has documented 177 incidents of bandit activity in FY 2006, 81% occurring near Yuma, AZ and arrested 237 gang members, including 172 Mara Salvatruchas (MS–13).
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To secure operational control of the borders, President Bush has announced a plan to increase the number of Border Patrol Agents by 6,000 by the end of 2008. This will bring the total number of Border Patrol Agents to over 18,000, doubling the number of agents since the President took office in 2001. These additional agents will serve as a tremendous resource in combating violence and the organizations that prey on innocent people on both sides of the border.
DoD support will be an immediate, short-term measure that allows the DHS to increase their deterrence and border security capabilities while DHS trains additional Border Patrol Agents and implements the Secure Border Initiative. One of many capabilities the National Guard will provide is an increased detection capability to allow a quicker response by law enforcement officers. Additionally, many Border Patrol Agents who are currently working in clerical and logistics jobs will return to the front lines to detect and apprehend illegal aliens.
National Guard units will assist DHS by providing logistical and administrative support, operating detection systems, providing mobile communications, augmenting border-related intelligence analysis efforts, building and installing border security infrastructure, and providing training. However, law enforcement along the border between the ports of entry will remain the responsibility of Border Patrol Agents. The National Guard will play no direct law enforcement role in the apprehension, custodial care or security of those who are detained. With the National Guard providing surveillance and logistical support, Border Patrol agents will be free to concentrate on law enforcement functions of border enforcement. The support of tactical infrastructure engineering and technology by the National Guard will be a tremendous force-multiplier, expanding the enforcement capacity for the Border Patrol, while freeing up additional Agents who are performing some of these support tasks today.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I noted before, the Border Patrol and the National Guard have an established relationship going back nearly two decades. Guard units and personnel have been supporting counter-drug operations, in addition to conducting missions ranging from engineering support to aerial reconnaissance. In San Diego, the National Guard has worked on the San Diego Border Infrastructure System, and in Arizona, the National Guard has constructed roads for use by the Border Patrol. For nearly two decades, these types of missions have been utilized as valuable training for National Guard personnel, and have been conducted as part of the Guard's annual training. The results of these missions have greatly improved the Border Patrol's ability to access terrain and enforce the law between our Nation's ports of entry, and the President's plan builds on this successful relationship.
We recognize the challenges that lie ahead. Our goal is nothing less than to gain, maintain, and expand operational control of our Nation's borders through the right mix of personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure. The assistance of the National Guard and our federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners will greatly enhance our ability to effectively and efficiently protect our Nation's borders.
The men and women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection face these challenges every day with vigilance, dedication to service, and integrity as we work to strengthen national security and protect America and its citizens. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today. I look forward to responding to any questions that you might have.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Chief Griffen.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Border Patrol budget has tripled from 1995 to 2003, from $1 billion—actually, in 2000—to $1.74 billion in '06. That's a 64 percent increase for that period of time.
I think that all of us here on either side of the aisle can agree that despite the increase in resources, more needs to be done as there is chaos in some sectors and the border still remains very, very porous.
One of the challenges you face is the sophisticated crime cartels. I was going to ask you to describe the operations of the cross-border drug cartels.
Are they evolving? Give us some information on that, if you will, Mr. Griffen.
Mr. GRIFFEN. What has occurred here within the San Diego Sector area of responsibility, it's not so much where there's a separation between a criminal cartel that only traffics narcotics versus a criminal cartel that only traffics human cargo. But many times, a criminal cartel will conduct business involving both enterprises. And they are structured in such a manner, in a hierarchical organizational structure, so that they can support doing both of these criminal enterprises. It is very sophisticated.
For example, just here, within the San Diego Sector area of responsibility, between the San Ysidro port of entry and the Otay Mesa port of entry area, which encompasses approximately five miles of interborder responsibility, in one of our most complete tactical infrastructure packages, where we have primary fencing, secondary fencing, all-weather roads, maintenance roads, stadium lights. And also, just within the last 30 days, electronic monitoring visually of our borders through remote surveillance system. We will have spotters on the south side, employees of these criminal cartels, using binoculars and other devices to observe our agents, and they will have walkie-talkies and cell phones and they will actually coordinate anywhere from 8 to 10 groups crossing the border simultaneously. They may direct three to four groups here to our west. They may direct three to four groups to effect entry in the middle. They may effect entry of three to four groups to our east.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROYCE. Let me ask you another question, Chief.
As you know, each year hundreds of aliens from countries known to harbor terrorists or promote terrorism are apprehended attempting to enter the country illegally between the ports of entry. Could you walk us through the procedure for handling ''special interest'' OTMs? In particular, I'm curious as to whether when a special interest OTM does not appear in the available terrorism database, are they still treated like others and issued a notice to appear? That's one question.
According to a Border Patrol document from '05 in the San Diego Sector alone, you had the following apprehensions: Nine from Afghanistan, 7 from Iran, 15 from Iraq. And that's just a sampling. I was going to ask you, how concerned are you to see these individuals in San Diego? And what more do you think needs to be done to bring down the number of special interest OTMs that are apprehended?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Specific just to the San Diego Sector area responsibility, Chairman, this current fiscal year, we have apprehended roughly 108,000 illegal aliens attempting to effect entry through the San Diego area group responsibility.
Mr. ROYCE. Excuse me?
Mr. GRIFFEN. 180,000 roughly through fiscal year, year to date. Of that total, approximately 900 are what we consider OTMs. Their origin or their place of birth is from other than Mexico. So that's 8/10ths of 1 percent of the overall.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We've only apprehended from the San Diego Sector area of responsibility 47 of what you refer to as ''special interest aliens'' who come from special interest countries, and there are currently 35 of them have been documented by the Department of State.
Each one of these encounters is been handled very carefully. They go through an incredible screening process and protocols, both locally, regionally and nationally, working with the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Not until everything has gone through this complete package of vetting to assure that there's no nexus or association with terrorism do we reach final disposition of that case.
All these 47 are mandatorily detained and then are returned through deportation proceedings back to their country of origin.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Chief Griffen.
We'll go to Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to pick up where you picked up at the beginning, and that is how we clearly need more Border Patrol officers.
Now, as the Chairman stated, we had a large increase in the number of Border Patrol officers in the last part of the last decade. And I did show the audience the larger version of the chart awhile ago that showed that we had a real ramp-up in the size of the Border Patrol in the 4 years right before 9/11. And then right after 9/11, or the years after 9/11, we had a much slower increase in the Border Patrol nationwide.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, we had a bill before our Congress just last December that would have increased the number of Border Patrol officers by 3,000 a year for 4 years for a total of 12,000 provided the Border Patrol with a new training facility and increased the pay of Border Patrol officers from GS 11 to GS 13.
I'd like to ask you, Mr. Griffen, do you have enough Border Patrol officers to take care of your sector here?
Mr. GRIFFEN. No, Mr. Sherman, we do not. I don't think you could ask any sector chief across the southwest border that would not welcome additional resources.
What we advocate, what we feel is the most effective, efficient advance to gain operational control of our nation's border, and I'll tailor it to the southwest border, is a balanced approach with respect to increase in personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure, which will be accomplished through the support and secure border initiative, which will strengthen border security not only between the ports of entry, but at the ports of entry.
And then it has to be supported by intelligence-driven, threat-based operational planning. We need to develop the capabilities, which we have here in San Diego with predictive modeling, which we can, to an extent, predict traffic trends and patterns, so we can more strategically and economically deploy our resources to maximize operational effectiveness.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Griffen, I thank you for your attention to how to reuse the resources that are available to you most efficiently.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I should point out that we do need more Border Patrol officers, as you've said. And that that bill that was before us, with 3,000 additional Border Patrol officers per year for 4 years and a new training facility and the increase to GS 13, all of us on this side voted for it, and all of our Republican colleagues voted against it.
I would like to shift to detentions of ''other than Mexicans.''
We have recently passed a bill that's 5,000 beds short of what we promised the country when we adopted the 9/11 Act.
Do you have enough detention beds to deal with the ''other than Mexicans'' apprehended in your sector?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Within the San Diego Sector area of responsibility, with respect to bed space, it's not the issue here that is perhaps at other locations along the southwest border.
What we have done here in San Diego, we developed our alien detention and removal facility. It's a 64-bed facility, with additional beds being constructed.
What that gives us, we have the ability, legally, to detain somebody short-term up to 72 hours. Many times when you want to set somebody up for prosecution/deportation, they will have to be transferred to a long-term detention facility, but a bed may not be available.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With the discretion afforded to us by the 64-bed facility, outside here of San Diego Sector, gives us some wiggle room. we can hold somebody 48 hours or longer until a bed space does become available.
Mr. ROYCE. Just to clarify, the bill which my Ranking Member speaks was not a bill. It was a recommittal motion in substitution for a Republican initiative on border security.
It probably is factually correct that Democrats voted against—Democrats would vote for it, Republicans would vote against it. But Republicans would not see anything that was in that motion. All they would know is that was an attempt to block the border security bill that would be up at that moment that would substitute, and we could debate that but——
Mr. FILNER. Did you say you voted against it before you voted for it?
Mr. ROYCE. I would say it was not actually a bill. It was a motion to recommit and not take action on the Floor that day. Whatever you put in language and verbiage as part of that motion is what some Members would then say that is the action taken. But in point of fact, what would have been up that day was a question on a border security bill. But we could debate that.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject. So only one side could speak to this issue, Mr. Issa?
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROYCE. Listen, I've got the gavel over here and I'm yielding to you, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Thank you.
A motion to recommit is a legislative vote. It is a statement that we should adopt what is set forth in the motion to recommit. And this vote that I bring to the attention of the Subcommittee is just one of a roughly dozen different votes in which Democrats demanded more funding for the Border Patrol and we got outvoted every time.
Mr. ROYCE. And reclaiming my time.
I'm explaining that there was a border security bill on the Floor. That the Members of the opposing party did not want to vote for it, so they announced a motion to send back to the House and not take action that day and then wrote up what that motion would be. I don't think any Members at that time would be fully cognizant, since it's a procedural vote in order to delay action that day. But that's my——
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to add to the record a list of 10 different occasions in which virtually every Democrat voted for more funding for the Border Patrol and virtually every Republican——
Mr. ROYCE. Without objection we'll do that. We will explain that was a motion to recommit and put it in the context of the other alternative bill. But we're going to get back to the procedure at hand which is to recognize our Vice Chairman, Mr. Issa, for his question.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And focusing back the issues of today, if I heard you correctly, Chief, basically, using round numbers, 100,000-plus illegals, 1,000-minus were other than Mexican, and 47 were high-risk of some other country?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Yes.
Mr. ISSA. So back to the issue of resources.
Do you have enough resources to cover 1,000 non-Mexican illegal crossers and 47 special interests, if that were all there was?
In other words, are you sufficiently staffed to cover less than 1,000 people that need to be looked at very differently than the average day worker, tomato picker, border crosser?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Yes, sir, we would be.
Mr. ISSA. Okay, so if I can characterize, what we have is we have a problem of an out of control border of people primarily coming here for work and for immigration illegally that you deal with that swamps you every day.
Is that correct?
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GRIFFEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. ISSA. Okay, because I mean, I think when we look at a comprehensive fix to the immigration, what we're looking at is to how to give you the opportunity to deal with all these needles, not the hay, that we swamp you with.
Let me ask you a couple of questions that are related to the San Diego Sector.
You said that the criminal cartels are working in a very quasi-paramilitary fashion. They're scoping out what they're doing and sending a crossing in a coordinated way to swamp you.
You said that they, if I understand correctly, that whether it's drugs or other contraband or people, they don't care. They normally operate at both industries?
Mr. GRIFFEN. That can be an occurrence, yes, sir.
Mr. ISSA. Therefore can I presume that if they'll take people or packages of stuff, they don't really care whether there's a dirty bomb in there or an al-Qaeda agent. Basically they move people and bags of things.
Is that right?
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GRIFFEN. That would be a correct assumption, yes, sir.
Mr. ISSA. So this criminal cartel is in fact a major threat to the security of America because they operate, if you will, leaving us vulnerable for the latter two in addition for the first two.
Mr. GRIFFEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. ISSA. And relative to enforcement, and this is an area you're probably aware I'm focusing on, my understanding is that from an internal document that was made public, that as little as 6 percent of the Coyotes, the actual traffickers that are apprehended by your Border Patrol agents are likely to be prosecuted for any charge whatsoever including being in the country illegally,
Is that correct?
Mr. GRIFFEN. With respect to those exact figures, I would have to get back to you on that. But I would like to respond——
Mr. ISSA. Sure. And you can give me a figure that you think is ballpark. If it's 10 percent, 15, 20.
Mr. GRIFFEN. Let me respond, at any time that we design and implement an operational plan to gain control of a specific target area within our area of responsibility, part and parcel of that critical integral is the prosecution segment of this enforcement plan. Prosecutions create the consequences to deter illicit activity.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Here in the San Diego Sector within the southern jurisdictional district of which has oversight for the San Diego Sector, El Centro Sector, a small segment of Yuma Sector, the guidelines changed in December 2004 where that adversely impacted our operations here in San Diego focused on foot guides. Foot guides are the foot soldiers for the criminal cartels that traffic cargo, narcotics, and contraband across our border. With this change in guidelines, within that the preceding year, we have prosecuted 367 foot guides. When the guidelines changed in December, I believe it was December 7, 2004, so that left 10 months of the next fiscal year, fiscal year '05, we prosecuted 5. We went from 367 to 5.
What would happen then, we would apprehend people that were guiding people across the country, many times at risk. And without meeting prosecution guidelines, they were simply voluntarily returning back to Mexico where they could continue to conduct illicit activity. There is no level of consequences.
My understanding, and we'll take this discussion further, is that each judicial district has the autonomy to develop their own prosecution guidelines.
I simply would suggest for consideration that there would be some consideration given to standardizing that approach, a more uniform approach across the border so that we aren't unintentionally creating additional vulnerabilities.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Filner?
Mr. FILNER. Chief, thank you for being here. Good to see you again.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GRIFFEN. Thank you, Mr. Filner.
Mr. FILNER. As you know, there's a certain amount of partisanship going on here. I think we all, on both sides of the aisle, support the efforts of your men and women, and I want you to convey that to them. We support them daily in what they do, because they're on the front lines.
Mr. GRIFFEN. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. FILNER. Do you have responsibility for enforcing the employer sanctions?
Mr. GRIFFEN. No, sir. That would be——
Mr. FILNER. Who does that?
Mr. GRIFFEN. That would be the responsibility of Immigration, Customs and Enforcement—ICE.
Mr. FILNER. So a whole different group? Border Patrol does not look for illegal employers?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Our focus is on border enforcement. However, if Immigration, Customs and Enforcement, we have a great relationship here in San Diego with the ICE office, if they make a request, resources are available, we certainly will honor their requests and support them to the best of our ability.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our focus, Congressman, is on the border.
Mr. FILNER. I understand that. Everybody here has said something about a magnet. If you're not turning off a magnet for illegal immigrants, your job is going to be that much more difficult.
Mr. GRIFFEN. Going back to Congressman Issa's question, there has to be a continuum from the border extending all the way to the interior whether it be only Nebraska or whatever.
Mr. FILNER. So you don't see that continuum, is that what you said earlier?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Not to the level that it needs to be, no.
Mr. FILNER. Okay. The directive of December '04, which was post-9/11—was it '04 or '03? You said that changed the guidelines for——
Mr. GRIFFEN. December of '04.
Mr. FILNER. That was post-9/11?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Yes.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FILNER. And you said that should not be concentrated on because they weren't going to be prosecuting these guides, is that how you phrased it?
Mr. GRIFFEN. No, sir. Due to the change in guidelines, it became more strict. So in the past a foot guide that had been apprehended might meet guidelines to be prosecuted, and they no longer——
Mr. FILNER. So you went after other people instead of these foot guides.
So you were prevented from doing a real important job.
What is your impression of our enforcement of employer sanctions?
Mr. GRIFFEN. What's that, sir?
Mr. FILNER. What's your impression of your department's—not the Border Patrol, but Homeland Security's enforcement of employer sanctions?
Mr. GRIFFEN. I think the Department of Homeland Security is very much focused on our priority mission which is to prevent the entry from terrorists, terrorist threats from coming across our border. So it's between or at the ports of entry.
However, I think there's attention being given to interior enforcement. So the secured border initiative, they're going to enhance border security and also strengthen——
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FILNER. You don't have to defend that policy. I'm just asking for your operational thinking, because you said the continuum of enforcement is really important for your job.
Mr. GRIFFEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. FILNER. Wait, let me finish.
Were you aware of the statistics that we heard several times; that only four people were prosecuted a couple of years ago for illegal employment in the whole nation, and only three fines were sought across the whole nation? Are you aware of that?
Mr. GRIFFEN. No, sir, I was not.
Mr. FILNER. Doesn't that make your job tougher if they're not enforcing those laws?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. FILNER. Thank you.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Poe?
Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate, of course, the work that our Border Patrol does.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And let me ask you a specific question.
How far do you patrol inside the border? Mexico-Texas or Mexico-California border? How far do you patrol? Is it 25 miles? Is it 30 miles? How far do you patrol in the interior?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Within the San Diego Sector area of responsibility, we have 60 miles of linear land border that we share with Mexico. And up the coastline of California, extending north from the coast from to the border, it's 91 miles that encompasses inland.
Mr. POE. Let me ask you this question. Just a second.
My question is, from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas—Border Patrol is all there—how far in the interior do you patrol, as a general rule? Is it 25 miles? Is it 100 miles? Or how far is it?
Mr. GRIFFEN. Well, our focus is on the border, but we also have strengthened our defense posture, so we do work areas away from the border, many times in collaboration with others.
Mr. POE. How far?
Mr. GRIFFEN. In San Diego Sector we have San Fernando checkpoint, the transit checkpoint, 70 miles away from the border.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP