[Senate Hearing 108-513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-513
UNITED STATES AND MEXICO: IMMIGRATION POLICY AND THE BILATERAL
RELATIONSHIP
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 23, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-643 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Virginia
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Aguirre, Hon. Eduardo, Jr., Director, Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC................................................. 53
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, prepared
statement...................................................... 37
Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement submitted
for the record................................................. 40
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 7
Prepared statement and background and explanatory materials
discussing the AgJOBS bill, S. 1645/H.R. 3142.............. 10
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut,
prepared statement............................................. 44
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois.............. 38
Flynn, Dr. Stephen E., Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in
National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC................................................. 82
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening
statement...................................................... 1
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona..................... 3
Prepared statement including attachments..................... 5
Noriega, Hon. Roger F., Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 47
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator
Coleman.................................................... 118
Papademetriou, Dr. Demetrios G., President, Migration Policy
Institute, Washington, DC...................................... 91
Prepared statement........................................... 93
Valenzuela, Dr. Arturo A., Director, Center for Latin American
Studies, Georgetown University, Washington, DC................. 102
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Verdery, Hon. C. Stewart, Assistant Secretary, Policy and
Planning, Border and Transportation Security Directorate, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC................ 60
Prepared statement........................................... 62
(iii)
UNITED STATES AND MEXICO: IMMIGRATION POLICY AND THE BILATERAL
RELATIONSHIP
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-419, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar (chairman of the
committee), presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Hagel, Coleman, Dodd, Boxer, Bill
Nelson, and Corzine.
opening statement of senator richard g. lugar, chairman
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is called to order.
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meets to
examine the United States-Mexico bilateral relationship, with a
special focus on the role of immigration. The relationship
between Mexico and the United States is complex and wide-
ranging. Every day the bilateral agenda deals with trade,
management of our common border, water distribution, energy
cooperation, transportation, communications, tourism, the
environment, human rights, and the struggle against drugs and
organized crime.
Americans and Mexicans must understand that the fate of our
two nations is inextricably intertwined. Mexico is the second
largest trading partner of the United States. An economic
downturn in either economy will affect the health of the other.
Moreover, Mexico's importance to U.S. national security has
been underrated, particularly during this era of global
terrorism. Americans will not be as prosperous or as secure as
we can be without sustained economic growth and political
stability in Mexico, and a United States-Mexican relationship
that transcends momentary disagreements in pursuit of our
shared objectives.
The most obvious economic and security concerns related to
Mexico stem from Mexican migration across the U.S. border. When
Presidents Fox and Bush met in January 2001, they recognized
that migration is ``one of the major ties that bind our
societies,'' a quote from the two Presidents. Mexicans
represent 30 percent of the total immigrant population of the
United States. Mexico's share of our total unauthorized
immigrant population increased from 58 percent in 1990 to 69
percent in 2000.
Too often the debate on how to respond to illegal
immigration from Mexico ignores the larger context of our
relationship with Mexico or the role that Mexico must play in
helping us get a grip on this question. I believe we need to
broaden the context of the debate so that we see immigration as
not just an economic or law enforcement issue, but also as a
foreign policy issue. We must engage in diplomacy aimed at
making the Mexican Government a closer ally in preventing and
responding to illegal immigration.
I would offer five common objectives that Mexico and the
United States should pursue as we are developing and debating
immigration policy.
First, the United States and Mexico both have a strong
interest in improving the management of our common border. Both
nations must cooperate in preventing illegal immigration, as
well as in preventing tragedies in which Mexican citizens,
attempting to enter the United States, lose their lives while
concealed or transported in dangerous circumstances. Our border
cooperation must also include strengthened efforts to stop
terrorist infiltration via land, sea, or air.
Second, both the United States and the Mexican governments
should try to facilitate greater transparency among the
undocumented Mexican population in the United States. It serves
the interests of neither nation to keep illegal immigrants in
the shadows. Through matricula cards or other methods, we must
have greater ability to identify Mexican nationals in this
country. Without identification, little interaction with
American society is possible. This increases the chances that
immigrants will be victims of crime or exploitation, reduces
the value of remittances to Mexico, and complicates the jobs of
U.S. emergency and social service personnel.
Third, in conjunction with improved border management and
immigration transparency, the United States should develop
realistic mechanisms through which illegal immigrants can
regularize their status through positive behavior.
Fourth, cross border labor must be put in the context of
our broader trade relationship. It is legitimate to develop
means to match willing Mexican workers with willing American
employers in sectors where no Americans can be found to fill a
job. We should strive to achieve this through regularized means
that accentuate the benefits to both the American and the
Mexican economies. President Bush's temporary worker proposal
and other similar proposals developed in Congress deserve close
examination by this body.
Fifth, the United States and Mexico should expand
cooperation aimed at domestic development in Mexico,
particularly in the country's poorest regions. The 2-year-old
Mexican-United States Partnership for Prosperity is a good
start toward this objective, but more needs to be done. The
Mexican Government must undertake this effort as a special
responsibility that goes hand in hand with American willingness
to develop means to regularize the status of illegal
immigrants.
This morning we are joined by three impressive panels to
discuss these objectives and other aspects of our relationship
with Mexico.
On the first panel, we will hear from our colleagues,
Senators Hagel, McCain, Craig, Durbin, and Cornyn. Each of
these Senators has grappled with the immigration question, and
each has sponsored relevant legislation. We are pleased by the
strong interest of our colleagues in this hearing, and we look
forward to learning about how their bills would contribute to
the improvement of the United States-Mexican relations and
American immigration policy.
On our second panel, we will hear from representatives of
the administration. We welcome again Roger Noriega, Assistant
Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; Eduardo
Aguirre, Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services at the Department of Homeland Security; and Stewart
Verdery, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning at the
Department of Homeland Security.
On our final panel, we will hear from Dr. Stephen E. Flynn,
the Jeane Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security
Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Dr. Demetrios
Papademetriou, President of the Migration Policy Institute; and
Dr. Arturo Valenzuela, Director of the Center for Latin
American Studies at Georgetown University.
We thank all of our witnesses in advance. We look forward
to their insights.
It is my privilege now to recognize the colleagues that I
just mentioned. We are indeed grateful for the interest of our
colleagues in the hearing, as well as the specific legislation
and thoughtfulness that they have provided. I want to call upon
Senator McCain first, because I know he has urgent time
requirements. Then we will proceed with Senator Hagel or
Senator Craig, depending upon the time requirements of those
gentlemen. Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to thank you and Senator Hagel and my colleague, Senator Craig,
and others who have been actively involved in this issue for a
long period of time.
I want to just mention a couple of statistics with you and
I will try to be as brief as possible because I know you have
some very important witnesses.
We are nearing the end of March, Mr. Chairman. In my State
of Arizona, since January 1, 2004, since January 1st this year,
470 drop houses have been found across Arizona. Over 2,000
suspected smugglers have been arrested. Over 155,000
undocumented immigrants have been apprehended. In the city of
Phoenix, killings are up by 45 percent. Violent crimes such as
kidnaping, home invasions, and extortion are up 400 percent.
Those are interesting statistics and a source of enormous
concern to the mayor of Phoenix, Mayor Phil Gordon, who said
Wednesday's discovery--that is another drop house--156
undocumented immigrants being held by armed smugglers in a
rented house in north Phoenix in filthy conditions without food
or water. He said, Wednesday's discovery underscores the need
for Federal immigration reform, pointing out that although
police can stop criminal activity, they can do little to stem
the flow of undocumented immigrants into the city. ``It's a
mandate that affects all of us,'' Gordon said. ``We need an
immigration policy that works. We need to secure our borders.
The Federal Government has to do something about these
issues.''
May I just mention, after I mentioned those statistics, Mr.
Chairman, an article recently in the Arizona Republic. ``It is
a lonely place to die, out in the soft sandy washes. The desert
floor, with its volcanic rock, can reach 160 degrees. Most
people go down slowly.
``Blood starts to seep into the lungs. Exposed skin burns
and the sweat glands shut down. Little hemorrhages, tiny leaks,
start in the heart. When the body temperature reaches 107, the
brain cooks and the delirium starts.
``Some migrants claw at the ground with their fingernails,
trying to hollow out a cooler spot to die. Others pull
themselves through the sand on their bellies, like they're
swimmers or snakes. The madness sometimes prompts people to
slit their own throats or to hang themselves from trees with
their belts.
``This past year, the bodies of 205 undocumented immigrants
were found in Arizona. Official notations of their deaths are
sketchy, contained in hundreds of pages of government reports.
There are sometimes little details, glimpses, of the people who
died.
``Maria Hernandez Perez was No. 93. She was almost 2. She
had thick brown hair and eyes the color of chocolate.
``Kelia Velazquez-Gonzalez, 16, carried a Bible in her
backpack. She was No. 109.
``John Doe, No. 143, died with a rosary encircling his
neck. His eyes were wide open.''
Mr. Chairman, I give you those statements and those numbers
to try to emphasize the urgency of this situation, this crisis.
The human dimensions of it are incredibly appalling. If 205
people were dying in such a short period of time anywhere else
in America, there would be some great hue and cry about it, but
we just sort of discover these bodies. Many times they have
been eaten by animals. And we just sort of move on.
I guess what I am trying to say is it is apparent to me
that the Congress is not going to act this year on the
immigration issue. We have had one hearing in a Judiciary
subcommittee, a very good hearing. One hearing. This hearing is
of utmost importance. I think we all know that if we go out in
the month of August without acting, then of course, we have
just the month of September and this year has expired.
Everybody has different proposals. I respect Senator
Hagel's proposal that he has proposed along with Senator
Daschle. Senator Craig's proposal, obviously, addresses one of
the immediate problems and that is an agricultural worker bill.
I think it is time we sat down.
And on the left, the so-called advocacy groups for
Hispanics refuse to sign onto a proposal because they want an
amnesty, just a blanket amnesty. Mr. Chairman, we tried that in
the 1980s. We gave amnesty to several million people. Now we
have got several million more people who are here illegally.
Blanket amnesty does not work.
On the other side of the coin, we have the other people who
say all we have got to do is secure our borders. Mr. Chairman,
the war on drugs proved that as long as there is a demand,
there is going to be a supply. There is right now a demand for
workers. There are jobs that Americans will not do. So it seems
to me that maybe for the good of 2-year-old Maria Hernandez
Perez who was almost 2 years old, who died in the desert, that
perhaps maybe we ought to give this issue some serious
priority.
Finally, could I say, since it is the purview of this
committee, I believe that the hopes and aspirations of the
Mexican people were very badly dashed after September 11. I
think one of the worst casualties of September 11 was any
movement toward immigration reform. It has had an obvious
affect on the internal politics of the country of Mexico, but
more importantly, it has prevented us from addressing this
issue in a very comprehensive fashion.
I could go on a lot longer, Mr. Chairman, but I want to
thank you for holding this hearing. I want to thank you for
your advocacy for reform, and I want to thank Senator Hagel as
well for his active involvement.
Some people say to me, why is Senator Hagel involved? There
are illegal, undocumented people working in the State of
Nebraska. There are illegal, undocumented people working in
Indiana. It is not an Arizona problem. It is a nationwide
problem and we will be shirking our duties as legislators if we
do not give this issue the highest priority and act on it as
quickly as possible.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator John McCain
Last year, more than 300 people died illegally crossing the border
separating the United States and Mexico. Over 200 of those deaths
occurred in the Arizona desert.
Since the beginning of this year, authorities in Arizona have
identified 470 ``drop houses'' used by human smugglers--or Coyotes.
These smugglers typically hold undocumented immigrants at gunpoint,
often denying them basic needs including food and water. Since January,
over 2,000 suspected smugglers and well over 155,000 undocumented
immigrants have been apprehended across Arizona.
Immigration is a national security issue for all Americans and a
matter of life and death for many living along the border. America's
immigration system is broken, and without comprehensive immigration
reform, our nation's security will remain vulnerable. This problem,
however, is not ours alone. The human tragedy is felt on both sides of
the border. And the solution to this crisis must include a coordinated
effort between governments.
With a 6,000 mile land border, the task of ``sealing'' the U.S.
border is herculean--unrealistic and impossible. No amount of manpower
or technology will ever completely secure our nation's borders. During
the 1990s, the federal government increased the number of Border Patrol
agents from 3,600 to approximately 10,000 agents. Instead of
decreasing, however, illegal immigration increased by an estimated 5.5
million migrants.
The federal government's inability to stem illegal traffic flowing
across the border perpetuates a state of lawlessness and shifts
substantial financial and social burdens to residents of the border
region. Violent crimes in Phoenix, alone, have risen 400 percent over
the past year, largely due to human smugglers.
Across the nation, hospitals spend well over $200 million a year
providing uncompensated care to undocumented immigrants, forcing many
hospitals along the border to close their doors or dramatically reduce
services. Cash-strapped local law enforcement officials spend millions
of dollars covering the cost of incarcerating undocumented immigrants.
Frustrated by this situation, some residents have taken the law into
their own hands, forming vigilante groups to patrol the border.
Although some of us hear about these troubling issues daily, too
many in this country remain dangerously unaware. As a member
representing a border state suffering from the immediate and downstream
problems associated with illegal immigration, I know first hand the
urgent need for reform. Immigration has long been a polarizing and
politically divisive issue in this country. The difficulty this issue
poses, particularly in an election year, should not allow for an excuse
to delay reform. Immigration reform must come from the center--and it
must be reasoned and bi-partisan. This issue is simply too important
for partisan grandstanding.
The current system has failed because it does not adequately
address the labor needs of this country or the reality that as long as
there are jobs in the United States that represent better opportunities
than those in other countries, people will migrate to this country, and
they will risk their lives to do so. Enforcement must be improved, but
enforcement of out-dated and inadequate laws will not work.
Earlier this year, President Bush helped to bring the immigration
debate to the forefront. His principles for comprehensive immigration
reform incorporated a market-based system, similar to the legislation
introduced last summer in the House and Senate by Congressman Kolbe,
Congressman Flake, and myself, which would pair willing workers with
willing employers. The President's leadership and support will be
essential to bringing this problem to a resolution and rallying a
consensus in a much divided Congress.
Immigration reform must be comprehensive--it must address future
workers who want to enter the country as well as the current
undocumented population. Recognizing the very real labor shortage faced
by many sectors of our nation's economy, reform must provide a
workable, market-based system without arbitrary numerical limitations.
If jobs go unfilled in the U.S., and no American worker chooses to fill
them, those jobs should be opened to legal foreign workers. This system
should be electronic, accessible, and easy to navigate for both
employers and potential workers.
At the same time, in order to ensure we do not create a permanent
underclass, new temporary workers must have complete portability to
transfer from one job to another, a clear path to citizenship if they
choose, and the ability to self-initiate that.
I recognize that several of my colleagues present here today have
proposed legislation that address various aspects of our broken
immigration system. Although we may approach this problem with
competing philosophies and with different solutions, our recognition of
the failures of the current system moves the debate forward, and I
commend them on their proposals.
We will never be able to please the political extremists on either
side of this issue. However, in the interest of national security, we
must pursue a carefully balanced compromise. I hope we can work
together to put rhetoric aside and enact meaningful comprehensive
immigration reform.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The Arizona Republic--Nogales Bureau, Oct. 16, 2003]
205 Migrants Die Hard, Lonely Deaths
(By Susan Carroll)
It is a lonely place to die, out in the soft sandy washes. The
desert floor, with its volcanic rock, can reach 160 degrees. Most
people go down slowly.
Blood starts to seep into the lungs. Exposed skin burns and the
sweat glands shut down. Little hemorrhages, tiny leaks, start in the
heart.
When the body temperature reaches 107, the brain cooks and the
delirium starts.
Some migrants claw at the ground with their fingernails, trying to
hollow out a cooler spot to die. Others pull themselves through the
sand on their bellies, like they're swimmers or snakes. The madness
sometimes prompts people to slit their own throats or to hang
themselves from trees with their belts.
This past year, the bodies of 205 undocumented immigrants were
found in Arizona. Official notations of their deaths are sketchy,
contained in hundreds of pages of government reports.
Beyond the official facts, there are sometimes little details,
glimpses, of the people who died.
Maria Hernandez Perez was No. 93. She was almost 2. She had thick
brown hair and eyes the color of chocolate.
Kelia Velazquez-Gonzalez, 16, carried a Bible in her backpack. She
was No. 109.
In some cases, stories of heroism or loyalty or love survive.
Like the Border Patrol agent who performed cardiopulmonary
resuscitation on a dead man, hoping for a miracle. Or the group of
migrants who, with law officers and paramedics, helped carry their dead
companion out of the desert. Or the husband who sat with his dead wife
through the night.
Other stories are almost entirely lost in the desolate stretches
that separate the United States and Mexico.
Within weeks, the heat makes mummies out of men. Animals carry off
their bones and belongings. Many say their last words to an empty sky.
John Doe, No. 143, died with a rosary encircling his neck. His eyes
were wide open.
______
ARIZONA IMMIGRATION CRISIS
Since January 1, 2004:
470 ``drop houses'' have been found across Arizona
Over 2,000 suspected smugglers have been arrested
Over 155,000 undocumented immigrants have been apprehended
Increased Crime in Phoenix Blamed on Coyotes:
Killings are up by 45%
Violent crimes such as kidnaping, home invasions, and
extortion are up 400%
In a little over a month, 750 undocumented immigrants and 20
suspected smugglers arrested from 13 drop houses:
February 11th--159 found in Shea drop house, at the edge of
a golf course in Phoenix
February 15th--27 undocumented were apprehended at a house
in East Phoenix
February 17th--102 immigrants were found at two Phoenix drop
houses, one several blocks from a fire station
February 23rd--78 undocumented arrested at home in the
Arcadia neighborhood of Phoenix; 45 more undocumented found
later the same day in another Phoenix drop house
February 26th--57 immigrants found in West Phoenix, with
additional immigrants seen fleeing the property
March 3rd--apprehended 222 undocumented, including 15
suspected smugglers, from two drop houses in Phoenix, Arizona
March 4th--77 undocumented aliens found in two apartments
used as drop houses in Mesa, Arizona
March 9th--185 suspected undocumented found hiding in 18
rooms at a Motel near Tucson, Arizona
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator McCain,
for a very strong keynote statement, as we begin this hearing.
I think that the hearing is important, and I hope that all the
considerations today will lead to action. I hope that August
will not yield inactivity. I think that the relationship is
important, as you pointed out.
I want to call now upon Senator Craig. Senator Hagel has
graciously stepped aside, out of the batting order, because he
claims that he will be here throughout the hearing. I am taking
him at his word. Thank goodness that he will do that. For the
moment, Larry, will you proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And as John has mentioned, all of us have legislation
pending at this moment to deal with this problem. I approach it
with the same passion that John does, although the difficulties
that are happening in Arizona are phenomenally inhumane and he
is right to be passionate about this problem.
You have outlined it well, the relationship we have with
the great nation of Mexico and the dependency we truly have on
each other at this moment to work this problem out.
I have introduced legislation, as has John, as has John
Cornyn, and certainly Senator Hagel. It is a problem that truly
cries out for a solution sooner rather than later. I must tell
you that this President has finally stepped forward and offered
up a solution. Up until that time, the Federal Government
really remained in a state of denial and it was 9/11 that
awakened us to the reality that we have got somewhere between 8
million and 12 million undocumented foreign nationals in this
country.
Of course, as you know, Mr. Chairman, when we then shut the
borders or worked hard to shut the borders after 9/11, we did
two interesting things. Our intent was to keep people out, but
we also locked people in. Hundreds of thousands of Hispanics
who flowed back and forth over the Texas, Arizona, New Mexican,
and California borders on an annual basis, working and going
home and taking their money with them and not being able then
to get back or staying because they were fearful if they left,
they could not get back and they would not have the kind of
resource that they had been able to have prior to 9/11. So
border closures are not just the only solution here.
And I think you are so right to hold this hearing to deal
with this kind of problem. John spoke already of the over 200
people who have died in Arizona. Last year over 300 died in the
deserts of the Southwest, as they struggled to make their way
into this country to work. And that is what is important. They
died in boxcars. They died in the backs of vans. They died of
thirst, as John offered those descriptions.
Now, that is the reality that we are dealing with. Shame on
us for dragging our feet toward this problem, but we are doing
just that at this moment.
I think, as John has said, some would suggest that it is
purely a law enforcement solution, but I am here to tell you
that that is a part of it and only a part of it. Those who say
just round them up and get them out of the country are
suggesting something that on its face is impossible to do. When
you have between 8 million to 12 million--and we use those
numbers because we do not know exactly how many undocumented
foreign nationals we have in our country. We know that law
enforcement is a part of it. But these people who are here by
the vast majority deserve a responsible, humane approach toward
dealing with them, treating them appropriately for the roles
they play in this country and for the desire I think many
nations have and in this case dominantly two nations, the
United States and Mexico, have in solving this problem.
I am going to offer you a solution today. It deals with
only a small part of the total problem, but it is one, Mr.
Chairman, that is ready. It is mature. It has been well thought
out over 5 years of negotiation. You are a cosponsor. Senator
Hagel is a cosponsor. John McCain is a cosponsor. It is my
AgJOBS bill. We have not got John Cornyn on it yet, but he is
leaning.
He is leaning in our direction.
Senator Boxer. You have got me on it.
Senator Craig. Barbara is on it. We will have within 2
weeks over 60 Senators on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, we
have at this moment over 400 organizations nationwide who
support it.
Now, here are the key elements that make this a workable
proposition. Not only does it reach out to identify 500,000
workers who are now eligible in this country undocumented who
can do something that is significant and important for
themselves and for the economy of our country, and that is,
earn a legal status. Earn a legal status. That is the key
component of the AgJOBS bill: earned adjustment to a legal
status. And they can do that by staying here and working for a
period of time under a temporary legal situation and move that
forward.
In doing so, we fill a tremendous need for our country. We
treat a great many hard-working people in a phenomenally humane
and responsible way and we bring them out of the back streets
and the alleys and the shadows of our culture to the front
street where they belong because they are, as John has said, an
important component in the economy of our country.
That is what AgJOBS is all about and I think both you and I
know that there are great numbers of these people working in
your State, in Nebraska, in Idaho, in Texas. We believe in
Idaho that it is possible that during the peak of the work
season, there are between 25,000 and 30,000 undocumented
workers. And Idaho is not a very big State, but it is a big
agricultural State and that is important.
I have a couple of letters that I would like to add for the
record. I have a letter here from Clayton Yeutter, former
Secretary of Agriculture, and he is asking that we get on the
AgJOBS bill and move it this year as a way of moving something
in the right direction. Here is what he says. ``In the
northeastern United States, 99 percent of the new entrants into
the farm labor force admit they are lacking legal status.''
That is a phenomenal statistic, but it is an important one.
I also would like to introduce for the record the names of
the 400 organizations that are supporting this legislation, Mr.
Chairman, from the American Farm Bureau to the United Farm
Workers Union. When I was standing in front of a microphone
with the national presidents of those two organizations, who
have for decades been arch-enemies, they see and recognize the
importance of solving this problem now. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the AFL-CIO, the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture, and the legal services advocates
for both large and small workers and Latino groups across the
country.
It is a mature product. It is something that I will urge
the Senate by my action or collectively by this and other
committees' actions to vote on this year, Mr. Chairman, because
as all of us believe, this is something we do not just pass on
for another year.
I also agree that amnesty does not work. What I offer is
not amnesty. It is the ability to earn a legal status, and all
who are coming want that opportunity. To deny those people that
opportunity, to deny our economy this needed work force, to
fail to treat these undocumented workers in a responsible and
humane way is in my opinion un-American. That is what we are
about here.
Thank you for holding this hearing. It is critically
important, as we build the necessary base to move this
legislation, and I would hope we could move it this year, or at
least a small part of it. I believe mine is the excellent and
appropriate template from which to move and look at the
criteria for developing a legal status by causing those who
come to earn it and to give them that opportunity to do so. So
I thank you for convening this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate your
holding this hearing on a timely subject of immense importance to our
homeland security, our economy, and the future of our nation.
The United States shares a border of about 1,950 miles in length
with our closest southern neighbor. Mexico is our second-largest
trading partner. By some counts, the second largest component of
Mexico's gross domestic product is receipts sent home from workers in
the United States. Mexico provides a majority of our immigrant farm
worker population and, by all estimates, a majority of undocumented
workers in the United States, economy-wide.
A nation that fails to manage its borders cannot be secure at home.
It begins to lose control over the safety of its people, the order and
legality of its commerce, and even its very identity. On the other
hand, with approximately 7,500 miles of land borders and 95,000 miles
of shoreline and navigable rivers, we cannot seal our country off. Our
only alternative is to manage our borders and ports of entry
effectively. This fact is true of our border with Mexico and demands a
manageable, forward-looking, national immigration policy, as well.
For the decade before this President came into office, the federal
government led the way as our nation remained in denial, ignoring both
the rapidly growing number of undocumented persons in this country and
the increasing dependence of critical sectors of our economy on
undocumented workers. Some would say, with justification, that the
nation actually spent the last four decades looking the other way.
A few of us saw this problem and began talking about it some years
ago but, for almost all of us, a real wake-up call came on September
11, 2001. There has never been a more graphic or horrible demonstration
of the need to manage our borders effectively--and of the failure to do
so for many years before.
In the last 2\1/2\ years, we have made progress. President Bush has
demonstrated tireless leadership on and since September 11. The new
Department of Homeland Security has been established to bring
rationality to our border, immigration, and homeland security efforts.
With the hard work of Secretary Ridge and the Administration, our men
and women in uniform, and the Congress, our country and our borders are
more secure and our homeland is safer.
However, a lot of work remains to be done, and you, Mr. Chairman
and Members of the Committee, have recognized that by holding this
hearing.
We face multiple challenges.
With an estimated 8 to 12 million undocumented persons in the
country, we need to identify them, treat them humanely and reasonably,
and bring them out of the underground economy. We need to face facts
and realize that whole sectors of our economy are dependent on the
labor of these workers--the vast majority of whom want nothing more
than to work under decent conditions at jobs that, quite frankly,
American citizens often do not want.
We need to restore the confidence of the American people that their
government can and will manage our borders effectively and protect the
public. We need to ensure respect for the law, from all parties.
We also need to realize that putting more locks on the border works
both ways. As we have begun succeeding with better border enforcement,
many undocumented workers have been locked in our country. Many of
these workers would have preferred to leave the country when the
growing season was over or other work was done. Now, they are trapped
here, because getting smuggled home has become as dangerous as coming
here in the first place.
We also need to consider the humanitarian aspects of this issue.
Every year, more than 300 human beings die in the desert, in boxcars,
in trunks, or otherwise, being smuggled into this country. That cost in
human life is intolerable.
We need to consider the economic impact of future demographics for
our country. Japan has suffered a prolonged period of recession in part
because it has a closed society and, now, an aging population. Last
year, in hearings before the Senate Committee on Aging, Alan Greenspan
and others testified that, as America also looks forward to a
``greying'' future, immigration and guest workers will have an
important role to play in keeping our own economy vital and in making
sure there are enough workers to support a growing number of retirees.
These are not easy or popular issues and I commend the President
for his bold leadership, in stepping forward, issuing another kind of
wake-up call, to focus the bright light of public attention on these
issues. The Chairmanship of this Committee often is not an easy or
popular job, so I also commend you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with the President, and with my colleagues who also have
come here today to talk about their bills, on many of the broad, key
principles necessary for a lasting solution.
Increased enforcement is part of the solution--but only part. In
the last decade, we have tripled the number of agents securing our
borders and enforcing our immigration laws. Worker identification
checks have intensified. Formal removals have increased sixfold.
However, the population of undocumented individuals living here has
more than doubled.
Consider, also, what the ``enforcement only'' answer really means.
No, Americans will not tolerate a vast, intrusive government sweep
through our homes and neighborhoods to find, flush out, investigate,
prosecute, and forcibly relocate men, women, and children numbering six
to nine times the population of Idaho. We fought a Revolutionary War
over that kind of government intrusion. From the founding of our
republic, Americans have always abhorred other nations sending storm
troopers door to door in communities, looking for suspected infractions
of domestic laws.
Those who say, ``Just round 'em up, just enforce the law,'' are
only proposing an excuse, not a solution, while the status quo just
gets worse.
Robust, expanded, guest worker reforms are part of the solution--
but only part. The old Bracero program of the 1950s has been
criticized--justly--in many respects. No one is proposing a revival of
that kind program. However, our nation's experience with that program
has provided us with empirical evidence, cited recently by the National
Foundation for American Policy, that a guest worker program actually
helps reduce illegal immigration. That and other experiences also have
shown us that a guest worker program can be part of a more functional
immigration system and can extend economic opportunity to those of our
neighbors most in need.
However, guest worker programs take substantial time to stand up,
in terms of design, administration, infrastructure, coordination with
employers and prospective workers, and working with consulates around
the world. As we also have learned from experience, very different
factors, often unique to different industries and occupations, have to
be considered. There are a lot of issues to be debated and details to
be worked out. For example, depending on the supply of willing,
available, domestic workers in different occupations, some will argue
that different industries need different mechanisms to guarantee that
domestic workers have the first opportunity at domestic jobs.
Historically, Congress has applied different labor standards to guest
workers in different industries. Labor markets may be local, regional,
national, or international. Work opportunities may be seasonal or
permanent, migrant or stationary. We want any program to be as simple
to use and as non-bureaucratic as possible, while we also realize that
Congress is not going to rush forward with a one-size-fits-all program.
Amnesty is not the solution. It has been tried and it has failed.
Even if, as a Federal Reserve study suggests, amnesty may have some
economic benefits, we also have to consider the effects that blanket
amnesty has on respect for the law and expectations of future rewards
for unlawful activity. I am, and have always been, opposed to blanket
amnesty. I am pleased that the President has stated his opposition.
An effective federal partnership with state and local law
enforcement should be part of the answer. In Canyon County, Idaho, it's
been reported that 1,200 undocumented aliens were arrested last year--
by local law enforcement. In many cases creating partnerships--not
unfunded mandates, but true partnerships--with local law enforcement
would be far better than simply further expanding federal agencies.
This would be more cost-effective, more practical, and more likely to
build community support. Our colleague, Senator Sessions, has
introduced a bill on this subject that I've cosponsored. I hope and
believe that approach will be considered in other hearings.
Finally, a key part of any solution will be the fair, humane
treatment of those undocumented workers already here, already
contributing to our economy and paying taxes. They are among the most
vulnerable persons in our nation and, too often, are exploited by labor
smugglers--``coyotes.'' If these workers have been, and will be, law-
abiding in every other respect, if they are willing to make sacrifices
to earn the right to stay, then we can and should establish a system
that allows them to stay here and work legally.
I stress, as the President has stressed, that he has proposed a
framework for guest worker reform. I applaud the Administration's
repeated assurance that it is not taking any position on any one bill
and has no intention to preclude any bill. The President has emphasized
he wants to work out the details with Congress and we are ready to work
with him.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to highlight the fact
that one bill already introduced in Congress is ready to move. We have
a vehicle ready to road-test key principles in the President's
framework. I also believe this bill is consistent with the broad goals
and principles of our other colleagues who have introduced bills and
are testifying here today.
That bill is AgJOBS--the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits,
and Security Act, introduced as S. 1645 and H.R. 3142. The principal
difference from other bills is that AgJOBS deals with one industry--
agriculture.
AgJOBS is a mature, thoroughly-developed product.
AgJOBS represents more than seven years of work on these issues. It
reflects four years of tough, bipartisan negotiations among Republicans
and Democrats in the Senate and House, employer and employee
representatives, agriculture and other sectors of the economy,
immigration issue advocates, church groups, state government agencies,
Latino groups, and others. Legislation involving major labor and
immigration issues simply does not become law, unless it achieves this
kind of bipartisan and broad-based consensus. Fifty-four Senators,
including a majority of this Committee, are cosponsors.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the Ranking Member of
this Committee, Senator Biden, for being cosponsors of AgJOBS.
AgJOBS demonstrates the level of detail necessary to the successful
design of a guest worker and immigration reform package.
This bill gives us the opportunity to use reform in agriculture as
the demonstration program that will help us work out the details,
anticipate challenges, prevent problems, and fine-tune the mechanics of
an economy-wide reform package down the road.
Moving forward with AgJOBS as the pilot program for economy-wide
reforms is practical. It is going to be easier and faster to set up, a
program involving one industry and about 500,000 eligible workers than
to wait and debate the design of a program for 8 to 12 million workers.
Agriculture also has a unique history of guest worker programs and
migrant employment. We have the necessary data and experience to draw
on. There is no doubt in the minds of most of us that there really are
few American citizens today who want to work, on a seasonal and migrant
basis, at the hard physical labor of agriculture. In contrast, in some
other industries, there remains the controversy over the availability
of willing and qualified domestic workers and concern about their
displacement by guest workers.
Agriculture is the industry most impacted by dependence on
undocumented workers--not by anyone's design, but by circumstance and
necessity. The government's own data--based, incredibly, on self-
disclosure by workers, themselves--indicates that more than half of the
agricultural work force is undocumented. Responsible private estimates
run as high 75 to 85 percent. Farmers are going out of business today
because they cannot find legal workers at the times they are needed.
With AgJOBS, we could begin immediately to improve our homeland
security--and especially ensure the safety and security of our food
supply--by knowing who is planting and harvesting our crops, where they
came from, and where they are working.
With AgJOBS, we do not need to wait to start putting an end to the
inhumane risks and exploitation suffered by these most vulnerable of
workers.
AgJOBS takes the same long-term approach consistent with the
President's framework and other bills--an improved guest worker
program. It also addresses the need for a transition program in the
immediate term, by allowing workers the earned adjustment to legal
status. This is not amnesty. Conditioning the right to stay here on a
worker's commitment to 3 to 6 more years of physically challenging
agricultural work is not a reward--it is an opportunity for the worker
to rehabilitate his or her status under the law and earn the right to
stay.
Mr. Chairman, I've just recently received a letter from Clayton
Yeutter, former Secretary of Agriculture under the first President
Bush, and former U.S. Trade Representative under President Reagan, in
support of AgJOBS. I ask permission to make that letter part of the
record.
Secretary Yeutter points to the startling, official government
statistic that, ``In the northeastern U.S.--far from the border . . .
99 percent of new entrants into the farm labor force admit to lacking
legal status.'' He also points out, correctly, ``Agricultural employers
do not want to hire illegal immigrants. What they want is a stable,
viable program with integrity that will meet their labor force needs in
a timely, effective way.''
I also ask to insert into the record some background and
explanatory materials that discuss the bill in greater detail.
Finally, our AgJOBS bill has something no other proposal has: A
historic, nationwide, broad bipartisan coalition of grass roots
support. I ask to insert into the record a letter of support that we
recently received from more than 400 organizations--national, state,
and local organizations--asking Congress to enact AgJOBS into law
expeditiously.
This letter is somewhat historic in its own right. In support of
AgJOBS, it brings together employers and workers--from the American
Farm Bureau to the United Farm Workers. Because of the promise of
AgJOBS as a necessary pilot program, this support goes far beyond
agriculture--from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO. Its
cosigners include the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture, worker and legal-service advocates, large and small
employers, Latino groups, religious groups, social service
organizations, and others.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
[Attachments.]
March 19, 2004.
The Honorable Larry Craig
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Craig:
Continued tragic deaths of Mexican workers seeking illegal entry to
the U.S. to pursue economic opportunity, and a worsening labor crisis
in American agriculture, have raised once again the wisdom and
feasibility of our immigration policies at the U.S.-Mexico border. This
is an issue that many of us have tried to address over the years, but
few have listened. In that regard, we are grateful that you are
testifying at a hearing to look at the immigration issue and the U.S.
and Mexican bilateral relationship. With your leadership, and with your
bipartisan legislation now before Congress to begin to address this
problem, perhaps our views can now be heard.
Many of the workers entering the U.S. from Mexico are hoping for
jobs on farms and ranches or in nurseries and dairies. Such jobs often
await them as thousands of American farmers wonder every year whether
they'll have dependable help at harvest time. This is especially
critical for our fruit and vegetable industries, where the ``open
window'' for harvest can be very short-lived. But similar concerns are
now emerging in many other farm enterprises, ranging from dairy to
poultry to greenhouse crops to beef to Christmas trees. This has become
a national problem and a recurring nightmare for our agricultural
employers nationwide.
Growing evidence suggests that at least 50 percent and perhaps 70
percent of the current agricultural workforce is not in this country
legally. In the northeastern U.S.--far from the border--government
statistics show that 99 percent of new entrants into the farm labor
force admit to lacking legal status. The immediate reaction of some is
to say that these workers have broken the law and should be deported,
and that U. S. farmers and other employers have brought this problem on
themselves by not doing a better job of detecting fraudulent documents.
That 11easy'' answer ignores the reality that few Americans are
drawn to highly seasonal and physically demanding work in agriculture.
At chaotic harvest times, a stable, dependable workforce is essential.
American farmers are in a ``damned if you do, damned if you don't''
situation where they're required by law to be policemen, immigration
officials, and security experts while simultaneously trying to get
their crops harvested before they spoil.
Agricultural employers do not want to hire illegal immigrants. What
they want is a stable, viable program with integrity that will meet
their labor force needs in a timely, effective way. They do not want a
program with major shortcomings, for which they will inevitably be
blamed. Unfortunately, that is what our laws have imposed upon them.
As a nation, we can and must do better--for agricultural employers
and for immigrant workers. Last fall, a bipartisan bill was introduced
by you, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and a bipartisan group of colleagues that we
see as a major step forward in the battle to provide a stable and legal
agricultural work force without sacrificing border security or
weakening immigration laws. The so-called AgJOBS bill now enjoys the
bipartisan co-sponsorship of 53 Senators as well as from agricultural
employer, business, conservative, religious, immigrant and labor
organizations.
As you know, Sen. Craig, this legislation would allow certain
laborers who have worked in American agriculture on a regular basis and
have lived here for years doing our toughest jobs a chance to earn the
privilege of remaining here. It would also reform and modernize the
fifty-year-old guest worker program for agriculture. It would assure
that when there are domestic labor shortages in agriculture in the
future, growers would have access to workers who would enter the
country legally for temporary periods and then return to their home
countries after their work here is completed.
This legislation has the additional advantage of permitting our
government to better focus its limited monitoring/enforcement
resources, particularly where security may be a concern. Let's use
entry/exit tracking, tamper proof documentation, biometric
identification, etc. where it will truly pay security dividends, and
let's stop painting all immigrants with the same brush.
The limited, earned legalization for agriculture, a key component
of this bill, is quite different from a traditional or blanket amnesty
program. It would apply only to immigrants who are at work providing
Americans with a safe, abundant, and affordable food supply. The
opportunity is conditioned upon substantial future work and lawful
behavior. These laborers are an important part of our nation's
agricultural workforce. We need them! American agriculture and our
border infrastructure also need time to transition to and build
capacity for a much more widely used guest worker program.
During my years of service in our government, I saw difficult
policy issues that could only be resolved with broad bipartisan
consensus. This is such an issue. There is another choice: if we cling
to partisan solutions, or wait perhaps several more years for
comprehensive immigration reform proposals to ripen, we will be
presiding over the ``offshoring'' of key components of our agricultural
productivity. Along with the loss of key agricultural industries, we
will see job losses in the sectors that serve agriculture: equipment
manufacturing, sales and service, transportation, processing, farm
lending . . . these are jobs that are filled by our sons and daughters.
Is this really in our national interest?
This issue deserves immediate and serious consideration by the
Congress, and Congress should be open to solving this enormous problem
in incremental steps. Before us is a chance to start to test certain
approaches, keeping in mind that the agricultural solution may differ
in some respects from the right solution for comprehensive reform.
The status quo is simply unacceptable. It puts both American
employers and immigrant workers in an untenable situation--with a high
cost in economic efficiency, respect for the law, and sometimes even in
human life. The reforms now being proposed are a practical solution to
a serious problem that is evolving into a national crisis. It is time,
and in our great country's interest, to enact these reforms.
Sincerely,
Clayton Yeutter
Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
and U.S. Trade Representative
______
The Need for AgJOBS Legislation--Now
February 2004
Americans need and expect a stable, predictable, legal work force
in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that
puts them first in line for available jobs with fair, market wages. All
workers deserve decent treatment and protection of basic rights under
the law. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply.
American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders, a safe
homeland, and a government that works. Yet Americans are being
threatened on all these fronts, because of a growing shortage of legal
workers in agriculture.
To address these challenges, a bipartisan group of Members of
Congress, including Senators Larry Craig (ID) and Ted Kennedy (MA) and
Representatives Chris Cannon (UT) and Howard Berman (CA), has
introduced the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security
(AgJOBS) Act of 2003--S. 1645/H.R. 3142. This bipartisan effort builds
upon years of discussion and suggestions among growers, farm worker
advocates, Latino and immigration issue advocates, Members of both
parties in both Houses of Congress, and others.
The Problems:
Of the USA's 1.6 million agricultural work force, more than half is
made up of workers not legally authorized to work here--according to a
conservative estimate by the Department of Labor, based, astoundingly,
on self-disclosure in worker surveys. Reasonable private sector
estimates run as high as 75 %.
With stepped up documentation enforcement by the Social Security
Administration and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(the successor to the old INS), aliens here illegally are not leaving
the country, but just being scattered. The work force is being
constantly and increasingly disrupted. Ag employers want a legal work
force and must have a stable work force to survive--but federal law
actually punishes ``too much diligence'' in checking worker
documentation. Some growers already have gone out of business, lacking
workers to work their crops at critical times.
Workers here illegally are among the most vulnerable persons in our
country, and know they must live in hiding, not attract attention at
work, and move furtively. They cannot claim the most basic legal rights
and protections. They are vulnerable to predation and exploitation.
Many have paid ``coyotes''--labor smugglers--thousands of dollars to be
transported into and around this country, often under inhumane and
perilous conditions. Reports continue to mount of horrible deaths
suffered by workers smuggled in enclosed truck trailers.
Meanwhile, the only program currently in place to respond to such
needs, the H-2A legal guest worker program, is profoundly broken. The
H-2A status quo is slow, bureaucratic, and inflexible. The program is
complicated and legalistic. DOL's compliance manual alone is 325 pages.
The current H-2A process is so expensive and hard to use, it places
only about 40,000-50,000 legal guest workers a year--2% to 3% of the
total ag work force. A General Accounting Office study found DOL
missing statutory deadlines for processing employer applications to
participate in H-2A more than 40% percent of the time.
The Solution--AgJOBS Reforms:
AgJOBS legislation provides a two-step approach to a stable, legal,
safe, ag work force: (1) Streamlining and expanding the H-2A legal,
temporary, guest worker program, and making it more affordable and used
more--the long-term solution, which will take time to implement; (2)
Outside the H-2A program, a one-time adjustment to legal status for
experienced farm workers, already working here, who currently lack
legal documentation--the bridge to allow American agriculture to adjust
to a changing economy.
H-2A Reforms: Currently, when enough domestic farm workers are not
available for upcoming work, growers are required to go through a
lengthy, complicated, expensive, and uncertain process of demonstrating
that fact to the satisfaction of the federal government. They are then
allowed to arrange for the hiring of legal, temporary, non-immigrant
guest workers. These guest workers are registered with the U.S.
government to work with specific employers and return to their home
countries when the work is done. Needed reforms would:
Replace the current quagmire for qualifying employers and
prospective workers with a streamlined ``attestation'' process
like the one now used for H-1B high-tech workers, speeding up
certification of H-2A employers and the hiring of legal guest
workers.
Participating employers would continue to provide for the
housing and transportation needs of H-2A workers. New
adjustments to the often-arbitrary Adverse Effect Wage Rate
would be suspended during a 3-year period pending extensive
study of its impact and alternatives. Other current H-2A labor
protections for both H-2A and domestic workers would be
continued. H-2A workers would have new rights to seek redress
through mediation and federal court enforcement of specific
rights. Growers would be protected from frivolous claims,
exorbitant damages, and duplicative contract claims in state
courts.
Adjustment of workers to legal status:
Outside the H-2A program, reforms would create a new program in
which farm workers already here, but working without legal
authorization, could earn adjustment to legal status. To qualify, an
incumbent worker must have worked in the United States in agriculture,
before September 1, 2003, for at least 100 days in a 12-month period
over the last 18 months prior to the bill's introduction. (The average
migrant farm worker works 120 days a year.)
This would not spur new immigration, because adjustment would be
limited to incumbent farm workers with a significant work history in
U.S. agriculture. The adjusting worker would have non-immigrant, but
legal, status. Adjustment would not be complete until a worker
completes a substantial work requirement in agriculture (at least 360
days over the next 3-6 years, including 240 days in the first 3 years).
Up to 500,000 workers would be eligible to apply. Their spouses and
minor children would be given limited rights to stay in the U.S.,
protected from deportation. The worker would have to verify compliance
with the law and continue to report his or her work history to the
government. Upon completion of adjustment, the worker would be eligible
for legal permanent resident status. Considering the time elapsed from
when a worker first applies to enter the adjustment process, this gives
adjusting workers no advantage over regular immigrants beginning the
legal immigration process at the same time.
AgJOBS would not create an amnesty program. Neither would it
require anything onerous of workers. Eligible workers who are already
in the United States could continue to work in agriculture, but now
could do so legally, and prospectively earn adjustment to legal status.
Adjusting workers may also work in another industry, as long as the
agriculture work requirement is satisfied.
AgJOBS is a Win-Win-Win approach:
Workers would be better off than under the status quo. Legal guest
workers in the H-2A program need the assurance that government red tape
won't eliminate their jobs. For workers not now in the H-2A program,
every farmworker who gains legal status finally will be able to assert
legal protection--which leads to higher wages, better working
conditions, and safer travel. Growers and workers would get a stable,
legal work force. Consumers would get better assurance of a safe,
stable, American-grown, food supply--not an increased dependence on
imported food. Law-abiding Americans want to make sure the legal right
to stay in our country is earned, and that illegal behavior is not
rewarded now or encouraged in the future. Border and homeland security
would be improved by bringing workers out of the underground economy
and registering them with the AgJOBS adjustment program. Overall,
AgJOBS takes a balanced approach, and would work to benefit everyone.
______
Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003
S. 1645/H.R. 3142
Summary of Significant Provisions--February 2004
TITLE I--ADJUSTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS TO TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT
RESIDENT STATUS
Title I establishes a program whereby agricultural workers in the
United States who lack authorized immigration status but who can
demonstrate that they have worked 100 or more days in a 12 consecutive
month period during the 18-month period ending on August 31, 2003 can
apply for adjustment of status. Eligible applicants would be granted
temporary resident status. If the farmworker performs at least 360 work
days of agricultural employment during the six year period ending on
August 31, 2009, including at least 240 work days during the first 3
years following adjustment, and at least 75 days of agricultural work
during each of three 12-month periods in the six years following
adjustment to temporary resident status, the farmworker may apply for
permanent resident status.
During the period of temporary resident status the farmworker is
employment authorized, and can travel abroad and reenter the United
States. Workers adjusting to temporary resident status may work in non-
agricultural occupations, as long as their agricultural work
requirements are met. While in temporary resident status, workers may
select their employers and may switch employers. During the period of
temporary resident status, the farmworker's spouse and minor children
who are residing in the United States may remain in the U.S., but are
not employment authorized. The spouse and minor children may adjust to
permanent resident status once the farmworker adjusts to permanent
resident status. Unauthorized workers who do not apply or are not
qualified for adjustment to temporary resident status are subject to
removal. Temporary residents under this program who do not fulfill the
agricultural work requirement or are inadmissible under immigration law
or commit a felony or 3 or more misdemeanors as temporary residents are
denied adjustment to permanent resident status and are subject to
removal. The adjustment program is funded through application fees.
TITLES II AND III--REFORM OF THE H-2A TEMPORARY AND SEASONAL
AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROGRAM
This section modifies the existing H-2A temporary and seasonal
foreign agricultural worker program. Employers desiring to employ H-2A
foreign workers in seasonal jobs (10 months or less) will file an
application and a job offer with the Secretary of Labor. If the
application and job offer meets the requirements of the program and
there are no obvious deficiencies the Secretary must approve the
application. Employers must seek to employ qualified U.S. workers prior
to the arrival of H-2A foreign workers by filing a job order with a
local job service office at least 28 days prior to date of need and
also authorizing the posting of the job on an electronic job registry.
All workers in job opportunities covered by an H-2A application
must be provided with workers' compensation insurance, and no job may
be filled by an H-2A worker that is vacant because the previous
occupant is on strike or involved in a labor dispute. If the job is
covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the employer must also
notify the bargaining agent of the filing of the application. If the
job opportunity is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement,
the employer is required to provide additional benefits, as follows.
The employer must provide housing at no cost, or a monetary housing
allowance where the Governor of a State has determined that there is
sufficient migrant housing available, to workers whose place of
residence is beyond normal commuting distance. The employer must also
reimburse inbound and return transportation costs to workers who meet
employment requirements and who travel more than 100 miles to come to
work for the employer. The employer must also guarantee employment for
at least three quarters of the period of employment, and assure at
least the highest of the applicable statutory minimum wage, the
prevailing wage in the occupation and area of intended employment, or a
reformed Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR). If the AEWR applies, it will
not be higher than that existing on 1/01/03 and if Congress fails to
enact a new wage rate within 3 years, the AEWR will be indexed to the
change in the consumer price index, capped at 4% per year beginning
December 1, 2006. Employers must meet specific motor vehicle safety
standards.
H-2A foreign workers are admitted for the duration of the initial
job, not to exceed 10 months, and may extend their stay if recruited
for additional seasonal jobs, to a maximum continuous stay of 3 years,
after which the H-2A foreign worker must depart the United States. H-2A
foreign workers are authorized to be employed only in the job
opportunity and by the employer for which they were admitted. Workers
who abandon their employment or are terminated for cause must be
reported by the employer, and are subject to removal. H-2A foreign
workers are provided with a counterfeit resistant identity and
employment authorization document.
The Secretary of Labor is required to provide a process for filing,
investigating and disposing of complaints, and may order back wages and
civil money penalties for program violators. The Secretary of Homeland
Security may order debarment of violators for up to 2 years. H2A
workers are provided with a limited federal private right of action to
enforce the requirements of housing, transportation, wages, the
employment guarantee, motor vehicle safety, retaliation and any other
written promises in the employer's job offer. Either party may request
mediation after the filing of the complaint. State contract claims
seeking to enforce terms of the H-2A program are preempted by the
limited federal right of action. No other state law rights are
preempted or restricted.
The administration of the H-2A program is funded through a user fee
paid by agricultural employers.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Craig, for your
testimony, and for your advocacy, and for the bill that you
have introduced.
The chair wants to intervene at this point. Senator Boxer
will necessarily need to move to another hearing soon. She will
not be able to stay for the hearing. I would like to recognize
her at this point for comment or questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I will be very brief. I have a
statement and I would ask it be put in the record and just take
less than 5 minutes. First, to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to
thank Senator Hagel as well.
For my State of California, this is obviously extremely
important and I would like to associate myself with the
comments of Senators Craig and McCain. I think Senator McCain
put a human face on this issue. We need to do that. It is
important.
And I also think when Senator McCain said that one of the
issues growing out of 9/11 is that we really did not make a
priority of this relationship, I think that is just a fact of
life. I have met with members of the Mexican Government. They
certainly feel this way. So I think your doing this is a
wonderful signal that we are ready to engage in this.
So briefly let me just say that I am on the Craig-Kennedy
bill, that it is not correct what Senator McCain said that the
Hispanic organizations have not backed any bill. They all
support the Craig-Kennedy. This is a bill that, frankly, I
think we just ought to go to the floor and do it because it is
dealing with the ag portion of the problem. Everyone supports
it: the workers, the bosses, the Hispanic groups. There just
seems to be, as far as I can tell, no opposition.
The beauty of the bill, as Senator Craig says, is you are
giving people hope. You are giving them an opportunity. You are
giving them hope, if they play by the rules, they get their
legal status.
I am also proud to see Senator Durbin here. I am a proud
cosponsor of the DREAM Act. Basically he will explain it, so I
will not take time to do so. Again, it gives hope and help to
children. The kids did not know that they were doing anything
wrong when their parents brought them here. Their parents came
here in an undocumented fashion. They are working hard at
school and I think when you hear from Senator Durbin, that is
another wonderful bill.
Those two, along with the State criminal alien assistance
program, which we will not be looking at, but which helps our
States and localities bear the costs of incarcerating
undocumented immigrants, taken together, we begin to move
forward here.
I would just quickly say, without going into it, that the
President's proposal--and he did step forward with a proposal--
if you really look at it--and I do not know that we are going
to do that later today--I think it makes matters worse because
what it does is it sets up a 3-year program where people can
come in and if they want to re-up for another 3 years they can.
After 6 years, they need to leave the country and go back. If
they are lucky enough to have a sponsor, they might get in line
for legal status. So what this does is it just sets up a
permanent class of very powerless workers.
And that leads me to my last point I want to make. An AP
reporter did an investigative story about what is happening to
our Mexican workers in the American work place, and it is very
shocking. One in 14 work place deaths are Mexicans as opposed
to 1 in 24 workers of other nationalities. The reason AP found
for these death rate disparities, Mexican immigrants are less
likely to receive job training or safety equipment, and are
more reluctant to complain. It seems certain that if we do not
have a program like the Craig-Kennedy plan, people are going to
stay in the shadows. They are going to be fearful. So, God
knows, we do not want people to die excruciating deaths at the
borders. We also do not want them to die in the work place.
This is an issue we need to deal with in a very forthright
fashion. I think our colleagues that are sitting before you
have done that, and I think Senators Hagel and Daschle are also
doing that as well. So I am really grateful to you for having
this hearing and allowing me to speak out of turn at this point
because I have to go to a hearing on rail safety. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I also want to
thank my colleagues who are testifying today.
I particularly want to welcome Senator Craig. I am pleased to be a
supporter of his and Senator Kennedy's AgJOBS bill, which would give
undocumented farmworkers the opportunity to earn citizenship after a
period of years living by the rules.
I am also a cosponsor of Senator Durbin's DREAM Act to give
undocumented children the right to become legal permanent residents of
the United States in order to pursue higher education. The way it works
would be that to be eligible for legal residence status under the DREAM
Act, a student must have been under age 16 at the time of entry into
the U.S., have resided continuously here for at least 5 years, and have
a high school diploma or have gained admission to an institution of
higher education. These children did not come here of their own
volition and limiting their potential hurts them and us.
As a third key policy, I support the State Criminal Alien
Assistance program (SCAAP) to help our states and localities bear the
costs of incarcerating undocumented immigrants.
Taken together, these policy proposals aim to maximize the benefits
of immigration and share the costs it creates. These policies serve as
good models for broader reform: let those who play by the rules earn
citizenship and let the national government assist our key immigration
states.
The President has an alternative that I believe won't work and is
unfair to both immigrants and American workers.
The proposal allows a new class of temporary guestworkers, and it
guarantees employers that they will have access to additional new
guestworkers once the original guestworker's status is up. That design
promises a permanent supply of low-skilled, low-wage workers rather
than encouraging employers to invest in workers and retain them.
It also means workers without a voice. That's because to be able to
renew for a second three years of guestworker status, the workers in
many ways will be forced to tow the line even if there is an abusive or
hurtful environment.
We know that already immigrant workers face unique challenges in
the workplace. I wrote a letter last week to Labor Secretary Chao about
an Associated Press story which found that while Mexicans now represent
about 1 in 24 workers in the United States, they represent about 1 in
14 workplace deaths. Among the reasons the AP found for these death-
rate disparities: Mexican immigrants are less likely to receive job
training or safety equipment and are more reluctant to complain. It
seems that would hold true for participants in the President's new
guestworker proposal as well.
My last point is that the President's proposal is unfair. It says
that these immigrants are good enough to pick our fruit, raise our
kids, and clean our houses but they are not good enough to become
citizens. When the six year guestworker period is up, these worker are
expected to go back to their home country. To come back to the United
States they would have to go to the end of the family sponsor or
employer sponsor lines for reentry.
The President's proposal doesn't seem like a good deal for
immigrants or American workers. We can do better.
Immigration comes with serious costs for our cities and states and
brings with it unique challenges. If we handle it right, we will treat
people well and gain the value of their work and their contribution.
I want to work with my colleagues here today and with you Mr.
Chairman to tackle this challenge--and to strike a balance between
combating illegal immigration and having a rational and fair
immigration policy where everyone benefits. The Craig-Kennedy bill and
the DREAM Act are the right place to start.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.
Senator Durbin.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
Senate colleagues and fellow immigrants, I want to thank you
for giving me the opportunity to testify today about
immigration reform. I believe this is a priority for America.
It is a priority for Mexico, and it is important that we act
this year.
It is imperative that we address our deeply flawed
immigration policy. It jeopardizes our national security and
our economy. It often treats hardworking immigrants unfairly.
In recent months, the discussion about immigration reform
has been dominated by President Bush's guest worker proposal.
Though I agree with Senator Boxer that I think there are some
fundamental flaws with the President's proposal, let me go on
record to commend the President. It took courage, political
courage, for him to step out and say it is time for America to
speak forthrightly about immigration. I think he opened the
door and I think we have an obligation, as public servants who
understand the gravity of this issue, to step through that door
and make positive changes.
To my knowledge, the President's proposal has not yet been
introduced as a bill. It may be later this year. But we should
not wait for that. I think we can move on immigration reform.
We should pass the DREAM Act. It is the only immigration reform
proposal reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee in this
Congress. It will signal that we are serious about immigration
policy reform.
I have introduced this act with Senator Orin Hatch. What an
unlikely political couple--Hatch and Durbin--who happen to
agree, and 42 cosponsors have joined us. The bill was reported
favorably by the Judiciary Committee on an overwhelming 16 to 3
vote. It is narrowly tailored to provide immigration relief to
a select group of students who have good moral character, have
no evidence of wrongdoing in their background, and who are
trying to pursue higher education and really give more back to
America.
Mr. Chairman, I note that you and eight other members of
this committee are cosponsors of the DREAM Act. I think we have
the wind at our back on this issue. The administration has not
taken a position, and I hope that their witnesses today will
tell us that the President supports the DREAM Act.
I know several of my colleagues on the committee have met
some of the inspiring young people who would benefit from the
DREAM Act. Let me tell you just a couple of illustrations that
tell the story.
Diana, was born in Mexico, and raised in Chicago. Her
parents brought her to this country at the age of 6. Her father
works construction, for $25,000 a year income. Her mother
manages a fast food restaurant and earns $15,000 a year. Last
year Diana graduated from high school in Chicago in the top 5
percent of her class with a GPA of 4.4 on a 4.0 scale. An
aspiring architect, she is an Illinois State scholar and the
first place winner of the national Annual Design and Drafting
Contest. An active member of her Catholic parish, she was the
recipient of the 2003 New Leadership Award from the U.S.
Catholic Conference of Bishops.
Because of her excellent grades and her great background,
she was accepted at Northwestern University, a prestigious
school, but due to her immigration status was unable to attend.
Nonetheless, she became the first member of her family to
attend another college when she enrolled in the Architecture
School at the University of Illinois in Chicago.
Let me tell you another story of a young person who is not
Mexican. Teresa was raised in Chicago. Her Korean parents
brought her to the United States when she was 2 years old. Her
mother, the family's sole bread winner, earns $20,000 per year,
working 12-hour days at a dry cleaners.
Here is how I came to know Teresa. Her parents called my
office and said Teresa is a musical prodigy. She has been
accepted at the Julliard School of Music, but when she went to
fill out her application to go to school there, they had a box
that said ``what is your citizenship.'' She turned to her
mother who said, ``Teresa, I am sorry. We never filed the
papers. You are not documented in the United States.'' And she
then came to learn that she could not get admitted to the
Julliard School of Music. She came to our office and said, ``I
have been here since I was 2 years old. What can I do''?
We called the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
they said, ``well, it is clear what she should do. She should
return to Korea.'' This young girl had been in the United
States for 16 or 17 years. She knows no other country.
Well, thank goodness, she went ahead and went to a top
music school, and she is a musical prodigy. She will be a
person that we look up to and admire and probably buy her CD's
in years to come.
But the hardship on her and her family trying to achieve
this dream is the reason that Senator Hatch and I have offered
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the DREAM Act would provide immigration
relief to these students. It will permit young people of good
moral character who graduate from high school, attend college,
or enlist in the military and are long-term U.S. residents to
become permanent residents. The DREAM Act will also repeal a
provision of the Federal law that makes it prohibitively
expensive for States to grant in-State tuition rates to
undocumented students.
In the interest of time, I will not go through the details,
but keep in mind the DREAM Act simply gives to States the
option to decide their own tuition policies. We precluded that
with legislation we passed years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of another bill that I have
introduced that has created so much support and hope among
people who are desperate. To have a young person come to me, as
I am sure each of us can tell this story, and say, ``Senator, I
am about to graduate from college, I have worked my way
through, extra jobs, it has been extremely difficult.'' One
young man said to me, ``I have degrees in biology and computer
science. I want to go into medical research, but my
undocumented status stops me from contributing back to the only
country I know, the country that I love, the United States of
America.''
Mr. Chairman, at the end of this hearing, I hope that we do
not just have a great committee report and little action. You
are not that kind of chairman. You are looking for solutions,
and I want to join you. And I hope by the end of this Congress,
we will respond favorably and pass the DREAM Act. Thank you
very much.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Durbin,
for your testimony today. I think the news you bring, that the
Judiciary Committee has forwarded the DREAM Act to the Senate
by a vote of 16 to 3 should be underlined. It may have been
missed by many. One purpose of our hearing is to highlight
constructive action that is occurring. This is one area in
which we could take action, and I pray that we will. The
Mexican Consul in Indiana feels that this is the most important
way that we could make headway in the relationship in a
legislative session. I appreciate your championship of the
DREAM Act, as well as your testimony here today. We thank you
for coming.
Let me add that the entirety of Senator Boxer's statement
will be made a part of the record. Likewise, the documents that
Senator Craig offered to us will also be made a part of our
record along with a statement submitted by Senator Cornyn.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator John Cornyn
I would like to thank Chairman Lugar for holding this very
important hearing today on immigration policy as it relates to our
relationship with Mexico. We have a responsibility to reform our
immigration policy to ensure that the tragedies of human smuggling and
exploitation of our Mexican neighbors come to an end. We also have a
responsibility to ensure the safety of our borders by creating a system
of orderly, legal migration.
I introduced my comprehensive immigration reform bill in July. My
bill acknowledges that millions of undocumented men and women go to
work every day in America in violation of our immigration law, outside
the protection of our labor law, and without any way of our government
knowing who, or where they are. The program I propose would allow us to
account for undocumented individuals, distinguishing those who pose a
threat to America from those who do not.
The principles for immigration reform courageously outlined by
President Bush show his understanding that our nation has failed to
solve our immigration crisis and show a strong resolve to end the
status quo. It was encouraging to see that among the many important
principles he outlined is a critical component of reform that largely
mirrors an important element of my bill: a work and return policy.
The current economic and demographic conditions in Mexico
illustrate the need for such a policy, and the President wisely
included incentives to encourage guest workers to return to their home
country. In my recent visit with government leaders in Mexico City, and
again during Foreign Minister Ernesto Derbez's visit to the United
States, I was repeatedly told that they want their workers back; they
want entrepreneurs to return with capital and skills. But our current
immigration policy fails to encourage such a return. That must, and
will, change.
The key to economic recovery in Mexico--without which there will be
no end to illegal immigration across our southern border--is to
encourage the growth of small businesses and entrepreneurs. However,
the bulk of Mexico's risk-takers and entrepreneurs are heading north--
and they've not been given a reason to return. Our border should not be
a one-way street; temporary workers should be allowed to work, and then
return home.
The temporary worker plan I propose is neither amnesty, nor a
guaranteed path to citizenship. Instead, it acknowledges the vital role
hard-working immigrants play in our economy and creates a comprehensive
program as an important step toward reestablishing respect for our laws
and restoring safe working conditions for immigrants who work here. It
will enhance America's homeland security, facilitate enforcement of our
immigration and labor laws, and protect millions who labor today
outside the protection of the law. I look forward to working with my
colleagues as we move forward to address comprehensive immigration
reform.
The Chairman. I would like to call now upon Senator Hagel.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank you and all
of our colleagues on this committee for the attention this
morning and focus on an issue that, as we have heard from our
distinguished colleagues, is as important a priority as any
priority we have in the Congress certainly this year. I too
recognize our colleagues for their proposals and their
leadership on these big issues that cannot continue to be
deferred any longer not only in the national security
interests, economic interests, geopolitical strategic interests
of this country, but as Senator McCain said this morning, there
is a human dynamic to this that often gets lost in the
underbrush of the technicality of legislation and regulation.
I might also say that, as you have noted, Mr. Chairman, the
Craig-Kennedy proposal, the DREAM Act that Senator Durbin so
concisely outlined and what it would do, I believe deserve
consideration in the Congress this year and should be passed
this year. I am a cosponsor of each of those bills. In fact, it
would take us a long way toward a comprehensive immigration
reform that we need.
A strong bilateral relation, as you have noted in your
opening comments, Mr. Chairman, is important to our national
security interests as any bilateral relationship we have today.
And with nearly 100 million people and a 2,000-mile border with
the United States, strong relations with Mexico are critical to
enhancing our national security, our political stability, our
economic growth, and free trade throughout the Western
Hemisphere.
America's security and vitality depend on policies that are
based on the strengths of America, not our insecurities.
Adjusting to the global economy requires immigration policies
that consider those seeking to live and work in the United
States as assets to and not burdens on our national economy.
Daniel Henninger recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal
that: ``The global migration of human labor, on which there is
little organized data, is perhaps the most powerful force on
the globe today.''
Many politicians and commentators have portrayed
immigration as a threat to American workers. But immigration is
a vital part of America's strength, and it always has been. As
noted in his opening comments, Senator Durbin greeted us all as
fellow immigrants.
In January, Senator Daschle and I introduce S. 2010, the
Immigration Reform Act of 2004. Our legislation is a
bipartisan, comprehensive proposal that addresses the
complicated and difficult issues related to U.S. immigration
law.
Briefly, Mr. Chairman, our bill would strengthen national
security by identifying undocumented immigrants living in the
U.S., tracking foreign workers entering our borders, and
increasing funds for border security.
Fix the current system for immigrants who follow the law by
reducing visa processing backlogs, reunifying families, and
remedying inequities under the current law.
Improve economic stability by establishing an enforceable
program to bring needed foreign workers into the U.S. for jobs
that would otherwise go unfilled.
And national security to track and identify immigrants
living within these borders.
The participants in the bill's worker program would be
required to maintain counterfeit-resistant authorization cards
issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Individuals who
continue to break immigration laws would be barred from these
programs. Fees associated with our bill would be designated for
border security.
Fixing the current system. Our legislation reduces the
existing backlog of applications for family sponsored visas to
ensure that immigrants will be allowed to reunite with their
U.S. citizen and legal resident family members. The bill
provides designated funding to implement these changes.
To provide foreign workers for jobs that would otherwise go
unfilled, our bill admits a limited number of workers through a
willing worker program. Employers seeking to hire a foreign
worker must first demonstrate that no qualified U.S. worker
exists and that they will provide the same wage levels and
working conditions as provided for U.S. workers.
Workers will be admitted for a limited period of time and
will be allowed to change employers. Visa renewals would be
available on a conditional basis. Qualified workers and their
families would be provided an opportunity to adjust their
immigration status.
Finally, our legislation provides an opportunity for
undocumented workers and families currently living in the
United States to become invested stakeholders in the country if
they can demonstrate that they have met all the following
requirements: one, passed national security and criminal
background checks; two, resided in the U.S. for at least 5
years preceding the date of introduction; three, worked a
minimum of 4 years in the U.S., one of which must occur post-
enactment; five, paid all Federal taxes; six, demonstrated
knowledge of English and American civics requirements; and
seven, paid a $1,000 fine in addition to required application
fees.
Individuals who qualify for this program will submit an
application to the Department of Homeland Security. Upon
approval, DHS may adjust the immigration status of qualified
applicants.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Daschle and I and our cosponsors look
forward to working with this committee, other appropriate
relevant committees in the Congress, and the Bush
administration and all of our colleagues on this important
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I too wish to offer my thanks for your
attention to this issue and thank you for your leadership.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hagel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Hagel
Mr. Chairman, Senator Biden, and my colleagues on the Foreign
Relations Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on ``U.S. and
Mexico: Immigration Policy and the Bilateral Relationship.''
A strong bilateral relationship with Mexico is as important to our
national security interests as any bilateral relationship we have
today. And with nearly 100 million people and a 2,000-mile border with
the United States, strong relations with Mexico are critical to
enhancing our national security, political stability, economic growth,
and free trade throughout the Western Hemisphere.
America's security and vitality depend on policies that are based
on the strengths of America, not its insecurities. Adjusting to the
global economy requires immigration policies that consider those
seeking to live and work in the United States as assets to, and not
burdens on, our national economy.
Daniel Henninger recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that:
``The global migration of human labor, on which there is little
organized data, is perhaps the most powerful force on the globe
today.''
Many politicians and commentators have portrayed immigration as a
threat to American workers. But immigration is a vital part of
America's strength. In January, Senator Daschle and I introduced S.
2010, the Immigration Reform Act of 2004. Our legislation is a bi-
partisan, comprehensive proposal that addresses the complicated and
difficult issues related to U.S. immigration law. Our bill will:
Strengthen National Security by identifying undocumented
immigrants living in the U.S., tracking foreign workers
entering our borders, and increasing funds for border security;
Fix the Current System for immigrants who follow the law by
reducing visa processing backlogs, reunifying families, and
remedying current inequities under the law; and
Improve Economic Stability by establishing an enforceable
program to bring needed foreign workers into the U.S. for jobs
that would otherwise go unfilled.
National Security:
To track and identify immigrants living within and entering U.S.
borders for work, our bill requires immigrants to undergo criminal and
national security background checks prior to authorization.
Participants in the bill's worker program would be required to
maintain counterfeit-resistant authorization cards issued by the
Department of Homeland Security. Individuals who continue to break
immigration laws would be barred from these programs. Fees associated
with our bill would be designated for border security.
Fixing the Current System:
Our legislation reduces the existing backlog of applications for
family-sponsored visas to ensure that immigrants will be allowed to re-
unite with their U.S. citizen and legal resident family members. The
bill provides designated funding to implement these changes.
Economic Stability:
To provide foreign workers for jobs that would otherwise go
unfilled, our bill admits a limited number of workers through a Willing
Worker Program. Employers seeking to hire a foreign worker must first
demonstrate that no qualified U.S. worker exists and that they will
provide the same wage levels and working conditions as provided for
U.S. workers.
Workers will be admitted for a limited period of time and will be
allowed to change employers. Visa renewals would be available on a
conditional basis. Qualified workers and their families would be
provided an opportunity to adjust their immigration status.
Opportunity to Become a Stakeholder:
Finally, our legislation provides an opportunity for undocumented
workers and families currently living in the U.S. to become invested
stakeholders in the country if they can demonstrate that they have met
all of the following requirements:
Passed national security and criminal background checks;
Resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years preceding the date
of introduction;
Worked a minimum of 4 years in the U.S., (one of which must
occur post-enactment);
Paid all federal taxes;
Demonstrated knowledge of English language and American
civics requirements; and
Paid a $1,000 fine, in addition to required application
fees.
Individuals who qualify for this program will submit an application
to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Upon approval, DHS may
adjust the immigration status of qualified applicants.
Senator Daschle and I look forward to working with this committee
and the Bush administration on this important issue.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Hagel, for
the excellent legislation that you have offered and described
today.
Let me ask now whether members of the committee have any
opening comments. You have a short statement, I understand,
Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. Well, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time,
let us move along. We have got a couple of panels of witnesses.
I am very interested in hearing what they have to say. I do
have an opening statement, but I will ask that it be included
in the record.
Let me just express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, for
putting the bilateral relationship of the United States and
Mexico back on the front burner. As Senator Hagel has said--and
I apologize that I missed the comments of our colleagues who
were here earlier, but I suspect by their presence here, they
shared the view that it is always dangerous to prioritize any
bilateral relationship as the most important, but certainly one
could never argue that if you had to list the four or five most
important bilateral relationships, Mexico would have to be on
that list at any given time. And I think the committee's
assertion of the importance of this agenda item, particularly
the issue of migration, is commendable. I commend Senator Hagel
and others who have put together some very thoughtful pieces of
legislation.
This is a very complicated issue, one that is going to
require a lot of attention and detail. But the fact that we
have 8 million undocumented workers in this country needs to be
addressed. Obviously, the border issues are critical, but it is
also true that we have good people here. The overwhelming
majority of the people who come here to work make a significant
contribution to our country, and that should not be lost on us
at any moment.
So I thank you for doing this. I am anxious to hear our
witnesses. Again, I apologize for missing the opening
statements of others, but I commend you for holding this
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher J. Dodd
The Foreign Relations Committee has convened this morning to
discuss a topic which has not been receiving the attention it deserves:
the bilateral relationship between the United States and Mexico. I
thank the Chairman for holding today's hearing. It is an opportunity to
once again bring what I believe is an important relationship back to
the forefront of the U.S. foreign policy agenda where it belongs. I
would also like to welcome our distinguished witnesses here today,
especially my colleagues, Senators Hagel, McCain, Craig, and Durbin. I
appreciate your willingness to be here today to participate in this
important discussion.
Along with many, I have been disappointed over the past several
years by the Bush administration's lack of engagement with our friend
and neighbor to the south. There was every reason to be hopeful early
on in the Bush administration that the strong personal bonds between
Presidents Bush and Fox would translate into real progress on the U.S.-
Mexico agenda--an ambitious agenda which includes migration, border
security, human rights protection, drugs, trade, investment, energy,
and economic development.
But the reality has turned out to be quite different. Rather than
engagement, there has been indifference at best on the part of the Bush
administration both with respect to Mexico and our hemisphere
generally. The low point in the U.S.-Mexico relationship clearly
surrounded the UN Security Council consideration of Iraq and Mexico's
opposition to a UN resolution supporting multilateral force against the
regime of Saddam Hussein. That disagreement frankly froze any possible
progress on issues of interest to Mexico, most especially migration
reform. Now, it appears that there is a thaw in that relationship. I
certainly hope so, because the important issues facing our two
countries have been in limbo for much too long.
This has been a turbulent period in our area of the world. From as
far away as Patagonia, Argentina, or closer to home in the Caribbean
nation of Haiti, many of our friends have been struggling to create and
ensure a safe and secure future for their people. That includes Mexico.
And as neighbors, partners, and friends, many of Mexico's problems have
and continue to affect the United States very directly.
More recently there has been some very limited progress on the
bilateral agenda. Although it was held a year-and-a-half after
originally scheduled, I am pleased that during their recent meeting in
Texas on March 5th-6th, Presidents Bush and Fox were able to come to an
important agreement with respect to visa entry requirements for Mexican
workers who travel across the border to work during the day in the U.S.
I also commend U.S. and Mexican authorities for their close
cooperation on controlling our shared border. Border protection is an
integral component of ensuring our security and Mexico's. Indeed, the
Department of Homeland Security recently launched a new program--the
Arizona Border Control initiative, and I am hopeful that this
initiative will contribute to strengthening our capabilities in this
area.
But as we move forward, we must continue to keep in mind that this
is more than just an issue of protecting our borders. It is an issue of
protecting human life. More than 200 migrants died last year trying to
enter the United States, as increased capabilities of the U.S. border
patrol are forcing them to cross in dangerous desert regions. Indeed,
according to reports, Border Patrol agents in Arizona apprehended
almost 200,000 people from October 2003 to March 2004.
Moreover, human smuggling rings are allegedly to blame for a
variety of human rights violations, including executions, torture, and
kidnappings. And some smugglers--so called coyotes--are not just
transporting adults looking for work. They are also transporting
children--from Mexico and other Latin American nations--in exchange for
exorbitant fees. Undocumented, desperate parents are often willing to
pay these fees so that they can be reunited with their children.
Together, the U.S. and Mexican governments must continue to address
these and other issues of shared importance. Indeed, illegal border
crossing is not the only aspect of migration that needs to be
addressed--a serious and thoughtful review of U.S. migration policy is
long overdue, as are fundamental reforms. Any effort at reform will
have to address issues critical to all Americans, including legitimate
security concerns related to our borders. And any immigration reform
must, to the greatest extent possible, protect the job security of
American citizens, while also ensuring in cases where Mexicans,
Salvadorans or other non-U.S. citizens are being employed by U.S.
employers, that these workers are not exploited or otherwise
mistreated.
We cannot get away from the reality that there are at least eight
million undocumented workers who are currently living and working in
the United States. Anything we do in the context of immigration reform
will have to address that reality. Clearly our domestic security will
be greatly enhanced if we know who is living and working within our
borders. Many of these individuals are hard working people who
contribute to their communities, however some are not. Comprehensive
migration reform would better enable us to identify those individuals
who truly are a threat to our domestic security. The issue of migration
is always an extremely difficult and complex one for the Congress to
address in the best of times. Without real leadership on the part of
the President, no reform is going to get done this year or even next.
Moreover, the migration issue will never be resolved in a vacuum.
The announcement of the Partnership for Prosperity initiative in 2002
by President's Bush and Fox was an important first step toward
recognizing the roots of the problem. Alleviating the poverty and lack
of regional investment and infrastructure that promote migration is a
central goal of the Partnership for Prosperity initiative. But there is
still a tremendous amount of work to do if we are to help people in
less developed areas of Mexico realize their dreams of success at home.
I urge the Bush Administration to work closely with the Mexican
government to achieve the sustainable growth necessary to reach that
goal.
Making progress on the U.S.-Mexican bilateral agenda is important
to both of our countries and to the hemisphere at large. And to make
significant progress, we must have sustained engagement at the highest
levels. Only with extensive engagement will we be able to successfully
battle issues such as migration, economic development, corruption, drug
trafficking, and terrorism--issues which both threaten the integrity of
governments and undermine popular support for democratic institutions
and values throughout the hemisphere. Given the tumultuous history of
the past few years, I can only hope that today's hearing is the
beginning of such an effort.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Dodd, for
your attendance today, as well as for your continued leadership
in issues involving our hemisphere. Your statement will be made
a part of the record.
Senator Corzine, I want to recognize you, if you have any
comments.
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I want to echo the sentiments that I have heard from my
colleagues with regard to the importance of this bilateral
relationship.
But recognizing the tension that exists in our society with
regard to the immigration issues I think requires it for our
own purposes within our own borders. I think many of the
initiatives that I have heard presented by my colleagues,
several of which I am cosponsoring, I look forward to having
them moved aggressively onto the agenda because this is
something that not only is important, as Senator Hagel talked
about, with regard to national security and economic realities
in our own communities, but is one that I think we need to
address the tension that actually exists in our society that
surrounds the questions of immigration, and we ought to get the
rules of the road established.
So I thank you very much for the hearing and look forward
to the witnesses' testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Corzine.
Let me just indicate that the committee recognizes that
other committees have jurisdiction over the bills that have
been presented here today, in some cases primarily. We
understand that. Action has already been taken on the DREAM Act
in the Judiciary Committee. Judiciary has likewise had a
hearing with regard to the immigration proposals of our
President and of others, as I understand it.
It is clearly not our intent to step on the toes of any of
our colleagues, but rather, to emphasize that the overall
relationship with Mexico today is important as a foreign
policy, and as a national security, issue. These subsets of
issues clearly are part of that. We have had, I think, a good
understanding with the chairmen of the relevant committees, who
have encouraged us to proceed with this hearing. We will try to
pursue that diplomatically with our colleagues, as well as with
all who are involved in testimony today.
Let me now call our second panel of witnesses. These are
witnesses representing our administration, including the
Honorable Roger F. Noriega, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State; the Honorable
C. Stewart Verdery, Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy and
Planning, Border and Transportation Security Directorate; and
the Honorable Eduardo Aguirre, Director of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
My understanding is that the witnesses have agreed upon an
order of testimony, which would mean Secretary Noriega first,
then Mr. Aguirre, and then Mr. Verdery, in that order. We will
ask you to proceed, gentlemen. All of your statements will be
made a part of the record in full. Perhaps you would wish to
summarize, but our purpose is to hear you out and hear your
information today.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. NORIEGA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE, BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
Mr. Noriega. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Senators. It is a great pleasure for us to be here this
morning. We thank you for the opportunity to discuss the U.S.
relationship with Mexico. My comments, which I will summarize
here, will provide some additional context for the discussion
of the immigration issue.
I agree with you, of course, Mr. Chairman, and the other
Senators that this hearing is a good opportunity to generate
understanding and support in our country and in our Congress on
this important issue.
As President Bush has said, and as has been echoed here
this morning, the United States has no more important
relationship than the one it enjoys with Mexico. Despite some
disagreements and a history that has not been without some
difficult episodes, the economies and societies of our two
countries are interwoven, and both countries are definitely
stronger for it.
Mr. Chairman, I should note that each of the five
principles that you outlined this morning are very much at work
in our relationship with Mexico. I think President Bush and
President Fox have converted this relationship in a short
period of time into a win-win equation. We understand that when
we work to secure our border for honest commerce, that we both
benefit. When we accommodate legal migration and fight against
illegal migration, we both benefit. When we encourage trade and
economic development, both of our countries stand to benefit,
and when we fight drugs and work together in the region and in
the world, we both benefit. This is very much a partnership
with Mexico, one of shared responsibilities in confronting and
dealing with the issues between our two countries and in the
world we share, and we do so in a very constructive way.
That was underscored at the meeting between the two
Presidents in Crawford at the President's ranch on March 5 and
6, which was an excellent opportunity to discuss these
bilateral relations in a very informal, personal, friendly
setting. I was inspired by the commitment demonstrated in those
meetings by the two Presidents to work together to enhance an
already strong relationship in ways that will benefit our
people. I would like to discuss very briefly some of those key
bilateral issues.
As my colleagues in the Department of Homeland Security can
attest, Mexico has offered outstanding cooperation in improving
border security and counter-terrorism efforts. During the
recent threat to aviation security at the end of 2003, Mexico
worked closely with the United States, canceling flights and
increasing security and screening in Mexican airports as the
situation required. Under the Border Partnership Accord, signed
by both Presidents in March of 2002, we are increasing security
for both countries and speeding the movement of legitimate
goods and travelers across our border.
During the last 3 years, U.S. and Mexican officials have
developed an unprecedented level of cooperation on law
enforcement, including information sharing and even joint
investigations. The Mexican Government has achieved impressive
records in capturing leaders of the major drug trafficking
organizations that operate on both sides of our borders. The
Mexican Attorney General's office and the Mexican military
conduct extensive eradication operations. Narcotics-related
violence in border communities, particularly in Ciudad Juarez,
Nuevo Laredo, and Tijuana, remains a serious problem as does
corruption among Mexican state and local law enforcement
officials. However, President Fox has not backed away from his
efforts to target drug traffickers and to eradicate these
illicit crops. It is important that the U.S. Government
continue to support Mexico in these efforts.
On the specific issue of extradition, we have made
considerable strides. As you know, Mexico does not extradite
criminals facing the death penalty, and the Mexican Supreme
Court ruling bans the extradition of fugitives facing life
imprisonment without parole, and this has caused serious
concerns in terms of getting people back to face justice.
Differences in our legal systems also lead to problems with the
quantity and type of evidence required by Mexican courts, but
we are working to address these issues and we hope that the
Mexican Supreme Court will revisit the issue of life
imprisonment.
President Fox has made noteworthy advances in the area of
human rights in the passage of an unprecedented Freedom of
Information Act, the creation of a new Federal professional
criminal investigative body, and the appointment of a special
prosecutor for human rights cases. Many human rights challenges
remain, particularly at the state level, but we believe Mexico
will continue to tackle these problems.
We share the Mexican Government's concern over the murders
of women in Ciudad Juarez. Secretary Powell has raised this
issue in his exchanges with Mexican officials, as have I. The
United States has provided assistance in the past and stands
ready to provide further assistance in addressing these serious
crimes.
We are exploring with the Mexican Government ways where we
can intensify our joint efforts to address the mutual problem
of trafficking in persons across our borders.
Our shared border with Mexico imposes upon us a joint
responsibility for resource management of all kinds, and there
is no resource more important for people on both sides of that
border than water. The deficit in water deliveries from Mexico
to the United States is an ongoing serious concern, one which
we discuss on a regular basis. I can assure you this came up in
Crawford, for example. There is a deficit. Mexico, under
President Fox, has not added to that deficit. They have kept up
regular annual payments of the water debt, and there has not
been an addition to the deficit, but it is something that we
need to address to ensure that our farmers can count on the
water supplies that are necessary for their productive
enterprises.
In the area of trade, the North American Free Trade
Agreement is a success for all three countries. Of course,
there are disputes and we are trying to resolve those through
the dispute resolution mechanisms of NAFTA and the WTO. But
Mexico is an important ally in the efforts to reach a Free
Trade Area of the Americas agreement. They understand that
trade has benefited all of our countries, definitely all three
countries involved in NAFTA.
We are extremely pleased by the activity of the Partnership
for Prosperity, a public-private alliance established in 2001
by Presidents Bush and Fox, that seeks to spur growth and
address the root causes of migration in those regions of Mexico
from which a disproportionate number of persons emigrate to the
United States illegally. We seek to engage through this
exercise the energies of the private sector to address the
problems of poverty and development, and we believe that we
have already seen some meaningful progress in this area and
this can become a model for us to use elsewhere in the
Americas.
President Fox recognizes the need for comprehensive
economic and fiscal measures to make Mexico more competitive
and to generate sufficient jobs for his own citizens. Toward
this end, he has introduced legislation to reform Mexico's
fiscal structure and energy sector, and he has worked very
closely with the political class in Mexico to address these
important fundamental issues.
Finally, the relationship we share with Mexico also has a
hemispheric and global dimension. The United States and Mexico
have very active and productive engagement on regional and
world affairs, more than ever before. We cooperate, for
example, in helping the Government of Bolivia, in helping the
people of Venezuela, and these are two areas where we are
working together to advance our mutual interests in democracy.
My colleagues from the Department of Homeland Security will
describe in more detail President Bush's January 7 proposal on
migration, where it currently stands, and what the President's
vision is for safe, orderly, humane, and practical and market-
sensitive immigration measures. The President is speaking of a
temporary worker program, not amnesty, which will match willing
workers with willing employers. While it is not Mexico-
specific, it will definitely have a major impact on Mexico and
an impact on those who are here or those who want to work here
legally.
President Fox understands the importance of the temporary
worker program for his country and he voiced support for the
proposal during his meeting with President Bush in Monterey in
January and again in Crawford.
In conclusion, the progress in the United States-Mexico
relationship over the last 3 years has been extraordinary and
we believe that progress will continue, again emphasizing that
this is a win-win partnership.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Noriega follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Roger F. Noriega
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the U.S. relationship with
Mexico. As President Bush has said, the United States has no more
important relationship than that which it enjoys with Mexico. Despite
some disagreements and a history that has not been without some
difficult episodes, the economies and societies of our two countries
are interwoven. Both nations are stronger for it. The strength of each
country's democracy and economy is fundamental to the other's, and the
relationship directly affects the lives of millions of United States
and Mexican citizens every day. The meeting between President Bush and
President Fox in Crawford March 5 and 6 reflects a strong bilateral
relationship forged by shared geography and growing economic ties.
Under Presidents Bush and Fox, relations between the United States and
Mexico demonstrate the desire of both countries to address common
challenges pragmatically and to collaborate in building a more
prosperous future for both countries. Bilateral relations have been
defined in recent years by law enforcement concerns such as border
security and narcotics trafficking, burgeoning trade, and immigration,
as well as by unprecedented levels of cooperation. I would like to take
this opportunity to discuss some of the key bilateral issues in more
detail.
BORDER SECURITY. COUNTER-NARCOTICS, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Mexico has offered outstanding cooperation in improving border
security and counter-terrorism efforts. During the threat to aviation
security at the end of 2003, Mexico worked closely with the U.S.
Government, canceling some AeroMexico flights to Los Angeles and
stepping-up passenger screening. Earlier last year, at the time of the
war in Iraq, the Government of Mexico implemented a plan by which its
military assumed a higher state of alert and afforded enhanced
protection for potential targets of international terrorism, including
key infrastructure sites and centers of tourism. Funding provided by
the United States under the Border Partnership Accord, signed by
Presidents Bush and Fox in March 2002, is improving infrastructure at
ports of entry, expediting legitimate travel, and increasing security
related to the movement of goods. The plan focuses on the use of
technology to improve security while diminishing delays in the movement
of goods and people. We are also implementing systems and developing
training programs to identify individuals who pose a national security
threat either before their arrival at airports in North America or at
our common border.
During the last three years, U.S. and Mexican officials have
enjoyed unprecedented cooperation in the area of law enforcement.
President Fox's anti-corruption efforts and institutional reforms have
made it possible to expand information sharing and conduct successful
joint investigations. In 2003, U.S. and Mexican officials developed a
common targeting plan against major drug trafficking organizations in
Mexico and the United States and developed secure mechanisms for two-
way sharing of sensitive intelligence data without compromise. Mexican
authorities have achieved impressive results in capturing leaders of
major drug trafficking organizations. In 2003, Mexican authorities
arrested over 7,500 perions on drug-related charges. They seized over
20 metric tons of cocaine and more than 2,000 metric tons of marijuana,
165 kilograms of heroin, and 652 kilograms of methamphetamines in 2003.
The Mexican Secretariat of National Defense reports that it deployed up
to 30,000 troops to eradicate drug crops manually, while the attorney
general's office employed helicopters to spray illicit crops. These
efforts destroyed 90,000 acres of marijuana and over 49,000 acres of
opium poppy in 2003. Nevertheless, Mexico remains a major drug
producing and transit country, money-laundering venue, and base of
operation for criminal organizations that operate in the United States.
Narcotics-related violence in border communities, particularly Ciudad
Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, and Tijuana, is a serious problem, exacerbated by
rivalries among trafficking organizations in the wake of the arrests of
first and second tier drug traffickers by federal police. Institutional
underdevelopment and corruption of state and local law enforcement
officials are serious challenges. However, President Fox has not backed
away from his efforts to target drug traffickers. The border security,
counter-narcotics, and law enforcement situation in Mexico is both a
great challenge and a great opportunity, which offers more hope than at
any time in many years. President Fox has radically strengthened law
enforcement cooperation with the United States and with our support has
begun the process of reforming and rebuilding law enforcement and
counter-drug institutions. With International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement funding, the Department of State will be able to continue
robust support of Mexican efforts to improve the capacity of their law
enforcement institutions and to enhance their operations.
Extradition is an area where we have seen improvement but where
significant challenges remain. Mexico extradited 31 fugitives to the
United States in 2003, surpassing the 2002 record of 25. Moreover,
Mexico deported or expelled an additional 88 fugitives to the United
States for immigration violations in 2003. Mexico does not extradite
suspects facing the death penalty, which is in accordance with our
bilateral extradition treaty. However, a 2001 Mexican Supreme Court ban
on the extradition of fugitives facing life imprisonment without
parole, coupled with confusion in some lower courts that are applying
the ban too broadly, is a serious concern. This has kept high-level
drug traffickers and some of those alleged to have committed the, most
heinous state crimes from being extradited. We have also voiced our
concerns about the quantity and type of evidence required by the
Mexican courts. Denial of extradition by courts asserting a ``lack of
evidence' is in part due to differences between our two legal systems.
We are working with the Mexican Government to address these issues and
hope that the Mexican Supreme Court will have occasion to revisit the
issue of life imprisonment.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
President Fox has made historic advances in the area of human
rights with the passage of an unprecedented freedom of information act,
the creation of a new federal professional criminal investigative body,
and the appointment of a special prosecutor for historic human rights
cases. President Fox's unparalleled decision to support the opening of
an office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(UNHCHR) in 2002 was an important sign of how far Mexico has come. One
of the fruits of this cooperation was a study of the human rights
situation in Mexico, which the representative of the UNHCHR presented
to President Fox in December 2003. Certainly, as the Government of
Mexico has recognized, challenges remain. Particularly at the state
level, corruption, impunity, and the use of torture to extract
confessions continue to be serious problems. To meet these continuing
challenges, President Fox has promised to use the UNHCHR study to
develop a national human rights program. Realistically, it is going to
require years of sustained effort in Mexico to overcome many of these
problems.
A particularly tragic circumstance is the situation in Ciudad
Juarez where, since 1993, some 300 women have been murdered,
approximately 90 of them in circumstances suggesting the possibility of
serial killing. We have followed this issue closely and have discussed
the matter with officials of the Mexican Government, including in
conversations between Secretary Powell and Foreign Secretary Derbez. We
note that President Fox has ordered the attorney general to assist
local authorities, recently naming a special prosecutor, and has
appointed a commissioner to coordinate the Mexican Government's
assistance. While the crimes are Mexico's to solve, the U.S. Government
has provided training and technical assistance in the past and stands
ready to provide further assistance.
As President Bush said during President Fox's visit to Crawford,
``Mexican and American officials are working together to arrest
dangerous criminals, including drug smugglers and those who traffic in
human beings.'' Trafficking in persons--the buying, selling, and
transport of human beings, mostly women and children, for sexual
slavery or labor exploitation--is a worldwide curse, and one that
neither the United States nor Mexico is prepared to tolerate. Our
2,000-mile border and extensive ties of commerce and tourism make it
imperative that we work together to combat this heinous international
crime. We are therefore exploring with the Mexican Government ways in
which we can intensify joint efforts to address this mutual problem.
WATER
Texas farmers in the border region depend heavily on water provided
from Mexico under the 1944 Waters Treaty. When the Fox Administration
came to office, it inherited a deficit of well over one million acre
feet in water owed to the United States. The current government pledged
not to permit any further increase in the water debt, and it has kept
that pledge. However, it has not significantly reduced the deficit,
which now stands at over 1.3 million acre-feet. We are pleased that
Mexico not only met but exceeded the minimum annual average water
delivery under the treaty by mid-January of this year. Our farmers need
this kind of certainty in order to make planting decisions.
Nevertheless, we also need a significant effort to reduce the deficit.
Mexico has greater volumes of water in storage now than at any time in
the past ten years. This is a point we continually emphasize in our
bilateral discussions, and we hope for progress in water talks we are
seeking to schedule in April.
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
Our economic relationship with Mexico is healthy and thriving. The
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is clearly working for all
three countries. Trade between the United States and Mexico almost
tripled from $81 billion in 1993 to $236 billion in 2003. Canada and
Mexico together receive 37 percent of all U.S. exports and supply 30
percent of all U.S. imports. Mexico remains our second largest trading
partner after Canada.
While most trade crosses the border without difficulties, we do
have some problems, including disputes over telecommunications,
sweeteners, apples, beef, poultry, rice, stone fruit, and pork. These
issues are being managed through ongoing negotiations and via NAFTA and
World Trade Organization trade dispute resolution mechanisms.
We are extremely pleased by the activity of the Partnership for
Prosperity or P4P. Presidents Bush and Fox established P4P in 2001 to
build on the bonds between our countries and to promote economic growth
and higher standards of living for the citizens of both nations. P4P is
a public-private alliance that seeks to spur growth and address the
root causes of migration in those regions of Mexico from which a
disproportionate number of persons emigrate to the United States
illegally. P4P initiatives include projects to reduce the cost of
remittances, expand Mexico's housing pool, extend credit to small and
medium sized enterprises, establish university linkages, expand
opportunities for indigenous handicrafts and promote good corporate
citizenship. A 2003 workshop brought together 800 business and
government representatives. A second P4P workshop in Guadalajara in
June will focus on financial services, housing, information technology,
human capital, and competitiveness.
President Fox recognizes the need for comprehensive economic and
fiscal measures to make Mexico more competitive and to generate jobs
sufficient for his citizens. Toward this end, he has introduced
legislation to reform Mexico's fiscal structure and energy sector.
REGIONAL COOPERATION
The United States and Mexico enjoy more active and productive
engagement on regional and world affairs today than ever before. We
have a common interest in promoting democracy and prosperity in the
hemisphere. Mexico has hosted a number of important multilateral
conferences, including the recent Special Summit of the Americas and
the Hemispheric Security Conference and serves as the venue for the
ongoing talks on the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The Mexican
Government has voted in favor of United Nations Commission on Human
Rights resolutions addressing the problems in Cuba the last two years,
and we hope it will do so again this year. Underlining its policy of
engagement in support of democracy in this hemisphere, Mexico has co-
chaired with us a Bolivia support group and has been an active
participant in the Friends of Venezuela group.
BINATIONAL COMMISSION
As befits a unique relationship, the United States and Mexico
maintain a unique bilateral forum. The annual meetings of the
Binational Commission (BNC), initiated in 1981, provide a cabinet-level
review of our joint activities. The BNC, which last met in November
2003, is comprised of 14 working groups, cochaired by U.S. and Mexican
cabinet officials, addressing topics such as: migration and consular
affairs, law enforcement, security and border coordination, foreign
policy, trade and economics, science and technical cooperation, and
energy. The next meeting of the BNC will likely be in Mexico City in
late November.
IMMIGRATION
The well being of the Mexican community in the United States--
including those who reside here legally and those who have entered
illegally--represents the most important foreign policy issue on
Mexico's agenda with us. Remittances from Mexicans in the United States
totaled $13.3 billion in 2003, accounted for 2.4% of GDP, and surpassed
foreign direct investment flows and income from tourism; only crude oil
revenue was higher. A full 23 percent of Mexicans indicate they receive
remittances of some kind. With approximately 22 million people of
Mexican ancestry living in the United States, many of whom are dual
nationals, immigration reform affects not only Mexico's economic
picture but also directly affects family unity, circularity, travel
across the border, as well as educational and cultural ties. Therefore,
the Government of Mexico has a very immediate and real interest in our
immigration policy.
My colleagues from the Department of Homeland Security will
describe in more detail the President's January 7 proposal on
immigration, where it currently stands, and the steps this
Administration is taking to develop the vision of safe, orderly,
humane, practical, and market-sensitive immigration. President Bush has
proposed a temporary work program, not an amnesty program, that will
offer legal, temporary worker status to undocumented persons who were
employed in the United States at the time of his announcement. Under
the President's program, America will also welcome workers from foreign
countries who have been offered jobs for which American employers have
been unable to find American employees. Thus, the President's program
will match willing foreign workers with willing employers. The program
would also permit these temporary workers to seek existing paths to
permanent residency in the United States if they qualify, but they will
take their place at the end of the line so as not to disadvantage those
who have obeyed the law and have waited in line to achieve permanent
residence and American citizenship.
This new temporary worker program is nationality neutral (i.e., it
would apply to immigrants from all countries, not just Mexico). But
since Mexican illegal immigrants represent the single largest
nationality group among the undocumented population, the effect of the
proposed reform of our immigration regime would have a profound impact
on Mexicans and Mexico. The new program represents an opportunity to
strengthen both the American and Mexican economies. The United States
will benefit from the labor of hard-working immigrants. Mexico will
benefit as productive citizens are able to return home with money to
invest and spend in their nation's economy. This system will be more
humane to foreign workers who will be less reluctant to assert their
rights to the protections provided to all workers in America. Moreover,
as the illegal workers emerge from the shadows and register themselves,
our homeland security interests will also benefit.
President Fox and the Government of Mexico welcomed the President's
initiative and recognize the importance of the announcement. Needless
to say, Mexico looks forward to an efficient, humane temporary worker
program. While the United States and Mexico continue our dialogue on
issues concerning immigration and consular matters, there is also an
understanding that achieving immigration reform is very much a U.S.
domestic policy matter.
CONCLUSION
The progress in the United States-Mexico relationship over the last
three years has been extraordinary and will continue, to the benefit of
both countries. To be sure, difficulties exist. They always do between
friends. Over the past year, we have worked through some hard issues.
In each case we have been able to keep the dialogue open and ultimately
move forward constructively. And that is what we expect from friends:
to be able to discuss our differences frankly and seek constructive
solutions to difficult problems in a spirit of mutual respect.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Secretary Noriega. It is
a pleasure to have you before the committee again today. We
thank you for that testimony.
Director Aguirre.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Aguirre. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much, Senators Dodd, Hagel, members of the committee.
My name is Eduardo Aguirre and I have the honor of serving
President Bush's administration and our great Nation as the
first Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
[USCIS], within the Department of Homeland Security.
I am pleased to appear before you today to testify on the
bilateral relationship between the United States and Mexico in
light of the President's recent proposal for immigration
reform.
First, a little background on USCIS. With the creation of
USCIS, just a little over a year ago, my team of 15,000 and I
embraced a simple but imperative mission: making certain that
the right applicant receives the right benefit in the right
amount of time and preventing the wrong applicants from
accessing America's immigration benefits.
We established three priorities: eliminating the
immigration benefits backlog, improving customer service, and
at the same time enhancing national security.
Accomplishing these priorities will have an impact on
Mexico, as many of our customers are Mexican nationals.
On January 7, as you know, President Bush courageously
confronted a broken immigration system, one that had been
ignored too long. From the East Room of the White House, he
called for Congress to deliver true reform and a new temporary
worker program that facilitates economic growth, enhances
national security, and promotes compassion. The President made
clear his principles for reform which are to protect the
homeland and control our borders, match a willing foreign
worker with a willing employer, when no American can be found
to fill that job, promote compassion, provide incentives to
return to the home country, and protect the rights of legal
immigrants.
This is not an amnesty program, as has been said before,
which would otherwise join the illegal track with the legal one
by facilitating green card status and potential naturalization.
Rather, the President proposes a one-time regulated opportunity
for undocumented workers already here as of the date of the
President's announcement to legitimize their presence and
participate more fully in our economy for a finite period
before returning home. And it creates an ongoing opportunity
for individuals abroad to apply to come temporarily to the
United States to legally fill jobs that American workers will
not fill. This proposal presents long-term, viable alternatives
to the many risks associated with illegal immigration.
For the committee's consideration, I would like to raise
five points to complement my reflections on the process.
First, enforcement is paramount to the temporary worker
program. While Assistant Secretary Verdery will elaborate on
some of the enforcement aspects of the temporary worker
program, for United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, security and fraud prevention are synonymous with
enforcement and must be a priority.
Second, the American worker comes first. The President has
made it clear that this program would match a willing foreign
worker with a willing employer when no American can be found to
fill the job.
Third, the success of this program will require incentives,
incentives to take advantage of the temporary worker program
and incentives to return to the home country. Beyond the
obvious economic and social opportunities, it is important that
the temporary worker be able to travel to his or her country of
origin to maintain important ties for his or her eventual
return.
Many of the individuals already in the United States who
would apply to participate in the President's temporary worker
program would have accrued sufficient unlawful presence to be
subject to the 3- and 10-year bars for reentry. Thus any such
legislation would necessarily need to supersede those bars for
individuals who register.
Fourth, the program should be fair and not come at the
expense of legal immigrants who have respected our laws and
earned their place in line. It is the President's belief that
if the worker decides to pursue and is qualified to adjust to
permanent status, it should be through the current process and
should take a spot at the back of the line. Recognizing,
however, that the current annual limitations may be
insufficient, the President calls for a reasonable annual
increase in legal immigrants.
Fifth, the program should be simple and user friendly, thus
one that can be effectively administered by our bureau. As you
know, the temporary worker program proposal that we are
discussing today is of extraordinary importance to Mexico.
President Fox, while recognizing the important role of the U.S.
Congress in discussing and legislating a temporary worker
program has voiced his support of President Bush's proposal.
The United States, for its part, is quite cognizant of both the
economic and cultural benefits that result from Mexicans coming
to work and living in our country. The challenge before us is
to ensure that the migration of Mexicans, as well as nationals
from other nations, is legal, safe, and orderly.
Our relationship with the Government of Mexico continues to
be of great importance to both of our nations. President Bush,
Secretary Ridge, and I are committed to frank, frequent, and
open exchanges with our Mexican counterparts at all levels of
government. As I am sure you know, President Bush and President
Fox met on March 5 and 6 at President Bush's ranch in Texas.
Last month I traveled with Secretary Ridge to Mexico to engage
in meetings with Interior Secretary Creel and other members of
the Government of Mexico. In addition, I have had several
meetings with various Mexican Government officials both here
and in Mexico. In all of our interactions with Mexico, our
administration recognizes that migration issues are a key
element in our bilateral relationship.
Beyond the temporary worker program, we have been working
with the Government of Mexico on a variety of immigration-
related issues. In concert with the Department of State and
Labor, we have eliminated the numerical limits and the
associated requirements of a petition and corresponding labor
condition application for Mexican professionals, as provided by
NAFTA.
Additionally, the United States and the Government of
Mexico have been exchanging information on our respective
asylum programs and processes. These are just a few examples of
what is a robust, important, and open relationship with the
Government of Mexico. The temporary worker program will only
enhance this close relationship.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Thank you for the
invitation to testify, and I look forward to the opportunity to
exchange ideas.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguirre follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eduardo Aguirre, Jr.
Good morning, Chairman Lugar, Ranking Member Biden, Members of the
Committee. My name is Eduardo Aguirre and I have the honor of serving
this Administration and our great nation as the first Director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, within the Department of Homeland
Security.
This is my first opportunity to appear before this committee and it
is my privilege to testify on the bilateral relationship between the
United States and Mexico in light of the President's recent proposal
for immigration reform.
With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, America's
legal immigration system was put back on the right track, overnight.
What remained were the many details and, as I prefer to say--God is in
the details.
My team of 15,000 and I embraced a simple but imperative mission;
making certain that the right applicant receives the right benefit in
the right amount of time, and preventing the wrong applicant from
accessing America's immigration benefits.
We established three priorities: eliminating the immigration
benefits backlog and improving customer service while enhancing
national security.
These priorities dictate every facet of our business, consisting of
family-based petitions; employment-based petitions; asylum and refugee
processing; naturalization and citizenship services; special status
programs; and document issuance and renewals.
On March 1, we celebrated the one-year anniversary of our
existence. I am particularly pleased with the progress we have made and
the professionalism exhibited by our employees, day-in and day-out,
while mitigating security threats that we know to be real and
relentless.
In the area of customer service, we have:
Initiated on-line features that allow customers to file and
pay for a number of our commonly used applications, as well as
offering individual case status updates;
Established the Office of Citizenship to develop and
implement public outreach and educational initiatives that
better prepare immigrants for their rights and
responsibilities;
Improved access to information by establishing a toll-free,
bilingual National Customer Service Center help line (800-375-
5283); and
Reduced the lines at a number of offices with the highest
customer volume, such as New York, Miami and Los Angeles.
In the area of backlog reduction, we have:
Created a Backlog Reduction Team to identify immediate
changes to speed up adjudication processes as well as to revise
implementation plans;
Eliminated the backlog of applications for Certificate of
Citizenship on Behalf of an Adopted Child with a program that
proactively provides parents the certificate without
application.
We take national security very seriously. We conduct background
checks on the front and back end of nearly every application for an
immigration benefit. That meant 35 million Interagency Border
Inspection System checks last year.
In the vast majority of cases (97%), the checks take only minutes.
In the event of a ``hit'', however, we will move cautiously until the
issue at hand is resolved, even if that means a delay and contributing
to the backlog. Last fiscal year, we processed about six million
applications for an immigration benefit. Approximately 7% of the
applications processed resulted in an initial security hit, and after
further scrutiny, 2% resulted in confirmed security or criminal threat
matches.
We make no apologies for our commitment to the integrity of the
immigration system and we will not cut a single corner, if it means
compromising security, to process an application more quickly.
Our intra-government coordination demonstrates that our approach
realizes intended results. By way of example, our background check
procedures identified individuals wanted for murder in Portland and
sexual assault in Miami. We are making America safer against security
and criminal threats, one background check at a time.
But, that is just part of a typical day's work at USCIS. Today, we
will:
Process 140,000 national security background checks;
Receive 100,000 web hits;
Take 50,000 calls at our Customer Service Centers;
Adjudicate 30,000 applications for an immigration benefit;
See 25,000 visitors at 92 field offices;
Issue 20,000 green cards; and
Capture 8,000 sets of fingerprints and digital photos at 130
Application Support Centers.
Although our customers tell us that they are pleased with our new
e-filing opportunities and online status checks, they and we are
displeased with the length of time it takes to process benefit
applications. We know that the dedication that led to effective
background check processes must now be applied to backlog elimination
efforts.
We will not declare victory in backlog reduction until we achieve
the President's objective of universal six-month processing by the end
of fiscal year 2006.
We will not declare victory in customer service until every legal
immigrant is greeted with open arms and not endless lines.
And, we will not stop until we have restored public confidence in
the integrity of America's immigration system.
That loss of confidence is an unfortunate yet legitimate obstacle
and it can be attributed to the second track in our immigration system,
the illegal track.
On January 7th President Bush courageously confronted a broken
system, one that has been ignored for too long. From the East Room of
the White House, he called for Congress to deliver true reform and a
new temporary worker program that facilitates economic growth, enhances
national security and promotes compassion.
The President made clear his principles for reform, which are to
protect the Homeland and control our borders; match a willing foreign
worker with a willing employer, when no American can be found to fill
that job; promote compassion; provide incentives for return to the home
country; and protect the rights of legal immigrants.
This is not an amnesty program, which joins the illegal track with
the legal one by facilitating green card status and potential
naturalization. Rather, the President proposes a one-time regulated
opportunity for undocumented workers, already here as of the date of
the President's announcement, to legitimize their presence and
participate more fully in our economy, for a finite period, before
returning home. And, it creates ongoing opportunity for individuals
abroad to apply to come temporarily to the United States and legally
fill jobs that American workers will not fill, thereby presenting long-
term, viable alternatives to the risks associated with illegal
immigration.
The President feels strongly that the Temporary Worker Program
should be simple and user friendly. We have the wisdom born of
experience, the reliability of modern technology and human expertise
and ingenuity to realize the President's vision.
Simply put, I believe it is achievable, and I raise five points
that complement my reflections on process for the committee's
consideration.
First, enforcement is paramount to the Temporary Worker Program. At
present, we go to great lengths to inform the public abroad that
America's immigration laws have not changed and enforcement and
interdiction procedures continue. Additionally, we inform community
based organizations at the grass-roots level that illegal immigrants,
already here, should be mindful of their status and recognize that they
are in violation of our laws and susceptible to detention and removal.
I add that security and fraud prevention are synonymous with
enforcement, and must be a priority. Identifying and enrolling the
undocumented population will minimize threats and maximize security.
The temporary worker program would introduce effective measures to
prevent fraud, by the employer and worker, and would be integrated with
programs such as USVISIT.
Second, the American worker comes first. The President has made it
clear that this program would match a willing foreign worker with a
willing employer, when no American can be found to fill the job. We
know that employers in many sectors continue to experience difficulty
filling jobs.
We also know that more than 14% of America's labor force is
foreign-born and we anticipate that a high percentage of the estimated
8 million undocumented aliens in this country work. The fact that they
are here, in the workforce, is evidence of a market demand for their
labor.
We know that many pay taxes, but, because of their undocumented
status, they may be reluctant to assert their right to protections that
American workers have, such wage and hour, and health and safety
protections. As President Bush pointed out, this is not the American
way.
Third, the success of this program will require incentives,
incentives to take advantage of the normalization program and
incentives to return to the home country. One obvious incentive is
economic and social opportunity.
The President's Temporary Worker Program will offer portability of
investments. This will be instrumental in expanding individual
participation in the increasingly interlinked worldwide economy,
encouraging savings or even capitalization in a business, house or land
in the home country.
The United States has bilateral totalization agreements with some
20 countries around the world, which will allow workers from either
country to combine earned Social Security credits and receive benefits
in their home country. The Administration will work with our
international partners to encourage their recognition of the temporary
worker's contributions made in both countries.
The temporary worker will also benefit from skills learned and
education attained during their work experience in America. This
training will contribute to the temporary worker's marketability upon
his or her return home.
An additional incentive is circularity. The temporary worker should
be able to travel, knowing that he or she can go and return freely to
the country of origin for celebrations, funerals or vacation, and
maintaining important ties that will aid the worker in his or her
eventual return. Since many of the individuals already present in the
United States who would apply to participate in the President's
Temporary Worker Program would have accrued sufficient unlawful
presence to be subject to the 3 and 10-year bars for re-entry, any
legislation to create this program would necessarily need to supercede
those bars for individuals who register. It is terribly important to
maintain the ties between these individuals and their homes abroad as
an incentive for their eventual return.
Similar to other non-immigrant categories, the President believes
that provisions should be made for family, to remain in the United
States or travel to the United States with the temporary worker,
providing that the temporary worker can demonstrate an ability to
financially support his or her family, and assuming that members of the
worker's immediate family present no criminal or security risks. I
encourage the Committee to review the structure established by the H
non-immigrant category, for best practices regarding eligibility of
dependents. In addition, to truly meet the needs of the labor market
and economy, the program should be non-sector specific.
Finally, eliminating the fear of deportation will be an incentive.
Undocumented aliens will tell you that they often have trouble sleeping
at night, and leaving for work each day, not knowing if they will make
it home at the end of the day. They realize that a simple traffic
violation, automobile accident or other everyday misstep could result
in bringing them to the attention of federal authorities and their
subsequent deportation.
Fourth, the program should be fair and not come at the expense of
legal immigrants, who have respected our laws and earned their place in
line.
The President's plan calls for an initial three-year term that is
renewable. We need to consider the number of renewals that the worker
should be permitted to have prior to his or her mandatory return home.
Standards, or thresholds, for renewal should include a job offer and
confirmation that the worker does not present any type of criminal or
security threat. It is the President's belief that if the worker
decides to pursue and is qualified to adjust to permanent status it
should be through the current process and should take a spot at the
back of the line. Recognizing, however, that current annual limitations
may be insufficient, the President calls for a reasonable annual
increase in legal immigrants.
Fifth, the program should be simple and user friendly--thus one
that can be effectively administered. The President's proposal calls
for aliens present in the United States as of January 7, 2004, to pay a
fee upon enrollment in the program. In addition, USCIS would anticipate
recovering the cost of processing the applications through collection
of a processing fee as is done currently with all immigration
applications. The processing fee would be set based on full cost
recovery. This is important given USCIS is almost an entirely fee-based
agency in the Federal government. On February 2nd, the President
requested $1.711 billion in the FY 2005 budget for USCIS, $1.57 billion
of which is mandatory spending, or fee revenues for immigration
benefits. We will need to consider how to handle applications for
aliens who are outside the United States but wish to enter to take up
employment under the program.
America has not seen immigration reform of this depth since
enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990. While this program would be
very different, for the purposes before us, I tasked my team to share
with me lessons learned from that experience--that we can apply toward
the President's Temporary Worker Program. Given our structure within
DHS, USCIS will exceed the President's expectations.
I respectfully submit the following features:
A one-time fee to be assessed upon the undocumented alien's
registration separate from the application processing;
A web-based mechanism for applying for program
participation;
A labor market driven program where an American workers must
first be sought--therefore there are no artificial numerical
limitations;
A retroactive effective date, requiring proof of employment,
to prevent an increase in illegal border crossings; and
Authority to terminate status when the worker fails to meet
his or her responsibilities, or in the interests of national
security or public safety.
As you know, the Temporary Worker Program proposal that we are
discussing today is of extraordinary importance to Mexico. President
Fox, while recognizing the important role of the U.S. Congress in
discussing and legislating a temporary worker program, has voiced his
support of President Bush's proposal. The United States, for its part,
is quite cognizant of both the economic and cultural benefits that
result from Mexicans coming to work and live in our country. The
challenge before us is to ensure that the migration of Mexicans, as
well as nationals of other nations, is legal, safe, and orderly.
Our relationship with the Government of Mexico continues to be of
great importance to both of our nations. President Bush, Secretary
Ridge, and I all are committed to frank, frequent, and open exchanges
with our Mexican counterparts at all levels of government. As I am sure
you know, President Bush and President Fox met on March 5 and 6 at Mr.
Bush's ranch in Texas. Last month I traveled with Secretary Ridge to
Mexico to engage in meetings with Interior Secretary Creel and other
members of the Government of Mexico. In addition, I have had several
meetings with various Mexican Government officials both here and in
Mexico. In all of our interactions with Mexico, this administration
recognizes that migration issues are a key element of our bi-lateral
relationship.
Beyond the temporary worker proposal, we have been working with the
Government of Mexico on a variety of immigration-related issues. In
concert with the Departments of State and Labor, we have, as of January
1st of this year, eliminated the numerical limits and the associated
requirement of a petition and corresponding labor condition application
for Mexican professionals as provided by NAFTA. These changes eliminate
the time and expense associated with filing a petition with USCIS,
thereby streamlining the movement of Mexican professionals traveling
between our two countries.
Additionally, the United States and the Government of Mexico have
been exchanging information on our respective asylum programs and
processes. In 2002, the former INS hosted a delegation from Mexico to
introduce them to the U.S. asylum process and discuss the procedural
safeguards invested in the program. Last year, a USCIS team visited the
Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance in Mexico City to be
introduced to the Mexican asylum process.
Also, our Community Liaison Officers around the country have been
working closely with Mexican consulates throughout the United States on
issues of outreach and public information. These cooperative efforts
enable us to effectively exchange relevant information and to provide
guidance on immigration services and initiatives.
These are just a few examples of what is a robust, important, and
open relationship with the Government of Mexico. The Temporary Worker
Program will only enhance this close relationship.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you for the invitation
to testify before this committee and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Director Aguirre.
Secretary Verdery.
STATEMENT OF HON. C. STEWART VERDERY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY AND PLANNING, BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Verdery. Chairman Lugar and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to be here today to testify about
the Department of Homeland Security's participation in our very
important U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship.
As you mentioned, I am Stewart Verdery, Assistant Secretary
for Policy in the Department's Border and Transportation
Security [BTS] Directorate.
As my written testimony details, a sensible immigration
policy begins with security at our nation's borders and
enforcement of our laws. Our homeland will be more secure when
we can better account for those in our country instead of the
current situation in which millions of people are unknown.
Reforming our immigration laws to strengthen our economy, while
bringing integrity to our immigration system, is a worthwhile
goal consistent with our homeland security needs.
However, following on the comments of my fellow panelists,
I would like to concentrate my brief oral remarks today on
several important initiatives DHS and particularly our BTS
directorate are developing that impact our relationship with
Mexico.
The U.S. and Mexico signed a border partnership plan nearly
2 years ago, and to facilitate progress under that accord, last
month Secretary Ridge led a team from DHS to Mexico City, which
included Director Aguirre. At that meeting, Secretaries Ridge
and Creel signed two important companion agreements: a
memorandum of understanding on the repatriation of Mexican
nationals and a 2004 border plan of action. These agreements
provide a framework for ensuring a secure, safe, and orderly
border, especially during the upcoming summer months when
dangers to migrants are most acute. We have agreed with Mexico
to focus our efforts on the Arizona-Sonora corridor with a
combination of resources, equipment, training, and law
enforcement cooperation.
Last Tuesday, on March 16, Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson
announced the Arizona Border Control initiative, or the ABC, a
first of its kind integrated operation aimed at saving migrant
lives, enhancing border security, disrupting smuggling
operations, and reducing violence in border communities. The
announcement launching ABC alerted the community and those who
would seek to exploit our borders that we are beginning to
build our operational capacity to deal with the unprecedented
flow of aliens through this dangerous terrain.
Together with our Mexican counterparts, we are
strengthening joint public safety campaigns and intensifying
remote surveillance along high-risk routes into the United
States. We have provided search, rescue, and lifesaving
training to DHS and Mexican officers to respond to migrants who
are lost or stranded by smugglers in the dangerous terrain.
ABC integrates not only law enforcement at all levels, but
integrates efforts along the border, at our ports of entry and
in Arizona communities away from the border. Between our POE's
we will deploy 200 additional and experienced border patrol
agents, bringing the Tucson sector to over 2,000. At our POE's,
we will strengthen the anti-terrorism contraband teams and the
use of non-intrusive inspection equipment, and we will also
intensify the presence of DHS at inland transportation
terminals and airports.
The ABC will also dovetail with Operation Ice Storm, an
initiative of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in which we were already disrupting and
dismantling smuggling operations, uncovering drop houses, and
targeting human smuggling infrastructure in Arizona's largest
cities and communities. We trust that this initiative will help
respond to the concerns raised by Senator McCain and others
about the horrific conditions in that area.
Returning to the broader U.S.-Mexico border partnership
plan, we have outlined 22 concrete actions our countries are
taking to confront the common threat of terrorism against the
American and Mexican people. Among the many accomplishments
under the plan is the SENTRI program, one of several programs
designed to facilitate cross-border travel of prescreened, low-
risk travelers to enable DHS officers to focus resources on
unknown and higher-risk travelers who seek admission to the
country. Currently we operate SENTRI lanes in Otay Mesa, San
Ysidro, and El Paso, and eight additional lanes are planned
with a target date of the end of this year. As part of the
enrollment process, applicants and their vehicles undergo a
security check, and the names of enrolled participants are
checked regularly against watch lists.
We have also opened the first FAST, or Free and Secure
Trade, lane in El Paso for commercial traffic and qualifying
truck drivers in September and a second one last month in
Laredo. Like SENTRI, participants in FAST are prescreened to
determine low-risk and suitability for the program.
Also, we have expanded the Customs-Trade Partnership
against Terrorism program to Mexico to strengthen supply chain
security and now have 51 importers in Mexico certified for that
program.
We are screening rail cargo moving in both directions
across the border with the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System,
the VACIS. When a rail VACIS system is deployed at the last of
the eight rail crossings this year, we will have reached 100
percent screening.
We have assisted Mexico with the development of the
advanced passenger information system and are finalizing
arrangements for the exchange of this crucial airline
information.
I would also like to highlight the recent announcement
following President Fox's meeting with President Bush in Texas
that the Department is committed to developing a solution for
Mexican border crossing cardholders, the BCC holders, to
satisfy requirements under the U.S.-VISIT program, our new
entry-exit border program. As background, the biometrically
enhanced BCC is both a crossing card and a visa. The BCC is
valid for entry to the U.S. within 25 miles of the southwestern
border zone for 72 hours or less. Since 1999, this zone has
been expanded for 75 miles for the Arizona region only.
The Biometric Verification System, the BVS, was created to
fulfill our statutory mandate to incorporate a biometric
identifier into the BCC. We are integrating the BVS with other
systems within our Department to create an inspection booth
capability that will be compatible with U.S.-VISIT
requirements. Mexican nationals who use the travel documents
only as a BCC will not initially be subject to U.S.-VISIT
processing during primary inspection. This decision is an
interim solution for our land border while the Department
explores long-term solutions to record the entry and exit of
individuals crossing our land ports of entry. Of course, if a
Mexican national uses a BCC as a B1/B2 visa for longer travel
outside the border zone or is required to obtain a regular
visa, he or she will be subject to U.S.-VISIT requirements.
In just 2 months, U.S.-VISIT has successfully and
officially recorded the entry of over 2 million passengers
without causing delays at ports of entry or hindering trade.
The program has resulted in 187 watch list hits, including
serious criminals, solely because of the biometric collection
from nonimmigrant visa holders.
To conclude, any temporary worker initiative plan that
Congress enacts should be matched with the important and
successful programs we are developing with our colleagues in
Mexico such as repatriation and U.S.-VISIT. The Department
looks forward to working with this committee and the Congress
to do so. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Verdery follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. C. Stewart Verdery
Chairman Lugar, Ranking Member Biden, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify about the Department of
Homeland Security's participation in our important U.S.-Mexico
bilateral relationship.
The U.S. has a close, cooperative relationship with our neighbor
that accordingly generates many initiatives, agreements, and plans
between our governments. DHS is a key player in several of these U.S.-
Mexico activities. While it must be noted at the outset that when the
President announced his proposed Temporary Worker Program on January 7,
he did not announce the temporary worker program just for Mexican
nationals, however, it is anticipated that many Mexicans would benefit
as they do under existing legal immigration programs.
I. PROTECTING THE HOMELAND BY CONTROLLING OUR BORDERS
The first principle of the President's proposal for a temporary
worker program is ``Protecting the Homeland by Controlling our
Borders'' and the facts illustrate why controlling our common border
with Mexico is as important a homeland security relationship as we have
with any other country.
Sixty percent of the 500 million aliens who DHS admits to
the United States each year do so across our shared border.
In addition, 90 million cars and 4.3 million trucks cross
into the United States from Mexico each year--all part of $638
million in trade conducted at our border every single day.
For more than a century, the story of our nations has been one that
transcends just being neighbors. As Secretary Ridge recalls from an
early visit to Mexico, Secretary of the Interior Santiago Creel
underscored this fact when he quoted from letters that were exchanged
between Abraham Lincoln and Benito Juarez during the darkest days of
our Civil War.
The mission of our Department of Homeland Security is to prevent
terrorist attacks against the United States. In doing so, we are
protecting the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness that our nation established as its foundation in our
Declaration of Independence.
Of course, we do not hold these principles as ours alone. In the
Declaration that accompanied the Border Partnership Plan signed nearly
two years ago, we stated that ``The United States and Mexico are joined
by common values, shared interests, and geography in ways that create
unprecedented opportunities to work together to strengthen our peoples'
physical safety and economic prosperity.'' It goes on ``The terrorist
attacks of September 11 were an assault on our common commitment to
democracy, the rule of law, and a free and open economy--conditions
upon which our nations' well-being depends.'' Since that time, we have
participated in implementing an integrated inter-agency strategy with
the Departments of State, Justice and Transportation, state and local
partners, as well as an equally broad array of Mexican counterparts.
This coordinated approach to collaboration with Mexico enables us to
facilitate legitimate trade and travel and simultaneously improve
interdiction and investigation of illicit movements of drugs, people,
weapons, cash or materials which could potentially be utilized by
terrorists to attack our country.
We have accomplished a lot in the border partnership plan as with
many other facets of our bilateral relationship with our southern
neighbor. In fact, just one month ago, Secretary Ridge, Undersecretary
Hutchinson, and many other senior officials traveled to Mexico City to
meet with their counterparts as the most recent in a series of regular
meetings to monitor progress under that accord. At that meeting,
Secretaries Ridge and Creel signed two important companion agreements,
a Memorandum of Understanding on the repatriation of Mexican nationals
and a 2004 Border Plan of Action. These agreements provide a framework
for ensuring a secure, safe, and orderly border, especially during the
upcoming summer months when dangers to migrants are the most acute. We
have agreed with Mexico to focus efforts on the Arizona-Sonora corridor
with a combination of resources, equipment, training, and law
enforcement cooperation.
A. ABC Initiative
Last Tuesday, Undersecretary Hutchinson announced the Arizona
Border Control (``ABC'') Initiative--a first of its kind integrated
operation aimed at saving migrant lives, enhancing border security,
disrupting smuggling operations, and reducing violence in border
communities. Congressman Kolbe joined in the ceremony to launch ABC and
alert the community that we are beginning to build up our operational
capacity to deal with the unprecedented flow of undocumented migrants
through this dangerous terrain. The Border Patrol (in the Tucson
Sector) has apprehended more than 116,000 undocumented migrants since
January of this year--an increase of 34,000 apprehensions over the same
period last year.
This surge in the flow of migrants in the Arizona-Sonora corridor
underscores the urgency for additional measures to warn would-be
migrants of the perils posed by the desert and smugglers who value
profits more than human life.
Together with our Mexican counterparts we are strengthening joint
public safety campaigns and intensifying remote surveillance along
high-risk routes into the United States. We have provided search,
rescue, and lifesaving training to DHS and Mexican officers to respond
to migrants who are lost or stranded by smugglers in the dangerous
terrain or exposed to the harsh climactic conditions.
Additional personnel, technology, detention and removal capacity,
and aviation assets will be available on the ground to DHS and its many
law enforcement partners from state and local agencies, the Tohono
O'Odham Nation, and the U.S. Attorney's Office.
ABC integrates not only law enforcement at all levels, but
integrates efforts along the border, at our ports-of-entry (POE), and
in Arizona communities away from the border. Between our POEs, we will
deploy 200 additional, experienced Border Patrol Agents bringing the
Tucson Sector to over 2,000 strong. At our POEs we will strengthen the
Anti-Terrorism Contraband Teams and increase use of Non-Intrusive
Inspection Equipment. We will intensify the presence of DHS authorities
at inland transportation terminals and airports.
ABC and similar enforcement improvements are consistent with the
goals of the President's proposed temporary worker program. The
President's proposal would provide participants with lawful
documentation. This would permit temporary workers to travel legally
and freely through our ports of entry, resulting in more efficient
management of our borders, and decrease the number of aliens who will
desperately attempt to cross our border through desert land in
dangerous conditions, thereby saving lives.
Through Operation Ice Storm--an initiative of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE)--we are already disrupting and dismantling
smuggling operations, uncovering drop houses, and targeting human
smuggling infrastructure in Arizona's largest cities and communities.
Through unprecedented cooperation and coordination with Mexican law
enforcement, we are exchanging intelligence about smuggling loads
moving toward our borders and taking actions to seek prosecution of
ringleaders on both sides of the border.
To ensure the coordination essential for the success of these
multiple law enforcement partnerships and integrated operations, there
will be a Departmental ``integrator'' reporting directly to Under
Secretary Hutchinson. Chief Patrol Agent David Aguilar will serve in
this assignment.
In addition, the President's request for the FY 2005 Department of
Homeland Security budget includes $2.7 billion for border security
inspections and trade facilitation at ports of entry and $1.8 billion
for border security and control between ports of entry. This includes
$10 million for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles testing and $64 million for
border enforcement technology, such as sensors and cameras.
B. U.S.-Mexico Border Partnership Plan
The Border Partnership Plan outlines 22 concrete actions our
countries are taking jointly to confront terrorism, drug trafficking,
crime, and other threats against the American and Mexican people. Three
major pillars support the plan--often called our Smart Border Plan: (1)
Secure Infrastructure; (2) Secure Movement of People; and (3) Secure
Movement of Goods. The guiding spirit is to facilitate legal and low-
risk trade and travel while increasing capacity to stop illicit and
dangerous flows. Of course, the secure exchange of information
transcends the entire plan, making possible the effective management of
the border.
To cite but a few of the many accomplishments under the plan that
fit into our strategy of securing the border:
SENTRI is one of several programs designed to facilitate the
cross-border travel of prescreened, low-risk travelers thereby
enabling DHS officers to focus resources on unknown, higher-
risk travelers who seek admission to our country. Currently, we
operate SENTRI lanes in Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, and El Paso.
Eight additional SENTRI vehicle lanes are planned for as early
as the end of 2004. We had nearly 70,000 travelers enrolled in
SENTRI as of the end of January. Of these, approximately 61%
are U.S. enrollees and 37% are Mexican. As part of the
enrollment process, applicants and their vehicles undergo a
security check. The names of enrolled participants are
regularly checked against watch lists. We increased the period
of enrollment from one to two years for pre-screened
participants who qualify for the program. At no cost to SENTRI
participants, we are also switching over to the higher
technology that we currently use in the NEXUS system on our
northern border.
We opened the first FAST (Free and Secure Trade) lane in El
Paso for commercial traffic and qualifying truck drivers in
September and a second one last month in Laredo. Like SENTRI,
participants in FAST are pre-screened to determine low-risk and
suitability for the program. Allowing FAST participants to move
quickly through POEs has the twin goal of freeing Government
resources to inspect unknown, higher risk commercial traffic
while providing faster access to known, lower risk travelers.
We launched the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
in Mexico to secure every link in the supply chain. We now have
51 importers certified for the program and another nine pending
certification.
We are screening rail cargo moving in both directions across
the U.S.-Mexico border with Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System
(VACIS). The Rail VACIS systems are deployed in 7 of the 8 rail
crossings. The final location will be installed during the
calendar year 2004. Once this is complete, all crossings will
receive 100 percent screening for rail traffic arriving into
the United States from Mexico.
We assisted Mexico with the development of its Advanced
Passenger Information System and together, we are finalizing
arrangements for exchange of this critical information on who
is entering North America by commercial airline.
CBP Border Patrol has trained and equipped close to 800
Mexican law enforcement and rescue personnel in search and
rescue, basic medical training and swift water rescue.
Additionally, Border Patrol has worked cooperatively with
Mexico to develop a bilateral media campaign with a single
message regarding border safety.
Each of these initiatives includes working with other U.S. agencies
to help Mexico increase its capacities to participate fully and
successfully in the programs.
C. U.S.-VISIT on the Land Border
During the recent visit of President Fox to Crawford, TX, President
Bush was pleased to announce that the Department is committed to
developing a solution for Mexican Border Crossing Card (BCC) holders to
satisfy requirements under U.S.-VISIT--our new entry-exit border
technology that assesses the security risk of those who seek admission
at our POEs.
The Biometric Verification System (BVS) was created to fulfill the
statutory requirement to incorporate a biometric verifier into the
Mexican Border Crossing Card and to match the verifier to the applicant
on each application for entry. State Department consular posts in
Mexico issue a combined Border Crossing Card and B1/B2 visa called a
BCC and known colloquially as a ``laser visa.''
The biometric the system reads is a fingerprint. (The BCC also
includes another biometric, the photograph.) The BVS is being
integrated, with other systems in DHS to create an inspection booth
capability that will be compatible with U.S.-VISIT requirements. Site
surveys are underway to prepare the ports for deployment by the end of
June.
The BCC is both a crossing card and a visa. The BCC is valid for
entry to the United States within 25 miles of the Southwestern border
for 72 hours or less (the ``border zone''). Since 1999, the zone is 75
miles in Arizona only. No other document is needed for entry.
Mexican nationals who use the travel document only as a BCC will
not initially be subject to U.S.-VISIT processing during primary
inspection inasmuch as the holder's biometric information was captured
at the time the document was issued. This is an interim solution for
our land border while the Department explores the long term solution to
record the entry and exit of such individuals crossing our land POEs.
However, if used as a B1 /B2 visa for travel outside the border
zone or for a longer period, the traveler is issued the I-94 entry
document by a Customs and Border Protection inspector and will be
subject to U.S.-VISIT requirements. Similarly, Mexican nationals
require nonimmigrant visas if they seek admission for a purpose other
than a visit for business or pleasure. For instance, Mexican nationals
require student or temporary worker visas and they, too, will be
subject to U.S.-VISIT requirements.
The President's request for the FY'05 Department of Homeland
Security budget asks for $340 million for U.S.-VISIT, a proposed
increase of $12 million over the FY 2004 funding. Only two months old,
U.S.-VISIT has successfully and efficiently recorded the entry of
2,253,382 passengers and the exit of 7,810 travelers without causing
delays at ports of entry or hindering trade. The program has resulted
in 187 watch list hits, including serious criminals, because of the
biometric collection from nonimmigrant visa holders. Aliens who have
repeatedly entered the U.S. illegally and used multiple aliases are now
being detected. U.S.-VISIT will play a key role in the President's
temporary worker program by validating that aliens are complying with
the terms of the worker program as they enter and exit through ports of
entry, making it easier to enforce the program.
D. Customs and Border Protection
We believe the President's proposed temporary worker program should
link efforts to control our border through agreements with countries
whose nationals participate in, and benefit from, the program.
Cooperation from the Mexican government will be especially critical,
including possibly greater Mexican efforts to control the flow of
Mexican migrants not qualified under the temporary worker program to
the U.S. border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will continue
its Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET) operations on the
Canadian border and continue its cooperative efforts with both the
governments of Canada and Mexico.
For a temporary worker program to work effectively, border
enforcement will be critical. It is important to recognize that DHS has
set the stage for an effective program. Since September 11, 2001, the
Border Patrol has increased the number of agents from 9,788 to 11,141
as of March 6, 2004. Between the ports of entry on the northern border,
the size of the Border Patrol has tripled to more than 1,000 agents. In
addition, the Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring
devices along the borders to detect illegal activity. Moreover, since
March 1, 2003, all CBP officers have received antiterrorism training.
The CBP Office of Training and Development is currently developing
additional antiterrorism training for all CBP officers.
The Border Patrol is also adding sensors and other technology that
assist in detecting illegal crossings along both our northern and
southern borders, including Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems.
These RVS systems are real-time remotely controlled force enhancement
camera systems, which provide coverage along the northern and southern
land borders of the United States, 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. The
RVS system significantly enhances the Border Patrol's ability to
detect, identify, and respond to border intrusions, and it has a
deterrent value as well. There are currently 269 completed Remote Video
Surveillance (RVS) sites in operation; 200 along the southwest border
and 69 along the northern border. An additional 216 installations are
in progress.
CBP pursues many initiatives in the ongoing effort to ensure a
balance of two critical DHS objectives: (1) increasing security; and
(2) facilitating legitimate trade and travel. These initiatives include
the use of advance information, risk management, and technology, and
partnering with other nations, other agencies, state and local
authorities, and with the private sector. Using these principles, CBP
understands that security and facilitation are not mutually exclusive.
Since 9/11, we have developed strategies and initiatives that make our
borders more secure while simultaneously ensuring a more efficient flow
of legitimate trade and travel.
In improving our nation's homeland security, CBP has created ``One
Face at the Border.'' This includes designating one Port Director at
each port of entry and instituting a single, unified chain of command
for all CBP Officers at all of our ports of entry and all our
inspectors--whether they be legacy customs, immigration, or agriculture
employees. CBP has also developed specialized immigration and customs
antiterrorism response teams and consolidated its passenger analytical
targeting units. These units coordinate with CBP's National Targeting
Center, which serves as the interagency focal point for obtaining
manifests and passenger information for flights of concern.
A Temporary Worker Program will enhance CBP's ability to carry out
its continuing mission. Unauthorized entry into the United States will
still be illegal, and CBP will continue to improve our homeland
security by gaining greater control over our borders and more
effectively and efficiently inspecting and screening arriving
passengers, vehicles, and conveyances. For this reason, as reflected in
the President's 2005 budget request, it will be more important than
ever to ensure that the Border Patrol has adequate funding for the
personnel, infrastructure, equipment and technology to continue to
adopt its tactics and deploy its resources to meet its priority
antiterrorism mission.
II. PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR RETURN TO HOME COUNTRY
The second immigration enforcement principle that the President set
out in his proposal is to provide incentives for return to the
participant's home country. This includes the requirement that
participants in the program return to their home country after their
period of work has concluded. As proposed by the President, the legal
status granted by this program would last three years, be renewable,
and would have an end. Returning home is made more desirable because
during the temporary work period, workers would be permitted to come
and go across the U.S. borders so the workers can maintain roots in
their home country. This has proven particularly important to Mexican
nationals.
In addition, the Temporary Worker Program would offer additional
incentives for these workers to return home, including portability of
investments and the skills learned and education attained during their
work experience in America. With respect to Mexican participants in the
program, we would certainly work with Congress and the Mexican
Government to identify incentives for Mexican nationals to return home
where they could then help improve the Mexican economy.
III. WORKPLACE ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
The third immigration enforcement principle in the President's
proposal is workplace enforcement of our immigration laws. The FY 2005
President's budget request includes an increase of $23 million for
worksite enforcement. This request to more than double funds for
worksite enforcement illustrates the President's commitment to serious
immigration enforcement and the rule of law as part of a temporary
worker program.
The worksite enforcement mission is now located in Immigration and
Customs Enforcement's (ICE) National Security Division. The goal is to
maintain integrity in the employment procedures and requirements set
forth under our immigration laws. The Critical Infrastructure
Protection Unit within the ICE National Security Division is the unit
responsible for coordinating enforcement of our employment requirements
under the Immigration and Nationality Act. ICE will continue to
coordinate its employer sanctions and worksite enforcement activities
with agencies having relevant jurisdiction, such as the Department of
Labor and the Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel for
Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, where there are
indications of worker abuse based on illegal status or intentional
abuses of salary requirements and laws on account of an alien's illegal
status. Further, monitoring will occur in situations such as criminal
and administrative investigations of employers, in conjunction with
ongoing alien smuggling and trafficking investigations, and in
industries where intelligence and ICE auditing indicates widespread
disregard of employment verification requirements.
Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037
employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated
in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals. Post-9/11 enforcement
operations targeting unauthorized workers at critical infrastructure
facilities identified over 5,000 unauthorized workers who obtained
employment at airports, nuclear plants, sporting arenas, military
bases, and federal buildings by presenting counterfeit documents to
their employers and providing false information to security officials.
DHS' challenge is to enhance public safety to ensure that individuals
intending to do us harm are not providing access to controlled areas.
Temporary workers will be able to establish their identities by
obtaining legal documents under a worker program. It is critically
important to create a system that prevents fraud as it was so prevalent
under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) worker and
legalization programs. It is essential that a new temporary worker
program provide uniform documentation for participants that is tamper-
proof and as fraud-proof as possible. While this proposed program is a
generous and compassionate one, we do not wish to reward those who
abuse the program through fraud. Fraud prevention should be a component
in creating this temporary worker program. Immigration fraud poses a
severe threat to national security and public safety because it enables
terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens to gain entry and remain in
the United States. ICE's goal, in conjunction with CIS and CBP, is to
detect, combat, and deter immigration fraud through aggressive,
focused, and comprehensive investigations and prosecutions. If
approved, the $25 million FY 2005 budget request will provide stable
funding to ICE's benefits fraud program by replacing funding previously
provided through the Examinations Fee Account.
Detention and removal of illegal aliens present in the United
States is critical to the enforcement of our immigration laws. A
requested increase of $108 million in FY 2005 will expand ongoing
fugitive apprehension efforts and the removal from the United States of
jailed offenders, and support additional detention and removal
capacity. Adequate detention space has long been considered a necessary
tool to ensure effective removal operations. An increase in bed space
to accommodate a higher volume of apprehended criminal aliens results
in a significantly higher appearance rate at immigration proceedings.
When final orders of removal are issued, this will result in a greater
number of removals and fewer absconders. With the $5 million request,
ICE will enhance its ability to remove illegal aliens from the United
States.
As part of its overall immigration enforcement strategy, ICE will
continue to analyze data generated through the Student and Exchange
Visitor Information System (SEWS) and U.S.-VISIT program to detect
individuals who are in violation of the nation's immigration laws and
pose a threat to homeland security. If approved, the President's
request for the FY 2005 budget of $16 million will increase the funding
for ICE's SEVIS and U.S.-VISIT compliance efforts by over 150 percent.
I want to highlight another key aspect to the President's Temporary
Worker Program proposal--ensuring that past illegal behavior is not
rewarded. This proposal does not provide an automatic path to
citizenship. The program has a finite period of time and requires
workers to return home. Those who have broken the law and remain
illegally in our country should not receive an unfair advantage over
those who have followed the law. We recognize that some temporary
workers will want to remain in the U.S. and pursue citizenship. They
will be able to apply for green card status through the existing
process behind those already in line.
A sensible immigration policy begins with security at our nation's
borders. The President's proposed Temporary Worker Program is a bold
step, aimed at reforming our immigration laws, matching willing workers
with willing employers, and securing our Homeland. The President's
proposal holds the promise of strengthening our control over U.S.
borders and, in turn, improving homeland security.
Illegal entry across our borders makes more difficult the urgent
task of securing the homeland. Our homeland will be more secure when we
can better account for those who enter our country, instead of the
current situation in which millions of people are unknown. With a
temporary worker program in place, law enforcement will face fewer
problems with unlawful workers and will be better able to focus on
other threats to our nation from criminals and terrorists.
Passing a Temporary Worker Program that works to benefit the
American economy while bringing integrity to our immigration system is
a reasonable goal for all of us. The Administration is ready to work
with the Congress to move forward in achieving this important goal.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Secretary Verdery.
The chair would suggest a 7-minute question period, to be
followed by another round, if that will be required, for
Senators to raise their questions.
I will begin the question period by observing that in
December the Aspen Institute, under our former colleague,
Senator Dick Clark, conducted a very good meeting in Mexico.
Twenty Members of Congress met with officials of the Mexican
Government, people from think tanks, and others who were
involved in the U.S.-Mexico relationship. Specifically, the new
Foreign Minister of Mexico was a participant. That was very
valuable, in terms of both the formal sessions and the informal
ones.
Some of the points that have been made by Senators and by
witnesses of the administration today were clearly a part of
that meeting in December. There was a feeling that although the
relationship between President Bush and President Fox started
with an excellent meeting before 9/11, unfortunately,
subsequently to that, the dialog between the countries, or at
least its public manifestation underwent a change that was not
for the good.
The question before the Members of Congress was, how can we
work with the administration to make certain that the
relationship improves? We recognize how important our
friendship with this vital neighbor is. Mexico is a member with
us in the NAFTA treaty. This has resulted in extraordinary
changes for the good in my judgment. Clearly this subject, the
fallout of NAFTA, would merit another debate all by itself. A
lot has happened since then.
I am one who appreciates the fact that the President of the
United States has addressed the immigration issue. Even more
importantly, he has met with President Fox at Crawford.
Having said that, in this hearing I want to try out some
ideas that require much more exploration. One idea that arose
from the December conference, from the Mexican side,
informally--and I do not attribute this to the Foreign Minister
or to anyone--was this thought, that in terms of our energy
cooperation, PEMEX needs capital. In the past, this issue has
been difficult, simply because of the nationalization of the
oil industry. One of the problems for Mexico is that the amount
of revenue coming from PEMEX to the government--and that is a
major source of income for the stability of that government--is
severely limited by lack of capital improvements, or whatever
the infrastructure might require.
In the December conference, forward-thinking Mexicans,
hopefully interacting with forward-thinking Americans were
saying, what if somehow Mexico was prepared to reach out? They
proposed that there be a capital infusion by the United States,
by either public or private investors, so that the capacity of
PEMEX to pump oil would be increased by maybe 100 percent, with
the thought that this 100 percent increase would be primarily
dedicated to the United States market. In essence, at a time of
great energy difficulties for us, with ups and downs even in
our own hemisphere with regard to oil supply, quite apart from
the Middle East, why not begin to forge a strategic economic
partnership based upon supplies that are very ample but an
infrastructure with PEMEX which is not very ample in bringing
this about?
My understanding is that a serious discussion of this sort
will occur in the equivalent of the Mexico Council on Foreign
Relations in Mexico City, and maybe other fora as well, so that
people in political life will become sensitized to these
considerations, just as we were being sensitized to them in the
December meeting.
Secretary Noriega, I have not prepared you for this line of
inquiry, but what are the possibilities of a more strategic
relationship on energy, a subject that is tremendously
important in the foreign policies and in the economies of our
countries? We have talked today about a jump start for things
we might do to help the Mexican economy. That means, we are
thinking about revenues for their government, as well as for
our own. Here lies a fairly large resource, even if it may be a
large political and historical problem. Is this something that
perhaps we ought to pursue?
Mr. Noriega. Senator, I believe that is a very essential
issue that we have to deal with. Estimates are that Mexico will
need in the energy sector about $180 billion in additional
investment. We certainly encourage private sector investment in
the energy sector. Mexico is a key supplier, our fourth
supplier of crude, and it is important also to note that as
that economy grows, its demand for energy is increased. So here
you have a country with vast resources that is actually having
to import electricity from other countries.
I think President Fox and many in Mexico recognize that
they must take steps to open up that part of the economy to
cooperation and to investment, to joint ventures. But it has,
of course, been a neuralgic issue, and a question of
sovereignty of the husbanding of that national resource.
It is going to require a dialog in Mexico, and we can
support this effort by being transparent in our interests
showing that we are interested in mutually-beneficial
arrangements and putting it perhaps in a North American
context. Certainly the energy relationship we have with Canada
is also critical. They are our chief supplier of foreign
energy. So if we can put it in the context of North American
integration, I think that we can make important strides on that
front. It is really essential that we do so.
The Chairman. I appreciate that comment, because I agree
with it. The North American integration idea is a good way to
place it.
What I am hoping for is that we move outside the box, and
we begin to get a much broader agenda. This is notwithstanding
the extreme importance of the immigration issue that we are
talking about today, including the specific humane
considerations, whether it be safety for Mexicans or the DREAM
Act. These are things that we may be able to deal with in the
short run.
But I am trying to think, of a much broader agenda in which
we begin to take the relationship seriously, across the board
in macroeconomic terms, and in which we try to think through
the various ramifications, if not in a bilateral way, perhaps
with Canada, then perhaps as we integrate, hopefully, the
Central American Free Trade Agreement, thereby attaining
cooperation with even more of the hemisphere as we get into
South America. One purpose of this hearing is to send some
signals of this variety. My friends in Mexico say, why are you
not raising these issues? Why are we not discussing Mexico
more? That is an important question. We need to do that, and we
need to say that we take it seriously.
Mr. Noriega. Yes, Senator, and if I can add just very
briefly. We are fleshing out some proposals in the North
American context across the board to make us all more
competitive and emphasize these mutually-beneficial economic
arrangements. Energy has to be a part of that. It is also
related to the migration question because for Mexico to
generate sufficient jobs at home for their growing population,
they are going to have to do some things, retooling their
economy to make themselves more competitive, and energy of
course is a part of that equation. We are looking at it in a
comprehensive way and I can send that positive signal and would
look forward to being a little more specific with you about the
ideas that we have in mind for North American integration.
The Chairman. I have exceeded my time, but I would just add
that I know that the committee will welcome those ideas. We
would like to be a forum for you not only to express them, but
also to provide some wind at your back in pushing them on.
Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
would suggest your question goes right to the heart of what
this hearing is about. Ultimately, if we are really going to
deal with immigration issues--and, Secretary Noriega, let me
say you and I have talked about this in the past. I am less
benign when it comes to the issue of whether or not we have
been engaged in this bilateral relationship in the hemisphere.
As you know, I feel strongly. I understand, obviously, since 9/
11 there have been other matters of a higher priority in our
mind, but it has been a source of significant disappointment to
this Senator that we have neglected in my view this region to a
large extent.
I am pleased to see that we have begun again in March to
address some of these questions. There have been some
initiatives. I applaud that, but I have been terribly
disappointed that we have had very little to say to the
leadership of this hemisphere, including arguably one of the
two most important bilateral relationships, that of U.S.-
Mexico.
Let me, if I can--because I want to get to Mexico, but I do
not often get a chance to have you in front of the committee,
so I want to ask you quickly about Haiti, if I can.
There were statements made over the weekend by this new
Prime Minister declaring these thugs to be freedom fighters. I
know how you described them and I applaud your description of
those people. You testified at the hearing we had on Haiti. Has
there been any change in our administration's viewpoint of who
these people are? And to what extent have we communicated to
this new Prime Minister our objections to his description of
these people?
He was being ferried around in Black Hawk helicopters and
French Chinook helicopters and no disarmament on the part of
these people. They were going to lay down their arms. They did
not do it. Has anything changed here that we ought to be aware
of? And what comments does the administration have about this
new Prime Minister's description of these death squad leaders
as freedom fighters?
Mr. Noriega. Our position has not changed on that. I
understand there was some disarmament by these groups, but
clearly it is insufficient. I communicated yesterday morning,
if not the night before, with Ambassador Foley to tell him that
we regarded these statements as appalling and to get some sort
of explanation and see if the new Prime Minister understands
fully the way we see this problem. The fundamental view on our
part is that leaders of these criminal gangs should not benefit
in any way from the change in government.
Senator Dodd. Well, I appreciate it. That is a public
comment you are making here. I think any of the public
statements might be helpful because there was a sort of silence
after this. I realize it is a brief amount of time, but
nonetheless, it seems to me public statements being made as
well about how we view those kind of comments would be helpful.
Second and very quickly, the upcoming elections in the
Dominican Republic. The NDI and others have asked to go down--
since 1994, they have gone down and participated in the
oversight of these elections. I am very worried about how
elections are proceeding in the Dominican Republic. I served in
the Peace Corps there many years ago. I have a strong interest
in the country, as you know. I gather there has been a request
made. The Department has turned down the request. I wonder if
you might just reexamine that request. I would be very
interested and would participate myself. I know others might be
interested in going. John Sununu participated with President
Carter the last time and had a very effective observation team.
And I would like to renew that request to you today. I do not
expect an answer at this moment from you, but I would like to
see if that NDI request could be reconsidered. It is a very
good NGO on the ground that is highly respected in terms of
election observations, and it might be helpful if we can get
some additional resources to go down and have the NDI there.
Mr. Noriega. Senator, I did not, frankly, know that NDI was
interested in going down, but we had decided to put our
resources behind an OAS observation effort.
Senator Dodd. I know that.
Mr. Noriega. Having said that, I can give you a clear
indication that we will look into this.
Senator Dodd. I appreciate that. It's about $225,000 for
the OAS. It is estimated it would need probably another
$400,000 or $500,000 at least to really do it right. That is
what I am told. I do not claim to be an expert in these areas.
Nonetheless, would you take a look at this?
Mr. Noriega. Absolutely, sir.
[The following information was subsequently provided.]
The United States Government provides substantial assistance to the
local Dominican NGO Participacion Ciudadana for a variety of programs,
totaling $1.2 million this year, including the training and preparation
of more than 6,000 local observers for the presidential election. Over
the past year we have urged the Dominican electoral authorities to
invite international observers to participate to ensure an open and
fair election. On January 30 the Dominicans. extended invitations to
several organizations, including the Organization of American States
(OAS). In response to a request from the OAS' Unit for the Promotion of
Democracy, the U.S. Department of State and USAID contributed $325,000.
Canada has provided funding for the electoral observation mission
in the amount of $48,750 and the European Union has promised an
additional $200,000. We are pleased that the OAS invited the National
Democratic Institute to coordinate with its mission and we understand
that they will be part of the OAS observer mission. A private effort by
the Dominican-American community in the United States has raised a
significant amount of money to support additional participation by
qualified non-governmental organizations in the election observation
process, including a team of 26 observers from IFES chaired by Andres
Pastrana, former president of Colombia. The diplomatic community in
Santo Domingo responded enthusiastically to our Ambassador's call for
volunteers to be observers on election day. More than 50 have
volunteered from the U.S. Embassy alone and will be duly accredited
through the OAS mission. We believe that between the local and
international observers, the election will be properly overseen.
Senator Dodd. Let me jump to the issue at hand. I again
want to applaud the chairman for raising the issue. I have got
some very specific questions about the timing of legislation.
Let me just express by my calculation we have got about 36,
maybe 40, legislative days left in this Congress. If you assume
the fact we do not do much here on Monday and we usually leave
by Friday, so we have got Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.
If you take that, exclude the weeks we are not in session, the
math is not terribly complicated. This is a complicated
proposal.
When are we going to see a legislative proposal from the
White House? Or are we? Maybe they have decided not to, and if
you have decided not to, are you embracing the Hagel
legislation or other bills that have been proposed? Mr. Aguirre
if you would please.
Mr. Aguirre. Well, thank you, Senator. As you know, I am
only 3 years in government, but I understand that the
legislative process really begins on your side of the
government. From the administration's standpoint, the
perception that I have is that the President has framed quite
effectively the issue and some of the parameters that would be
appealing to the administration, in terms of dealing with this
issue. But I think we are expecting and finding that the
Congress is bringing forth several proposals that in one way or
another meet with the President's proposal.
I think, of course, it is not so much the devil is in the
details, but God is in the details in this particular case. I
find that some of these proposals are so much or not so much
with the President's initiative.
Senator Dodd. Well, we do not have a lot of time. So we are
trying to get this done.
Mr. Aguirre. Yes, sir.
Senator Dodd. I respect the fact you are not terribly
familiar. It is not uncommon for an administration to submit
legislative ideas, proposals to the Congress. They do not have
to do that, but it seems to me we ought to have a lot more
specificity. Senator Hagel can raise questions about his own
bill himself, but I would be curious as to whether or not any
of these specific proposals, if you are not going to submit a
proposal, have the administration's support.
Mr. Aguirre. Well, Senator, the administration is prepared
to engage with the Congress, both sides of Congress, on the
details of these proposals. I do not think any one of these
proposals meets exactly the President's initiative, but I think
they are close enough that we are happy to engage and to find
common points of convergence.
Senator Dodd. You have certainly been around long enough to
appreciate the fact that with 36 days and a bill like this bill
that is being proposed, knowing the hostility you are getting
from the more conservative elements of the Republican Party who
have expressed strong opposition to this proposal, what
likelihood is there? Based on what you are telling me, I see
little or no likelihood you are going to get this bill adopted
this year. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Aguirre. Well, Senator, I think when the President
called on the Congress on January 7 to act, I certainly expect
that action will be taken. I think we see in these type of
hearings action. Whether or not it is going to pass the Senate
and the House, I will leave it to you. I am really not that
much of an expert on the legislative side.
Senator Dodd. Thank you.
I want to come back, if I can, Mr. Chairman. I want to pick
up on your point. The Mexico-United States Partnership for
Prosperity was, I think, a very healthy concept and idea, and I
want to pursue where that is going because it goes right to the
point you are making about encouraging investment in the areas
of Mexico that historically have had the highest levels of
emigration. It does not seem to me we have done enough to
really discourage through economic growth, assuming that most
people emigrate or do these things because they lack the
opportunities in their own areas, and to the extent we can
really promote that is something I want to come back and talk
about. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Gentlemen, thank you for appearing before us this morning.
To pick up on a point that Senator Dodd made--and I assume
I will stay in the channel that Senator Dodd was in with you,
Mr. Aguirre. I think we all understand the immensity of
immigration reform is going to require Presidential leadership.
There is no other way to do that. We have 535 of us up here. We
are disciplined by--one reference Senator Dodd made--party
structure, by committee structure, by institutional structure.
But this is an immense task before us, to try to get
comprehensive immigration reform. It is going to require
intense Presidential leadership not only because of the narrow
window we have, as Senator Dodd mentioned.
And so my question would be, what is the administration
doing? What will the administration do to push this issue,
since you do not have your own proposal up here? You have a set
of principles, which are very important and we appreciate that
and the President deserves credit for stepping forward. And I
have said so many times publicly. But that only takes us about
5 percent of the way. So what are we going to see from the
administration to be up here? Who is going to be up here? Who
is going to be pushing it? Give us some sense of that.
Mr. Aguirre. Well, Senator, I do not have the exact count,
but I believe since January 7, the President has mentioned this
particular proposal in varying parts perhaps well over a dozen
times. I know it was mentioned during the State of the Union.
So I think the President is serious about the issue, and I
think the President is looking to the Congress to frame
legislation that can be brought to the administration.
The debate that I have seen taking place since January 7
has been much more intense than in earlier years. So I think we
are seeing quite a bit of interest here.
You said it very well. The issue of immigration reform is
incredibly complicated. In fact, the Immigration and
Nationality Act is perhaps the most complex set of laws in the
Nation. So I am looking for the Congress to come up with some
legislation that we can work with.
Senator Hagel. Well, in all due respect, I have not seen
the same intensity of debate up here that you have. We have
had, on the Senate side, one subcommittee hearing in the
Judiciary Committee. This is the second committee structure
hearing that I am aware of, the only full committee hearing. As
Chairman Lugar said, we do not have jurisdiction over this. So,
again, I am at a loss to see where your intensity of debate is
up here.
But that aside, what I am trying to get at is has Secretary
Ridge been up here. Has Secretary Powell? Has the Vice
President? Has anyone, senior members of the administration who
can speak for the President meeting with the leadership, Mr.
Frist, Mr. Daschle, saying we need this? This is what we need.
Can you enlighten this panel as to what has happened in that
regard? Mentioning it is good, but that does not move the ball.
Mr. Aguirre. Well, Senator, I know that Secretary Ridge has
been here to the Senate and the House numerous times. I am not
really keeping track of exactly the issues that he is talking
about. I suspect this has come up, but I would be less than
exact by indicating that he has.
Senator Hagel. If any of the other panelists would want to
join in on this, I would be very pleased to hear from them.
Mr. Verdery. Well, Senator Hagel, I know Under Secretary
Hutchinson has been up here I believe three or four times
testifying on the budget and the appropriations. This has been
a topic that has come up in almost all of those sessions as to
how the President's proposal would mesh with our enforcement
efforts that are in the budget, ongoing programs and proposed
new ones and the like.
I also would like to offer, obviously, a lot of this issue
falls within our bailiwick on the enforcement side both with
Customs and Border Protection at the ports of entry, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the investigative side,
to offer our help working with your staffs and the like because
these issues are really, really tricky. And as we sort through
drilling down on the proposals, we would like to work with you
all on that.
Senator Hagel. Well, certainly there are budget
implications and ramifications of any legislation, but this is
not, quite frankly, gentlemen, a budget issue. It is a lot more
than a budget issue.
Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, have you been instructed by
the administration to come up here and deal with leadership and
committee chairmen, Judiciary Committee, moving this thing? Is
this a priority that you have been given by the White House to
come up here and engage? When are we going to have hearings?
When are we going to get this through? The President wants to
get this done. Has that happened?
Mr. Verdery. It is clear this is an administration
priority. We are working very closely with the White House on
fleshing out some of the more technical details behind the
principles that were outlined. We are available and have been
up here talking to staff. I think I am testifying in a couple
of weeks before Senate Judiciary in another hearing. So we want
to make ourselves available whether it is at the Under
Secretary level, my level, or staff levels to come up and flesh
out these details. Of course, we have been asked and, of
course, would want to provide any information, any kind of
insight that would be requested.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Aguirre. Senator, if I could just offer that I would be
happy to offer consultation with the leadership on this issue
at any time.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Verdery, would you assess the improvements made to
security on the southern border since September 11, and in your
assessment of that, would you give this panel some sense of
requirements for resources? Are you getting what you need? Do
you need more? Do you need less? You got enough? But quickly
round that out. What kind of progress have we made? How has
that progress been made? What kind of resources are required
now and into the future?
Mr. Verdery. Well, there has been a tremendous amount of
achievement in the last 2\1/2\ years or so, and especially
since our Department was stood up just over a year ago. We have
had a major increase in border patrol numbers both on the
personnel side and in the use of advance technology, sensors,
and these types. In the ABC initiative I mentioned in my oral
remarks, we will be using unmanned aerial vehicles for the
first time on the southern border. We have reformed our ports
of entry. We have now the One Face of the Border initiative,
cross-training of immigration and customs officials to do their
jobs better and more efficiently. We will be installing U.S.-
VISIT, as I mentioned, at the land border at the end of this
year per the congressional mandate. We have reformed the cargo
side of things, as I mentioned, in terms of trying to screen
high-risk cargo and separate out low-risk cargo while giving
the radiation screening we need for everything. So I see the
time is up, but those are just a few of the things that we have
been able to accomplish in the past year.
In terms of resources, the President's budget has requested
more resources over the last few years, has gotten those from
the Congress. The 2005 budget has additional requests which are
obviously under consideration now.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Hagel.
I will just make one comment and then yield to Senator
Dodd. We want to give ample time to our next panel, which is
important, too.
Gentlemen, I would just observe that the President, when he
made his immigration proposal on January 7, exercised a great
deal of political courage. I and others had encouraged the
President to do such a thing, describing, as I have again
today, our conference with the Mexicans in December. The
President, in a very high profile way, indicated his own
interest, as well as that of his administration. He has framed
these issues.
Now, frankly, the President's proposal was met with all
sorts of criticism, from all over the political spectrum, for
its inadequacy, or its lack of focus on one factor or another,
to the point that one could say that the President fell back.
As you have mentioned, Director Aguirre, the President has
mentioned this in the State of the Union and several times
subsequently. But by the time we got back into session in late
January it was already clear that there was great conflict
within the Congress with regard to all of this.
I suggested then, because of personal interest in this, aa
well as the feeling of the members of our committee, that we
might have a hearing. That was not initially discouraged by the
administration, but people indicated that, after all, the
Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction on these topics. Perhaps
they ought to hold the hearing first. I understood that. They
have now held a subcommittee hearing on this topic.
The purpose of this hearing, quite frankly, is to try to
begin to elevate the whole issue again in our own modest way.
We cannot do it all by ourselves. However, we would like to
offer a forum for you to give very good testimony, which you
have done today. We would also like to invite you to say more,
or to come forward with proposals that are outside the box on
the economy, as well as on immigration, thereby broadening this
agenda and sending some signals to Mexican friends that we
care, and that we are actually talking about the relationship.
Perhaps we might take this to our Canadian friends in a North
American context, as you suggested.
I am hopeful that we are achieving this goal, at least
partially, by having this dialog this morning in the form of
this committee hearing. We are prepared to do a lot more. I
think that we all need some guidance as to the priorities that
the White House, and/or the State Department, or Homeland
Security, or what have you, have on these issues. They are very
technical. As Senator Dodd has said, there are not many days
left in this year's legislative calendar. The topic would
require intense scrutiny.
If in fact, the thought is that this legislative effort
really is too much for this year, and that the proposals are a
warmup for the 2005 agenda, at least the three of us will all
be around in 2005. We will still be talking about it.
Senator Dodd. If that was an endorsement, I deeply
appreciate it.
The Chairman. It is a suggestion of what we might achieve
in 2004, I would say to my distinguished colleague. I hope that
will be the case.
I yield to him for his sage advice.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much. I could not miss the
opportunity.
Just a couple of points. Again, the chairman has said it so
well, I am being redundant by repeating the notion. Look, I
could spend what little time we have here and bemoan the fact
that--I recall that wonderful first meeting that President Bush
had with President Fox. I think it was the first--in fact, it
was the first--head of state, and the symbolic gesture of that
is not lost on anyone. With all the people he could meet with,
the very first one was President Fox.
I remember being at President Fox's inaugural in Mexico.
There was a tremendous sense of excitement about change, what
was going to happen. The No. 1 issue was this issue. From day
one in 2000, the one issue that he has begged the United States
to engage on is the immigration issue. As someone who has
participated for 24 years, I think without exception, in the
interparliamentary meetings with Mexico of the last quarter of
a century, every meeting we had was about this issue of
immigration. So I am not going to do that.
I will take good news. We begin here now in January. We
have got an issue on the table. I want to underscore what the
chairman has said here.
There are those of us who might look at this and say, look,
this is great politics to talk about this right now, but let us
be more candid with people. With 36 or 40 days to go and with
all due respect, Mr. Secretary, I have been around long enough
to know I know when the administration really wants something,
any administration, and when they are kind of luke warm. I am
being polite by calling it luke warm at this point. I do not
get any sense at all about real energy behind this, and even if
there were, I am not sure you could get it done. Even if you
were intensely interested in getting this done, I think it is
very difficult. Senator Hagel is being polite and the chairman
is being polite, and I want to be polite. I do not get any
sense there is any movement on this at all other than a good
meeting, a good message, but little or no likelihood this is
going to change.
Now, prove me wrong in the next few days. You are waiting a
couple of weeks for another hearing. Another couple of weeks up
here, you know, time is flying by here to get this done. So let
me put that aside.
Let me come back to something because I think there are
some things ongoing that can be important. Again, I want to
underscore what the chairman raised earlier about PEMEX in a
very excellent idea. Maybe, Secretary Noriega, you might bring
this to councils and talk about it, but the Partnership for
Prosperity is a 2-year program and the program--just to
reacquaint people with it--was a public/private initiative to
promote domestic and foreign investment in less developed areas
of Mexico at high immigration rates. After 2 years of
operation, there were some ideas that were raised. One was the
introduction of new low cost service to transfer funds from the
United States to rural communities in Mexico, expiration of a
Peace Corps program in Mexico to work on science and
development projects, and the signing for the first time of an
agreement for the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation,
OPIC, to offer financial and risk insurance to U.S. firms
operating in Mexico in these areas.
Can you give us any sense what has happened with this?
Mr. Noriega. Yes, we have made meaningful strides on this,
Senator, in terms of entrepreneurship, in terms of lowering the
cost of remittances, in terms of university linkages, the
establishment of the Peace Corps program in Mexico for the
first time. All of these things have been done and are underway
too. We are continuing to work on all of these issues.
In Guadalajara, in June we will have a second meeting. The
last meeting brought together 800 Mexican and U.S.
entrepreneurs to look at opportunities on both sides of the
border, but in these areas of Mexico that are----
Senator Dodd. How is that going? Tell me how that is going?
That seems to be a very important idea.
Mr. Noriega. It has generated some joint ventures, some
investment. It has encouraged universities to establish
linkages between universities on both sides of the border, and
I can get you some examples on that.
Senator Dodd. OK.
Mr. Noriega. We believe that it is a meaningful exercise.
But the simple fact is that we have been able to work together
and lower the cost of sending remittances back, I believe, at
least by half. That is meaningful because that is money that,
instead of going into a financial transaction, is going back to
families. When you talk about a base number of about $13
billion, $14 billion annually, that is a lot of money going
into households in Mexico.
Senator Dodd. Are you familiar with the effort by George
Soros that he has done to establish a housing mortgage market
for the first time in Mexico under the Partnership for
Prosperity? Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Noriega. I am not particularly familiar with his
effort, but I am aware that it----
Senator Dodd. What I would like to ask is maybe we can have
a private meeting--not that it has to be private, but just
rather than take the time here. But I would be very interested
in fleshing out more where these ideas are going, including the
PEMEX idea the chairman has raised. These are the kind of
bigger ideas. Getting remittances back is a great idea. I
understand that. But it seems to me we ought to be trying to
get beyond the notion of remittances, and improving the
economic opportunities in Mexico goes to the heart of this
issue.
Mr. Noriega. Senator, may I comment on that very briefly?
We are consciously going to use all of the mechanisms that we
have in our bilateral relationship. For example, we have the
Binational Commission, 14 working groups bringing together
ministers in both of our governments. It meets annually. We
are, for the first time, looking to program that agenda from
the top proactively saying, that there are the things that
President Bush and President Fox want these working groups to
work on. I have actually communicated with Mexican Congressmen
about taking some issues to the interparliamentary group that
you participate in. In the North American context, we are
looking at making some initiatives there too. So across the
board, we are working systematically on big vision issues as
well as the smaller issues.
Senator Dodd. Let us arrange that so we can hear what is
going on. I would just point, as I mentioned earlier, I know
that Speaker Hastert, for instance, has indicated there is
little or no likelihood this immigration bill is going anywhere
in this Congress. I hope the administration will challenge that
comment if in fact you are as committed to this proposal as you
claim you are today.
I did not go, Mr. Chairman, into some of the detailed
questions on the proposals, things for instance, of requiring
that fines be paid by the undocumented workers if they
register. I see no corollary requirement that the employers who
hired them pay a fine as well, for instance. There are a lot of
very specific questions I would have about some of these
proposals and how we get people to sign up, in fact, for this,
the cost of registration and so forth, all of the obvious
questions people would raise. I might submit some detailed
questions to you, Secretary Aguirre, so that you could respond
to some of these things, at least based on the outlines that
you proposed here.
And if you are serious about this--I hope you will utilize
the hearing that the chairman has provided--prove me wrong. I
would love to be proven wrong on this. I would love to have you
come back up here, starting tomorrow--and I think tomorrow may
be late, but to come back up with a proposal on the table and
really pursue this. You will find a lot of people up here are
very aggressively wanting to help you, if that is the case.
If it is not the case, then I think it is very important to
say that and to say, look, we need to come back to this next
year. Let us use these next few months to try and flesh out
details, and whether it is the Bush administration or a Kerry
administration, here are some ideas that we put on the table
for you to take forward. That, I think, could be a tremendous
positive step forward on this issue.
So I would encourage some real candor about this proposal.
There is nothing worse than raising expectations here, getting
people all excited about a proposal that no one is really
taking very seriously.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aguirre. Senator, I look forward to your written
questions, and of course, I will respond. I know the White
House has met with the Judiciary Committee, but I will be happy
to engage with you at all granularity that you like.
Senator Dodd. Thanks.
The Chairman. Let me just say, Senator Dodd, your questions
will all be made a part of the record. Hopefully responses will
come promptly. Likewise, I make that request for Senator
Coleman, who has also left questions. The record of the hearing
will be left open today, in case other members who have not
been present, but are interested in the subject, would like to
be a part of this.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, one of the continuing, festering
frustrations over NAFTA was the side agreement reached with
regard to tomatoes, and Mexico did not keep its part on that
side agreement on tomatoes. As a result, we have on winter
vegetable crops lost a great deal of the share of the market.
What is the latest on this?
Mr. Noriega. Senator, I will have to get you an answer in
writing on the details of that. I know that we have been
addressing these disputes through the dispute resolution
mechanisms of NAFTA, but I do not have the details. I will have
to get you a detailed answer to that.
[The following information was subsequently provided.]
The current suspension agreement with Mexico on tomatoes was signed
in December 2002 and will be subject to a sunset review in five years.
The U.S. Government continues to monitor trade in tomatoes between
Mexico and the United States and regularly consults on the matter with
U.S. industry representatives. Most recently, following the March 23
hearing, Department of Agriculture staff spoke with a leading
representative of the Florida tomato industry and was advised that
there were, from the industry's perspective, no specific problems
associated with the operation of the agreement at the present time.
Senator Nelson. OK, I would appreciate that.
Now, one of the areas that we have heard some
dissatisfaction is about the Mexican Government's failure to
live up to its obligations regarding the NAFTA dispute panels.
How have the trade disputes affected our bilateral
relationship?
Mr. Noriega. We have important issues on tomatoes, tuna,
trucking, beef, high fructose corn syrup, chicken that, for
various reasons, whether it is sanitary requirements or others,
are important issues across the board in our relationship. It
is an important relationship where trade between our two
countries has tripled in the period of NAFTA, but we do have
these unresolved issues for which we use the trade dispute
resolution mechanisms. We have just, for example, on the corn
syrup issue, asked for a panel in WTO or NAFTA.
So clearly we have these mechanisms to deal with these
issues, and if we are not getting satisfaction on the tomato
issue or on any other issues, I will try to get you a specific
answer about measures that we can take, concrete steps that we
can take to push for some sort of satisfaction for U.S.
producers.
Senator Nelson. Have these disputes harmed our bilateral
relationship?
Mr. Noriega. They do not do the relationship any good. But
we understand that on both sides there are going to be
disagreements. What we have resolved to do with our trade
agreements is to channel these disputes to particular
mechanisms for resolving them in a transparent, technical way.
But clearly, when we have disagreements that affect our
producers or consumers--and they would feel the same way on the
Mexican side--this does have an impact on the relationship.
Senator Nelson. It appears that President Fox has taken a
more activist role in bolstering ties with his Latin American
neighbors, including the MERCOSUR countries. How can we, as the
U.S. Government, best convince him and his government to use
its relationship with Cuba to criticize the crackdown on human
rights as evidence that we just passed through the one-year
anniversary of Castro putting dissident journalists, dissidents
who dared to set up libraries, who dared to sign the Varella
petition, and he threw them in jail a year ago? How can we use
our relationship to convince President Fox that he needs to
stand up and criticize Cuba for this kind of activity that has
been condemned by previous friends of Cuba who were shocked
when Castro threw all those folks in jail?
Mr. Noriega. President Fox has criticized, during his
period of time in office, Castro for human rights violations.
Mexico usually votes, for example, for a resolution in Geneva
that would criticize or take note of the continuing violations
of human rights by Castro's regime.
I know that in the last several weeks we have discussed
this Cuba issue with Mexico and we have indicated our interest
and they have indicated their interest to work with us, quite
frankly, to find ways to encourage a transition and then to
respond in an agile and decisive way to a transition, once one
is underway, to make sure that the sorts of political and
economic reforms we get in Cuba are deep enough to wash away
the vestiges of the regime.
But we will be counting on Mexico to play a leadership
role, frankly, in this vote in Geneva. We hope that they will
work with us to encourage Latin American countries to cosponsor
and support that resolution.
Senator Nelson. Do you think Mexico will say something
publicly about throwing dissidents in jail?
Mr. Noriega. I will get you an answer for the record on
what they have said to date, sir, because I do not want to
suggest that they have not said anything. I just do not have
anything in mind. I will get you a specific answer on what they
are able to do and what they are able to do working with us on
the Geneva process which will specifically, we hope, make
reference to the crackdown.
[The following information was subsequently provided.]
In April, at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in
Geneva, Mexico joined 21 other countries, including the United States,
in voting in favor of a resolution concerning the deteriorating human
rights situation in Cuba. That resolution was adopted. This is the
third year in a row that Mexico has voted in favor of a resolution
addressing the lack of respect for human rights in Cuba. In May, Mexico
withdrew its ambassador to Cuba and asked the Cuban Ambassador to leave
Mexico after Castro publicly criticized Mexico for its vote in Geneva.
We note that when President Fox visited Cuba in 2002, he made a point
of meeting with dissidents there.
Senator Nelson. Do you think we can get Mexico involved in
Haiti, in the rebuilding of that country?
Mr. Noriega. The Mexicans have indicated an interest to
provide some sort of humanitarian and diplomatic support for
our efforts. They have some sensitive issues in terms of
deploying security forces. So that may not be possible. But we
have worked with Mexico in the OAS on Haiti and we hope that
will continue.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. I thank
each of you again for coming with your testimony and your
forthcoming responses. Obviously, you have a group here in our
committee that would encourage you to press on. We look forward
to hearing much more from you. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Aguirre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair would like to recognize now a
distinguished panel composed of Dr. Stephen E. Flynn, the Jeane
J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies, the
Council on Foreign Relations; Dr. Demetrios G. Papademetriou,
President of the Migration Policy Institute; and Dr. Arturo A.
Valenzuela, Director of the Center for Latin American Studies
at Georgetown University.
Gentlemen, we welcome you to the committee meeting today.
We thank you for your patience in waiting for this point in the
hearing. We look forward to your statements. Let me say at the
outset that the statements that you have prepared will be put
in the record in full, so you need not ask for additional
permission with regard to that. We will ask you to summarize or
to present your statements as fully as you think is important.
We are eager to hear your ideas. That is the purpose of our
hearing, and that is why we have invited these independent
voices outside of the Senate and the administration.
I will ask you to testify in the order in which I
introduced you, and that would mean that we would ask you, Dr.
Flynn, to lead off.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN E. FLYNN, JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK SENIOR
FELLOW IN NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN
RELATIONS
Dr. Flynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am honored
to be here today. I am Stephen Flynn, Senior Fellow of the
Council on Foreign Relations but also a former Coast Guard
officer retired after 20 years and recently had the opportunity
to direct our task force on homeland security at the council
that was co-led by your former colleagues, Senators Gary Hart
and Warren Rudman.
I would like to sort of start by raising I think rather a
sad irony of the reality of the U.S.-Mexican relationship post
9/11 because interestingly, of course, a recognition of the
losing of steam with that relationship has been couched in
terms of that because of the security imperatives of the post-
9/11 world, we had to slow it down. I would suggest in my
testimony that our failure to address this issue has, in fact,
confounded our security situation, not the opposite. So it is
indeed a bit of irony.
To put this thing into context, I think we really need to
step back and be mindful of that, which is why I was delighted
to hear that your committee was convening this hearing to bring
breadth to this issue versus a narrow law enforcement or purely
judiciary question. It really is one that is grounded in the
depth of our relationship, not with just U.S. and Mexico, but
within the broader hemisphere and certainly within the
continental context, U.S.-Canada, U.S.-Mexico.
One of the clear realities of 9/11 that we are still having
a great deal of difficulty with as a nation coming to grips
with is that this new form of warfare is the use of
catastrophic terrorism directed at the non-military elements of
our power. When you are a nation that spends more than the next
30 nations combined on the conventional military capability,
which is what our nation will do this year, that really only
means another possibility for the future of warfare, that our
future adversaries must go asymmetric. And the asymmetric
reality is to exploit these open global networks of which our
trade and travel network is one of the more prominent or target
those networks in the goal of creating mass economic and
societal disruption.
The irony here is that many of our efforts to deal with
this problem within terms of a narrow homeland context,
particularly a focus on the border, has had the effect of
making our border regions more chaotic and in that context
creates more of a fertile ground for potentially terrorists and
certainly criminals to exploit.
There is something which I call the hardened border
paradox. The hardened border paradox is, as we make efforts to
secure this line in the sand, what we end up doing, because
there are needs, obviously, for that border to be permeated for
legitimate purposes for trade and travel and so forth, we end
up in the case of immigration specifically creating essentially
a demand for a very sophisticated, organized criminal network
that helps to evade those controls. Because we are not dealing
with the broader issues of immigration within this overarching
context--we are dealing with it primarily at the border--we
have created the ``coyote'' trade which has become an
enormously lucrative business, where there are a lot of assets
to spread corruption along the border.
Because we hardened the border in terms of the extent to
which we manage often the inspection regime without integrating
within how our infrastructure has been developed and operated
there, we have created things like the drayage industry in
Laredo, which is the most fertile place for organized crime to
operate. It operates that way because it makes no sense for a
long-haul truck to connect with a long-haul truck anywhere near
the border because of the chaos of the border. So we end up
with these mom-and-pop trucks with truck drivers with 300
percent turnover rates that are paid $7.50 a load regardless of
the time of their journey. This environment is obviously a very
difficult one to police, but the hardened border paradox, as we
look at the narrow chaos at the border, we put more controls in
place as in the aftermath and the result ends up that we end up
fueling the conspiracy to get around this and creating what
again is a real problem in the post-9/11 world, the opportunity
for very serious characters in the form of al-Qaeda kinds of
networks to exploit these very networks to bring their ultimate
threat to our Nation.
The terrorists are clearly positioned to exploit this
environment, as we know, but there is also, I guess, another
issue that I would raise here which is in the public health
side. Another very daunting challenge we know in the homeland
security issue is the risk of a bio-threat. One of the
presumptions of our public health community is that when
somebody gets sick, they will come and ask for help. That is
basically the guts of our warning system to deal with that
problem. However, when you have 8 million to 10 million
undocumented folks who are often in the places, in our urban
areas, not just our rural areas, where these folks may be
infected, and when they are afraid to essentially come in
contact with our public institutions, I would suggest that this
is another factor that is going to potentially haunt us down
the road to the extent that that bioterrorist threat persists.
The reality is, of course, we often use the term of art in
the national security world. We talk about draining the swamp.
A lot of this has been directed toward the elicit organizations
that are out there in terms of their money trails, as well as
the kinds of environments in which they operate.
But there is another part of that swamp that makes it
possible for elicit players to hide in, and it is an entirely
disconnected, nonsensical immigration policy that makes it
virtually impossible to police. And to the extent to which we
are very concerned about the asymmetric threat, that terrorists
will exploit our trade and travel lanes in order to cause the
kind of horror we saw on 9/11, we should be coming four square
in front of this immigration issue. We should embrace it as a
first priority from a security perspective, and in so doing
though, we need to recognize that ultimately the resolution is
not at the border, though the border will always play a role.
It has to be ultimately grounded in a broader effort within
both our continental context and within the global network.
So how do we manage these networks in such a way to
continue to facilitate the good while improving on a means to
manage the bad? That must be done in a layered, systematic way
throughout the networks, not a narrow, myopic focus at the
border or narrowly within our homeland.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward hopefully
to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Flynn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Stephen E. Flynn
rethinking the role of the u.s.-mexico border in the post-9/11 world *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This testimony draws on material found in my book chapter ``The
False Conundrum: Continental Integration vs. Homeland Security'' in The
Rebordering of North America: Integration and Exclusion in a New
Security Context by Peter Andreas (Editor), Thomas J. Bierstecker
(Editor), (New York: Routledge, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, and distinguished members of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I am the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations where I recently directed the Independent Task Force on
Homeland Security, co-chaired by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary
Hart. In June 2002, I retired as a Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard
after 20 years of active duty service. I am honored to be appearing
before you this morning to discuss the issue of border control as an
element of the bilateral relationship between the United States and
Mexico.
North America finds itself in paradoxical times. On the one hand,
the hemisphere's economic prosperity depends on an open continental
system that facilitates the free movement of people and goods. On the
other, worries over America's exposure to catastrophic terrorist
attacks have transformed homeland security into one of Washington's
leading preoccupations. The result is that while the NAFTA imperative
of a more open border was gathering steam prior to 9/11, since that
fateful day, controlling the southwest border in an effort to prevent
illegal immigration and smuggling has been advanced as essential to
combating the terrorist threat against the United States. Security has
trumped cross-border facilitation as our abiding interest. This is a
mistake since it wrongly presumes that there is an automatic tradeoff
between advancing greater degrees of openness to support the movement
of legitimate people and goods and the need for more rigorous border
controls.
The experience over the past decade of stepped-up enforcement along
the Mexican border suggests that U.S. efforts aimed at hardening its
borders can have the unintended consequence of creating precisely the
kind of an environment that is conducive to terrorists and criminals.
Draconian measures to police the border invariably provide incentives
for informal arrangements and criminal conspiracies to overcome cross-
border barriers to commerce and labor movements. In addition,
unilateral measures pursued on one side of the border create political
impediments for enforcement cooperation on the other. The result is
that the border region becomes more chaotic which makes it ideal for
exploitation by criminals and terrorists.
Terrorists and the tools of terrorism do not spring up at the
border. Instead, they arrive via hemispheric and international trade
and travel networks. Advancing a continental approach to deterring,
detecting, and intercepting illicit actors seeking to exploit those
networks would accomplish two things. First, it would provide some
strategic depth for responding to a threat before it arrived at a
critical and congested border crossing. Second, it would allow the
ability to segment risk so that the cross-border movements of people
and cargo deemed to present a low-risk could be facilitated. Then
limited enforcement resources could be targeted more effectively at
those that present a high risk.
The shared risks of loss of life and massive economic disruption
presented by the catastrophic terrorist threat should provide the basis
for greater levels of bilateral cooperation that can remove many
longstanding barriers to continental commerce precisely because those
barriers themselves can elevate security risks. For example, the
longstanding neglect of the border in terms of limited infrastructure
investment and tepid efforts at customs and immigration modernization
and harmonization made no sense in purely economic terms. But the
resultant inefficiencies that carry substantial commercial costs also
create opportunities that thugs and terrorists can exploit. Thus, there
is a national security rationale to redress those inefficiencies. The
agendas for both promoting security and greater continental commerce
can be and must be mutual reinforcing.
THE HARDENED BORDER PARADOX
Great powers have been building great walls throughout history. The
Great Wall of China, the Maginot Line, and the Berlin Wall went up at
considerable expense in sweat and treasure and all ultimately failed to
block or contain the forces that prompted their construction. The
recent efforts by the United States to ``protect'' the southwest border
including installing a 26-mile long fence between San Diego and
Tijuana, has had a similar fate.
Take the case of illegal migration. Stepped-up patrolling and
policing of the border may raise the costs of getting to the United
States, but it also creates a demand for those who are in the business
of arranging the illegal crossings. Migrants who once simply strolled
across the border to seek work on the other side, now need
``professional'' help. That help is provided by guides known as
``coyotes'' who take migrants to remote border locations or put
together increasingly sophisticated smuggling operations at the land
border entries. As the coyote business becomes more lucrative, criminal
gangs are better positioned to invest in pay-offs of front-line
agents.\1\ The prevalence of corruption, in turn, undermines
information sharing and operational coordination between U.S.
authorities and their Mexican counterparts.
Enforcement driven-delays at the border also ironically contribute
to creating opportunities for smuggling narcotics as well. In Laredo,
Texas for instance, truck crossings were at 2.8 million in 1999, up
from 1.3 million in 1993.\2\ Many of these trucks operating at the
border are old and poorly maintained and owned by small mom-and-pop
trucking companies. The turnover-rate among drivers is extremely high.
These conditions are prevalent because waiting hours at a border
crossing in order to make a 20-mile round trip, with an empty trailer
on the return, is not a lucrative business. Moving intercontinental
freight is, so the trucks and drivers who make long-haul journeys tend
to be of a higher quality. Since it is uneconomical to run a state-of-
the-art rig near the border, trailers are usually offloaded at depots
near the border. In the case of south-bound traffic, a short-haul truck
is then contracted to move the freight to a customs broker who will
then order another short-haul truck to transport the freight to another
depot across the border. A long-haul truck will then pick up the load
and carry it into the interior. The drivers of these short-haul rigs
tend to be younger, less skilled, and are paid only nominal wages--as
little as $7 to $10 per trip. As a result, the potential payoff for
carrying contraband through a congested border crossing is all the more
tempting.\3\
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates
that more than half of the cocaine that arrives in the United States
comes via the southwest border.\4\ Even with the rise in the number of
inspectors and investigators assigned to the 28 border-entry points in
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, given both the volume and
the nature of the trucking sector that services the border, the U.S.
government clearly is facing ``needle-in-a-haystack'' odds as it
strives to detect and intercept illicit drugs. The pure cocaine to feed
America's annual coke habit could be transported in just fifteen of the
more than 20 million 40-foot containers that arrived at America's land
and sea borders each year. And in addition to looking for drugs, the
U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is charged with monitoring
compliance with more than 400 laws and 34 international treaties,
statutes, agreements, and conventions on behalf of 40 federal
agencies.\5\
So while the prevalence of migrant and narcotics smuggling seems to
provide a compelling rationale for tightening up controls along U.S.
borders, aggressive border inspections in turn, confront improbable
odds while fostering the kinds of conditions that generate ample time
and opportunity within a Mexican and U.S. border city for these illicit
transfers to occur. Hardened borders also transform the cost-reward
structure so amateur crooks are replaced by sophisticated criminal
enterprises and corruption issues become more pronounced. In short, the
experience of the southwest border suggests that aggressive border
security measures end up contributing to problems that inspired them in
the first place.
THE OPEN BORDER PARADOX
The United States has enjoyed the remarkable good fortune of having
the oft-heralded ``longest undefended border in the world'' with it
Canadian neighbor to the north. For much of the two nation's history,
to the extent that there was a government presence along the 49th
parallel, it was only to collect customs duties. As a result, the 5,525
mile border can be summed up as a national boundary with no fences and
a few toll gates.
In recent years, those toll gates have come under increasing
pressure as cross border trade has flourished. Take the automotive
industry, for example. General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler
manufacture many of the parts to build their cars and trucks from
plants in the Canadian province of Ontario. Several times each day
these parts are delivered to the assembly plants in the United States.
Delivery trucks are loaded so that parts meant for specific vehicles
can be unloaded and placed directly on the appropriate chassis as it
moves down the assembly line. This ``just-in-time'' delivery system has
given the Big Three a more cost-effective and efficient production
process.
It has also generated a great deal of truck traffic. For example,
up to 9000 trucks a day transit the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit,
Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario. At these rates, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection officials must clear one truck every 18 seconds. If they
fall behind, the parking lot can accommodate only 90 tractor-trailers
at a time. Once the parking lot fills, trucks back up onto the bridge.
The resulting pileup virtually closes the border, generating roadway
chaos throughout metropolitan Windsor and Detroit, and costs the
average automotive assembly plant an average of $1 million per hour in
lost production.
Over the past two decades, the episodic attention directed at the
northern border was primarily centered around efforts to minimize any
source of administrative friction that added to cost and delay of
legitimate commerce. The notion of the 49th parallel as a security
issue is a recent phenomenon that burst into the limelight just prior
to the millennium. The catalyst was the December 1999 arrest of an
Algerian terrorist with ties to Osama bin Laden in Port Angeles,
Washington. Ahmed Ressam had arrived onboard a ferry from Vancouver in
a passenger car with a trunk full of bomb-making materials. Only a U.S.
Customs Service official's unease with the way Ressam answered her
questions prevented him from driving onto American soil. The jitters
surrounding the Ressam arrest turned into near panic immediately
following the September 11 attacks. Worries about the possibility of
additional attacks led to the effective sealing of the border as every
truck, car, driver, and passenger came under close examination. Within
a day there was a 16-hour queue at the major border crossings in
Michigan and New York.\6\ By September 13, DamlierChrysler announced
they would have to close an assembling plant on the following day
because their supplies were stuck on the north side of the border.\7\
On September 14, Ford announced they would be closing 5 plants the
following week.\8\ Washington quickly reconsidered its initial response
and within a week, the border inspection wait times returned close to
normal.
On its face, the open and very limited controls exercised at the
U.S.-Canada border would suggest that it was ripe for exploitation by
criminals and terrorists. The reality is that the imperative to manage
cross-border threats without disrupting trade that amounts to more than
$1 billion a day and the travel of 220 million people each year, has
led to an extraordinary degree of cross-border cooperation. On the
Vermont-Quebec border, for instance, Canadian and U.S. law enforcement
officers at the federal, state, provincial, and local levels have been
meeting for 18 years to discuss their criminal cases without any formal
charter. The relationships are such that participants sit together and
share information in much the same way they might at a roll call if
they all belonged to the same police precinct.\9\ The resultant
collegiality spills over into their daily police work. In fact, local
agents in Vermont or New Hampshire who are frustrated on occasion by
bureaucratic obstacles to getting information or assistance from U.S.
federal agencies have found a successful end-run to be to seek out
their Canadian counterparts and ask them to serve as intermediaries for
their requests!
In Washington state and British Colombia, U.S. and Canadian police,
immigration and customs officials, stood up a bi-national team in 1996
to work on cross-border crimes with local, state, and provincial
enforcement agencies. The team was called the ``Integrated Border
Enforcement Team (IBET)'' and initially focused on drug smuggling, but
the portfolio later expanded to include terrorism. Following the
September 11 attacks, Washington and Ottawa agreed to establish a total
of 8 of these IBETs along the border.\10\
The movement towards emphasizing a broader framework of bi-national
cooperation versus focusing on the physical borderline gained impetus
in 1999 when Prime Minister Jean Chretien and President Bill Clinton
formed a process of consultation labeled the ``Canada-U.S. Partnership
(CUSP).'' The process had as its objective the reinvention of border
management to support the seamless passage of legitimate flows of
people and goods between the two countries. \11\ Progress towards this
end was somewhat halting until after September 11. With 40 percent of
its GDP tied to trade with the United States,\12\ the post-9-11 closing
of the border transformed the CUSP agenda into Ottawa's top priority.
The then Canadian foreign minister, John Manley, was dispatched to
Washington to meet with the new White House Director of Homeland
Security, Tom Ridge. Manley found a sympathetic audience in Ridge who
had just stepped down as Governor of Pennsylvania (Canada was that
state's number 1 trade partner.) Together they hammered out a 30 point
``Smart Border Action Plan'' which they announced on December 10, 2001.
The preamble of the declaration declared:
Public Security and economic security are mutually
reinforcing. By working together to develop a zone of
confidence against terrorist activity, we create a unique
opportunity to build a smart border for the 21st century; a
border that securely facilitates the free flow of people and
commerce; a border that reflects the largest trading
relationship in the world.\13\
In short, in dramatic contrast to the approach the United States
had pursued on its southern border throughout the 1990s, with respect
to its northern border Washington has concluded that its security is
optimized by striving to keep the border as open as possible, while
working to improve cooperative bi-national arrangements. Indeed,
efforts to harden the border along the 49th parallel have been assessed
to be self-defeating not just in economic terms, but in security terms.
Closing the border in the wake of a terrorist attack only reinforces
the military value of engaging in such attacks. This is because it
means the U.S. government ends up doing something to itself that no
other world power could aspire to accomplish--it imposes a blockade on
its own economy. The result is to convert a small investment in terror
into massive disruption of daily life that has a clear and adverse
effect on the U.S. and overall global economy. America's adversaries
would undoubtedly take solace in this and recognize that the potential
benefits of this kind of warfare warrants consideration.
BEYOND BORDER CONTROL
Embracing openness and advancing homeland security need not be an
``either-or'' proposition if Washington is willing to apply the lessons
it has drawn from its northern border to Mexico and the broader global
community. The end game must not be about defending a line on a map,
but advancing greater bilateral integration while managing important
safety, security, and other public policy interests. This balancing act
can be accomplished by: (1) developing the means to validate in advance
the overwhelming majority of the people and goods that cross the border
as law abiding and low risk; and (2) enhancing the means of federal
agents to target and intercept inbound high risk people and goods.
Accomplishing the first is key to succeeding at the second since there
will always be limits on the time and resources available for agents to
conduct investigations and inspections. The goal must be to limit the
size of the haystack in which there are most likely to be illicit
needles.
Verifying legitimate cross border flows as truly legitimate is not
as fearsome task as it might first appear. This is because aggregate
border crossing numbers are somewhat misleading since so many of the
vehicles, drivers, and people are regular customers. For instance,
while there were 4.2 million recorded southwest border truck crossings
in 1999, these crossings were made by roughly 80,000 trucks.\14\ If we
are willing to make the investment, the technologies are certainly
available to identify frequent travelers as such. After undergoing a
pre-screening application and inspection process, vehicles can be
equipped with an electronic transponder and the driver can be provided
with a NAFTA transportation identity card with encoded biometric
information to confirm that they are in fact who they profess to be.
Quickly clearing these vehicles and their drivers allows inspectors to
focus more of their time and energy on examining unfamiliar or
suspicious traffic.
Similarly, the vast majority of the daily pedestrian border
crossings are made by day laborers who return to their homes south of
the border each evening. These individuals can be recognized as such by
inspectors who are assigned to the border. Well-designed border
crossings that are adequately staffed with inspectors who are well-
trained in behavior pattern recognition can be more effective than
reliance on high-technology when dealing with this foot traffic. An
inspector does not need a machine to tell her if she is looking at a
face she has never seen before. And a biometric devise is useless in
detecting behaviors such as excessive anxiety that should arouse
suspicion. There is no substitute for human judgment when making these
kinds of calls.
Manufacturers, carriers, shippers, importers or exporters could be
encouraged to adopt stringent internal security practices that reduce
their exposure to internal criminal conspiracies and which deter
criminal elements from targeting their vehicles and goods once they
leave a factory, warehouse, or transshipment facility. They should also
be encouraged to invest in information and tracking technologies to
maintain near real-time accountability of their drivers, vehicles, and
cargo from the point of origin through the final destination. Finally,
they should transmit in advance, the electronic information border
agents need to assess their compliance with the applicable laws and
regulations.
Theft-resistant transportation networks are more difficult for
criminals and terrorists to compromise. Should there be advance
intelligence of such a compromise, these information systems will make
it easier to locate and interdict shipments that might contain illegal
migrants or contraband before it enters a crowded port or land border
inspection facility; alternatively, authorities can put together a
``controlled-delivery'' sting operation, where the contraband is
allowed to reach the intended recipient so that the appropriate arrests
can be made.
Given the value this has for security, the U.S. government should
work to create every incentive for expanding participation in these
frequent-traveler programs including providing adequate staff to
quickly process applications and eliminating or substantially reducing
or waiving of the fees for receiving these biometric cards and
transponders. Since these programs advance our national security,
making an appropriate investment in federal resources to them is
appropriate.
Still, bringing about the kind of transformation that makes the
private sector a willing and able partner in supporting a reinvented
border control mission requires strong market incentives. Happily such
incentives exists if the U.S. government is thoughtful about how new
investments in transportation infrastructure are made at and near the
border. Specifically, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century has targeted substantial funding for major roadway improvements
under the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program.\15\ As development
and management plans for such projects as the ``Ports-to-Plain''
Corridor and the I-69 NAFTA highway are drawn-up, the development of a
``dedicated trade lane'' should be incorporated. That is, like commuter
``High Occupancy Vehicle'' (HOV) lanes found around many metropolitan
areas, access to a dedicated trade lane would be restricted to only
those vehicles and drivers and that cargo that participates in the new
border management regime.
An additional incentive could come by moving many of the border
entry inspection processes away from the physical border itself and
instead consolidate them into a single trilateral ``NAFTA inspection
facility'' and locate it on a dedicated traffic lane that leads to the
border. For instance there is an 18-mile new toll road leading from I-
39 to the Mexican state of Nueva Leon via the recently constructed
Colombia Bridge on the outskirts of Laredo, Texas. Why not have the
United States, Mexico, and Canada agree to grant extraterritorial legal
authority within a NAFTA inspection facility placed at the start of
that toll road where trucks, drivers, and cargo could be examined by
inspectors from all three countries and where each agency is allowed to
enforce their respective national laws and regulations for goods and
conveyances bound for their jurisdiction. Statutes governing the
development of border crossing facilities and infrastructure should be
examined to identify legal barriers which prevent or slow the
investment of federal monies in these projects. Specifically, there
should be a fast track for completing environmental impact studies that
can delay border infrastructure projects up to ten years.
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has already embraced
this approach in sea ports under a program Commissioner Robert Bonner
has called the ``Container Security Initiative.'' An important element
of that initiative is stationing U.S. Customs inspectors overseas in
loading and transshipment ports to inspect suspicious cargo before it
is even loaded on a ship. Nations who agree to participate are given
reciprocal privileges in U.S. ports.\16\ In the North American context,
the end-state, ideally, should be to develop a single zone conducting
``one-stop'' arrival and departure inspections. In the case of
northbound trucks from Mexico City and Monterey and southbound trucks
bound for the Mexican interior, operators would have to stop just once
at a location where there is plenty of space to conduct inspections so
there is no risk of hours-long backups that now routinely plague the
bridges. Once the trucks are cleared, the flow of traffic could be
closely monitored by use of ``intelligent transportation systems''
(ITS) radio frequency or GPS technologies.
But simply relocating where inspections take place is not enough.
Border control agencies need to fundamentally change the way they are
doing business as well. The days of random, tedious, administrative and
labor-intensive border inspection systems--the bane of every legitimate
international traveler and business--must be numbered. The manpower
constraints inherent in traditional border-control practices guarantee
their continuing inability to adequately police the surge in
continental and global commerce. What is the alternative? The answer
lies in placing greater emphasis on developing the means to enhance
``domain awareness'' and the capacity to perform ``anomaly detection.''
In the computer industry, ``anomaly detection'' represents the most
promising means for detecting hackers intent on stealing data or
transmitting computer viruses.\17\ The process involves monitoring the
cascading flows of computer traffic with an eye towards discerning what
is ``normal'' traffic; i.e., that which moves by way of the most
technologically rational route. Once this baseline is established,
software is written to detect that which is aberrant. A good computer
hacker will try to look as close as possible to a legitimate user. But,
since he is not, he inevitably must do some things differently and good
cyber-security software will detect that variation, and deny access.
For those hackers who manage to get through, their breach is identified
and shared so that this abnormal behavior can be removed from the
guidance of what is ``normal'' and acceptable.
In much the same way, the overwhelming majority of the vehicles,
people, and cargo that move across the U.S. borders move in predictable
patterns. If inspectors have the means to analyze and keep track of
these flows, they will have the means to detect ``aberrant'' behavior.
In short, ``anomaly detection'' of cross-border flows is possible, if
the regulatory and enforcement agencies whose daily tasks is to police
those flows: (1) are given access to intelligence about real or
suspected threats, and (2) are provided the means to gather, share, and
mine private sector data that provides a comprehensive picture of
``normal'' cross border traffic so as to enhance their odds of
detecting threats when they materialize.
If the public sector undertakes these changes, the private-sector
must also change its attitude about engaging in self-policing and
sharing anything but the minimum amounts of relevant data with
government agencies. Border control agencies have important and
legitimate jobs to perform. The general public wants restrictions on
the flows of contraband such as weapons, drugs, and child pornography.
Immigration policies require that who enters and who leaves their
jurisdictions be monitored and controlled. Many public-health
strategies aimed at managing the spread of disease require the
identification and isolation of people, livestock, and agricultural
products that could place the general population at risk. Safety and
environmental threats connected with unsafe shipping and trucking
mandate that the transportation sector be monitored. And trade rules
must be enforced for trade agreements to be sustainable.
BARRIERS TO CONTINENTAL PROGRESS
The approach to border management outlined above has started to
gain some currency with respect to the U.S.-Canada border. Just prior
to the first anniversary of the tragic attacks on New York and
Washington, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Jean Chretien
met on the Detroit-side of the Ambassador Bridge to launch an
initiative dubbed ``the Free and Secure Trade (FAST)'' program whose
purpose is to move pre-approved goods across the border quickly. The
two leaders also announced the expansion of program designed to speed
the flow of pre-screened ``low-risk'' travelers across the border known
as NEXUS along with a number of actions they are taking in support of
the Ridge-Manley Smart Border agreement.\18\ Against the backdrop of
the world's busiest commercial border crossing, President Bush
declared:
With these two initiatives, we'll ensure faster movement of
legal, low-risk goods, and faster travel for people cross our
borders, and we'll be able to better enhance security. Our
inspectors will spend less time inspecting law-abiding citizens
and more time inspecting those who may harm us.\19\
For his part, the former Prime Minister Chretien asserted:
We recognized that we could create a ``smart border''--one
that was not only more secure, but more efficient for trade, to
permit our businesses to get back to business, to allow our
nurses, engineers and computer technicians to provide their
services, and our students to attend classes. To let our
communities continue planning a shared future together, secure
in the knowledge that the border welcomes legitimate trade and
travelers.\20\
While ample challenges remain with regard to adequate staffing,
infrastructure, data management, and intelligence issues to make this
``risk management'' approach more capable and credible, there is
clearly a consensus that measures that would have the net effect of
hardening the border between Canada and the United States would be
counterproductive. Meanwhile, the situation on U.S.-Mexican border
stands in marked contrast. This is not for the want of any willingness
on Mexico's part. President Vincente Fox has repeatedly offered to have
a no-holds bar conversation on the future of its shared border with the
United States. But, there has been little enthusiasm in the post 9-11
Washington to reciprocate.
While the new homeland security imperative is cited as the
rationale for change to the north, to the south it is being proffered
up to explain why the U.S.-Mexican border reform agenda has moved from
the political fast track to the breakdown lane. The persistent
incidence of crime, narcotics and migrant trafficking, and corruption
are rallying points for advocates of ``tightening-up'' border
enforcement. The generally unchallenged assumption is that, now more
than ever, the United States needs to be committed to vigilance along
the southern border.
But, the case for fundamental reform should be even more
compelling. Presumably, the combination of the new high security stakes
and the acknowledgement in the Ridge-Manley agreement that hardening
the 49tb parallel is self-defeating, should create fertile ground for a
thoughtful reexamination of the prevailing approach to managing the
southern border. So why hasn't this logic been the prevailing one? The
answer lies with the fact that the southern border is imprisoned in a
legacy of immigration and drug enforcement efforts. Despite two decades
of evidence to the contrary, Washington continues to see interdiction
at the border as the key to successfully combating the northbound flow
of illicit drugs and migrants.
To adopt the ``smart border'' agenda throughout North America will
require that Washington countenance an alternative approach to dealing
with the issues of illicit drugs and immigration. It will require the
federal agencies for whom border enforcement has been a growth business
to acknowledge the unintended consequence of their collective effort
has been to actually make the border region more difficult to police
and secure. And it will require those within the U.S. Congress who
oppose NAFTA to stop exploiting America's newfound homeland security
imperative as a means for advancing their protectionist agenda.
CONCLUSION
The most important reason to get border management right is to
satisfy what is arguably the most critical homeland security imperative
of our time: to reduce the risk that hemispheric and global trade lanes
will be exploited to smuggle a weapons of mass destruction into the
United States. Without a committed effort to advance a bilateral
approach to border management, terrorists will continue to have ample
opportunity to bring their battles to American streets. It is in the
collective interest of the United States and Mexico to work together to
mitigate that risk.
But the impetus for challenging conventional notions of border
control owes it source not just to a transformed post-9/11 threat
environment. It is also a long overdue response to the evolution of
commercial and social patterns of interaction throughout North America
that have made continental relationships more dynamic, organic, and
integrated. As such, the case against traditional border management
practices such as those pursued along the southwest border had been
already made by the close of the last century for anyone willing to
look objectively at the yawning gap between enforcement rhetoric and
reality. Stepped-up efforts to harden the border are a flawed, even
counterproductive, approach to advancing important security and public
policy interests.
By contrast, the kind of ``smart border'' initiatives being
embraced on the northern border hold out real promise. The outline for
transformed border management is clear. It requires a risk management
approach to policing cross-border flows which includes the close
collaboration of the major beneficiaries of an increasingly open North
American continent--the United States--neighbors to the North and the
South, and the private sector. The stakes of getting this right are
also clear. Transforming how the border is managed is an essential step
towards assuring the long-term sustainability of hemispheric economic
integration within the context of the transformed security environment
of the post-9/11 world.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to responding to your
questions.
FOOTNOTES
\1\ Peter Andreas, Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000).
\2\ Keith Philips and Carlos Manzanares, ``Transportation
Infrastructure and the Border Economy,'' in The Border Economy (Dallas:
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, June 2001), 11.
\3\ Field visit by the author to Laredo, Texas Aug 20-21, 2001.
\4\ Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control
Strategy: 2001 Annual Report, Shielding U.S. Borders from the Drug
Threat (Washington: USGPO, 2001).
\5\ U.S. Customs Service, ``About U.S. Customs,'' accessed on
September 6, 2002 at http://www.customs.gov/about/about.htm.
\6\ U.S. Customs Service, Border Wait Times at major northern and
southern border crossings. Current border wait-times information is
available at http://www.customs.gov/travel/travel.htm.
\7\ Steve Erwin, ``Automakers forced to shut down: Parts shortage
suspends production,'' Edmonton Journal, September 14, 2001, F4.
\8\ ``Parts Shortages Cause Ford Shutdown,'' Associated Press,
September 14, 2001.
\9\ The Committee is informally known as the ``Leene Committee,''
named for its founder, James Leene, a former policeman who serve's in
the U.S. Attorney's office in Burlington, VT.
\10\ 6th Annual Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum Press Release,
July 6, 2002, accessed on September 6, 2002 at http://www.sgc.gc.ca/
Releases/e20020722.htm
\11\ George Haynal, ``Interdependence, Globalization, and North
American Borders,'' in Governance and Public Security (Syracuse:
Maxwell School, 2002), 55.
\12\ Authors calculations based on statistics available at
Statistics Canada, www.statcan.ca
\13\ The Whitehouse Office of Homeland Security, ``Action Plan for
Creating a Secure and Smart Border,'' Dec. 12, 2001, accessed on
September 5, 2002 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/
20011212-6.html
\14\ Office of the Inspector General, ``Interim Report on Status of
Implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement's Cross Border
Trucking Provisions,'' Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
MH2001-059, (May 8, 2001), 7. Also, Statement of the Honorable Kenneth
M. Mead, Inspector General, USDOT, ``Motor Carrier Safety at the U.S.-
Mexican Border,'' July 18, 2001 before the Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, United States Senate.
\15\ TEA-21 [1119(a)].
\16\ Robert C. Bonner, ``Pushing Borders Outwards: Rethinking
Customs Border Enforcement,'' A speech presented at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., Jan. 17, 2002.
\17\ Intrusion Detection Resources, accessed on September 6, 2002
at http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/coast/ids/ids-bodv.html.
\18\ ``Summary of Smart Border Action Plan Status,'' Press Release,
Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, September 9, 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020909.html
\19\ Transcript of remarks by President George W. Bush and Canadian
Prime Minister Jean Chretien at Detroit Customs Station, Monday,
September 9, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/
20020909-4.html
\20\ Ibid.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Flynn, for citing
three very, very important issues which we will try to continue
to address in our discussion, and which we hope that you will
discuss further in the rest of your paper.
Dr. Papademetriou.
STATEMENT OF DR. DEMETRIOS G. PAPADEMETRIOU, PRESIDENT,
MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE
Dr. Papademetriou. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee.
I will talk a little bit about the U.S.-Mexico relationship
initially in the context of migration. Then I will say
something about thinking outside of the box with regard to
NAFTA and what it is that perhaps we can expect from that
relationship beyond the standards of trade and economic
relationships. Then I will say a few things about how one
conceptualizes and goes about putting together, piecing
together, comprehensive immigration reform. And in the context
of doing so, I will also say a couple of things about the
Craig-Kennedy legislation, the AgJOBS legislation, that you
heard referenced. Finally, I will return to Mexico and suggest
a few things we might do there, if you do not mind.
Mexico and the United States, with regard to migration and
many other things, are completely intertwined, in fact,
indivisible, inseparable. The relationship goes back more than
100 years. About a third of all of the foreign-born people in
the United States are, indeed, Mexicans. About one-sixth of the
annual legal immigration flow to the United States comes from
Mexico. According to the best estimates that we have of illegal
immigration, about three-fifths, 60 percent, of unauthorized
immigrants are coming from Mexico. Incidentally about an
additional 23 percent comes from Central America and South
America.
Entire economic sectors in the United States are now
dependent--I am not saying relying on--dependent on the kind of
labor that hardworking Mexican workers and other Central
Americans provide. Of course, no one relies more heavily on
Mexican and Central American workers than U.S. agriculture with
its perishable crops. There almost 100 percent of the work
force is Latino, Hispanic, and at least 75 percent of it is
undocumented, unauthorized.
So regardless of how we think about Mexico, regardless of
what it is we do with regard to immigration, Mexico will always
be the big elephant in the room that we cannot ignore.
Mexico is also a NAFTA partner, and I would like to help us
think of NAFTA in larger terms, not just as an opportunity for
greater trade with and greater investments in Mexico, or for
that matter within the North American space, but as an
opportunity for greater, deeper North American integration. I
think reasonable people can really think through what that
might mean.
NAFTA is also a vehicle for addressing issues of common
concern, but more importantly, for taking joint responsibility
for fixing these issues, for positive outcomes with regard to
these issues. Border issues and terrorism, but also migration,
are a natural fit for this kind of understanding of NAFTA.
Together with Mexico and Canada, perhaps we can start thinking
of NAFTA as a vehicle toward a safer North America, a more
competitive and more prosperous North America, a more
democratic and rule of law-based North America, and a North
America that is better socially developed.
How should we conceptualize comprehensive immigration
reform? If you will allow me, I think of it as a three-legged
stool. The beauty and the problem with putting together three-
legged stools is that you have to be very accurate about the
length and everything else of each of the legs. I suggest that
if we want to have stable immigration reform, perhaps putting
it differently, immigration reform that will last each element
must be carefully balanced. The alternative is that we can have
quick and dirty or, for that matter, very lengthy and not
particularly well-conceived, immigration reform legislation
that is going to bring us back to the Congress 2 or 3 or 4
years down the road seeking to fix it again.
So I tried to think, with the experience of the last 10,
20, 30 years, what it might take to come up with something that
perhaps has an opportunity to last awhile. I thought that three
things would be required.
The first one would be to give an opportunity to people
here who are in an unauthorized, undocumented, illegally
resident status, whatever your preferred term is, but
essentially those people who are here illegally, to actually
earn their new legal status. Reasonable people can sit around
the table and try to figure out what those criteria might be.
They should be tougher rather than easier and should give
people an opportunity to work hard toward achieving that new
status in the future, 2 or 3 years later, rather than on the
basis of what they may have done in the past 2 or 3 years.
The second one is that we have to enforce our immigration
and related laws better. This is not about putting more money
there, although money will also be required, or perhaps
deploying forces more intelligently, in methodological terms,
though that will also be required. I am actually asking for
nothing less than a from-the-ground-up rethinking of what laws
we are being asked to implement because my fundamental
conclusion from looking at these issues over a long time now is
that some of the ideas that we introduced in the mid-1980s may
have looked fine at the time, but 20 years later it is time for
us to rethink them. I am asking for a zero-based policy review
of these ideas.
The third element of reform is taking into account future
demand for immigrants, for individuals, to reunify with their
close family members and for employers to have employees that
they value. We are going to have to do something about truly
expanding immigration numbers in all sorts of different ways,
temporary, permanent, work visas, family visas.
Finally, I wanted to plug AgJOBS. I have been listening to
the government witnesses. This is the third time I have
testified in the past month on this. I am always stunned by the
fact that really they are not saying anything much different
than what is included in AgJOBS. But I have yet to hear a
government witness basically saying we will support AgJOBS.
AgJOBS may not be the model that we will ultimately follow
in immigration reform, but it is certainly a model that makes
sense. It has been negotiated in a painstaking way, and it
makes sense considering the exceptionality of the U.S.
agricultural sector.
Finally, back to Mexico. Anything we do with regard to all
of these people who are here will have a disproportionate
effect on people from Mexico. As I noted, Mexicans account for
60 percent of unauthorized immigrants and probably more. We
have been surprised before in our estimates.
Also, most of the things that we try to accomplish in terms
of our security, in terms of keeping the wrong kinds of things
from coming into our country, et cetera, can be achieved much
better when we work with our contiguous countries in the NAFTA
partnership than by ourselves.
Second, anything with regard to any future worker scheme--
temporary workers or whatever you want to call it--inevitably
the lion's share of those visas will go to Mexico. Mexicans
have the employer relationships. They have the networks, et
cetera. Why not begin to think together with Mexico about that
part of it?
Finally, since Mexico inevitably is going to be the
principal partner directly or indirectly in whatever it is that
we do on immigration, why not start to talk to them in a
systematic way immediately?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Papademetriou follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Demetrios G. Papademetriou
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Thank you for the invitation to comment on the President's
immigration reform proposals in the context of the broader U.S./Mexico
relationship.
In his far-reaching statement of January 7, 2004, President Bush
returned to one of the earliest themes of his Presidency and to one of
the country's most intractable policy and political dilemmas: how to
manage better the U.S. immigration system. Echoing the refrain of
``safe, orderly, and legal'' immigration of his first meeting with
Mexico's President Vincente Fox in February, 2001, Mr. Bush
acknowledged again that while the U.S. ``values'' and ``depends on''
immigrants, our broken immigration system ``condemns . . . millions of
hardworking men and women'' to working in a ``massive, undocumented
economy . . . [albeit in] jobs American citizens are not filling.'' Mr.
Bush's prescription? A massive and apparently rolling temporary worker
program both for currently unauthorized and new immigrants matching
``willing workers'' with ``willing employers.''
In doing so, the President jump-started a stalled national
conversation on the role of immigrants in U.S. society and on the way
forward on U.S. immigration reform. His acknowledgment that the
immigration system is broken is fully consistent with the facts. There
are currently as many as 10 million unauthorized immigrants in the
United States; about three-fifths of them are Mexicans, while Central
and South Americans provide another quarter of that total (see Chart
1). More than half of this illegally-resident population is found in
just four states--California, with more than a quarter of the total,
followed by Texas, Florida, and New York (see Chart 2). Furthermore,
nearly half-a-million new unauthorized immigrants (mostly Mexicans) are
added to our economy and society each year.
While Asians and the rest of the world are estimated to provide
about one-in-five of the foreigners who are illegally-resident in the
U.S., the U.S. unauthorized immigration problem is decidedly a
hemispheric one. More precisely, it is a Northern Hemisphere one, and
more precisely yet, a Mexican problem. Numbers and geography, as a
result, mean that any attempt to manage unauthorized immigration to the
United States must keep Mexico and Mexicans close in mind.
THE MEXICO FACTOR IN U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY
Nor is this somehow a new phenomenon. In the last regularization of
unauthorized immigrants, conducted under the 1986 Immigration Reform
and Control Act (IRCA), about two million Mexicans received permanent
lawful resident (LPR or ``green-card'') status--about 75 percent of the
successful applicants. Since then, and in the largest part because of
IRCA, legal migration from Mexico has come to comprise about one-sixth
of total annual U.S. intakes. Illegal Mexican migration has also gained
considerable momentum, as the social and labor recruitment networks
that help Mexican migrants come northward have become even more
efficient and U.S. employers have become even more accustomed to
recruiting and employing Mexican workers. As a result, Mexicans already
living in the United States have become even more embedded in U.S.
society and Mexicans of all legal statuses have come to comprise
increasingly large pluralities of workers in low-skill, low value-added
economic sectors--and even to dominate many of them throughout the
United States.
Beyond the numbers, however, many of the assumptions that are now
driving U.S. thinking about immigration reform are directly informed by
migration from Mexico. For example, every major immigration reform
proposal introduced in the last year or so emphasizes, more or less
directly, restoring the ``circularity'' of earlier migration patterns
as a key goal of immigration reform. To be sure, immigrants from all
countries often return to their home country and, increasingly, they
may make this two-way trip repeatedly. However, Mexico's geographic
proximity to and historically complicated migration relationship with
the United States has shaped a tradition of circular migration that,
until recently, had been far longer and stronger than any other
nation's.
Furthermore, it is Mexico's (and, to a much lesser extent, Central
America's) tradition of circular migration that can be most accurately
described as having been most directly ``disrupted'' by the U.S. border
enforcement policies of the past ten or so years. Stepped-up
enforcement on the United States' southern border has both preceded
and, until the last two years or so, has been more intense than changes
in controlling access by air and sea. This, in turn, has contributed to
longer stays by unauthorized Mexican immigrants and has made the
tendency toward longer--and essentially permanent--stays the key to
understanding the Mexico-to-U.S. migration of the last decade or so.
Not surprisingly, then, the success of any U.S. immigration reform
effort will ultimately rest on the accuracy of our assumptions about
the nature of Mexican migration and its place in the U.S. economy and
society.
Yet, so far, every major immigration reform proposal--including the
President's--has been decidedly unilateral in expression. A combination
of factors makes Mexico the most natural partner--a true primus inter
pares--in a more realistic approach to our efforts to manage migration
more effectively.
First, since Mexico contributes a significant majority of
the U.S.'s total unauthorized population, it is a logical major
partner in a bilateral approach to resolving the illegal
immigration puzzle.
Under the same logic, Central America must also remain
within our proximate policy thinking on immigration reform,
making ``thinking regionally'' on this issue simply compelling.
Secondly, the United States and Mexico (as well as Canada)
already have a well established relationship--they are partners
in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and jointly
manage many critical issues that relate to our border security
and to law enforcement priorities for both countries.
The United States and Mexico have also launched a modest
joint program to promote economic development in Mexico called
the ``Partnership for Prosperity''--a program that acknowledges
the importance of Mexican economic development in promoting the
NAFTA region's long-term economic and social well-being. So
far, however, the program is mostly ``aspirational'' in nature
but, with the help of this Committee, it can be moved off the
political back-burner.
Third, political and economic imperatives in both countries
make thinking bilaterally (and, again, regionally) about
migration and related issues particularly attractive: in few
other countries is migration as potent a domestic political
issue as in Mexico, Spanish-speakers power our labor intensive
economic sectors, and Hispanics (and particularly Mexican-
Americans) make up an already large and fast increasing part of
the electorate in the United States.
These and many other factors like them make Mexico (and the region)
the natural starting point for an open-ended conversation on migration.
It is also the place where whatever immigration legislation emerges
will be tested first, and most tellingly. Put differently, while
Mexican cooperation may not guarantee the full and immediate success in
whatever immigration reform objectives we set for ourselves, the
failure to enlist Mexico's fullest cooperation will make progress
toward meeting those objectives much more expensive, much more
difficult, and far less certain.
the three-legged stool of smart and stable immigration reform
Almost regardless of the level of bilateral (and regional)
coordination, any immigration reform package that aims for long-term
success must deal with three very difficult issues more or less
simultaneously: (a) accounting for and offering the opportunity to the
currently illegally-resident immigrant population to earn green cards;
(b) preventing future unauthorized immigration to the fullest extent
possible through thoughtful policies and smart enforcement; and (c)
providing adequate legal means for needed immigrants to enter the
United States by expanding the number of visas of all types--permanent
and temporary, for families and for workers.
These three policy goals must be understood as being fundamentally
indivisible, at least if the policy aim is stability in, rather than
simply another bite at, reform. A fully integrated approach to reform
might thus be conceptualized best as a ``three-legged stool'' that will
be by definition wobbly if any of its legs are significantly uneven and
will simply topple if any one leg is removed. I will discuss each of
these three ``E''s of comprehensive reform--earning legal permanent
status, enforcing the immigration laws better, and expanding visas in
sequence below.
Leg One: Earning green cards must become an opportunity available to
all illegally-resident immigrants
The domestic security agenda established after September 11 has
cast the longstanding and growing unauthorized population in the U.S.
in a new light--as a potential hiding place for terrorists. Analysts
talk about the challenges of finding the ``needle in the haystack'' and
hotly debate the appropriate and constitutionally sound ways to make
that haystack significantly smaller. Ideas have included registration,
deportation (focusing initially on criminal immigrants), increased
enforcement measures internally and at the border, and attrition (as a
collective result of these efforts).
As noted earlier, today's ``haystack'' is composed of nearly 10
million people who are living and working in American communities. Even
the most ``back-of-the-envelop'' calculation shows that, even under the
most favorable assumptions, a strategy designed to reduce the
unauthorized population to publicly acceptable levels (if we knew what
those might be) that utilized only enforcement and deportation methods
would require tens of billions of dollars, decades of time, and
significant damage to the nation's concept of civil and other rights.
It would also require even more heroic assumptions about the United
States' ability to keep new would-be illegal entrants and illegal
stayers out.
It is in this context that we must evaluate the plan proposed by
President Bush. According to that plan, the permission to stay legally
would be contingent upon employment and initially last for three years,
with the possibility of one (or more?) renewals. In order for that plan
to succeed in its principal objective of ``breaking the back'' of
illegal immigration, such an offer must be combined with a meaningful
opportunity for unauthorized immigrants to remain in our country by
``earning'' their green cards. The White House is reported to be more
open to this idea than the President's statement may have indicated at
first.
The domestic security argument for following this, more expansive,
course is as simple as it is compelling: the utility of the overall
effort depends greatly on the level of participation. An effort that
leaves millions of people unregistered (and hence un-vetted in security
terms) still leaves a considerable security problem. In fact, a program
that allows only temporary stays is not likely to prove a sufficient
inducement to come forward either for those immigrants who have
developed deep social and economic roots in our communities or who fear
that registration could be used against them in other ways.
The level of participation in the regularization program will also
influence the success of broader efforts to control illegal
immigration. When Congress enacted IRCA in 1986, it thought of
regularization only in classic amnesty terms, and extended its pardon
to anyone ``continuously'' in the U.S. since before January 1, 1982.
When the law was finally implemented in November, 1986, the previous
five years of illegal arrivals did not qualify for regularization. At
the same time, however, they had little incentive to leave.
These three million still-unauthorized immigrants simply burrowed
into U.S. communities, continuing to do essential work, but in an even
more unprotected legal environment. They continued to reunify with
their families legally or illegally, build new families, and have
American children. With millions of unauthorized residents continuing
to live and work in the U.S., the IRCA legalization program never
established a ``clean slate'' from which to launch its enforcement
provisions, and the unauthorized immigrants left behind by the law
formed the nucleus for the even more spectacular growth of the
unauthorized population in the 1990s.
Many unauthorized immigrants have spent years in the country, are
working at permanent jobs, and are parents of citizen children. At the
end of the last fiscal year, the Department of Homeland Security had
more than 1.2 million pending green card applications and
naturalization waiting times in the largest metropolitan areas are
approaching four years. For most of these people, and many more,
``restoring circularity'' may not be a goal that will move them to
register in a program like that proposed by the White House; they will
need a real opportunity to obtain legal permanent residency instead. If
offered regularization without the prospect of permanent residency, and
even if they take that offer up front, many may simply choose to remain
in the United States at the end of their allotted time, rather than
return home after a decade or more of absence.
Leg Two: Enforcing our immigration laws better
Offering the currently illegally-resident population an opportunity
to earn ``green cards'' will not amount to much of a reform if
unauthorized immigration is not controlled more effectively during and
following the regularization process. Effective enforcement, however,
will not only require greater enforcement resources; it will demand a
rethinking of enforcement strategies.
The U.S.-Mexico border provides an important example. Beginning in
the mid-1990s, spending on border enforcement was increased
dramatically and the Border Patrol adopted a new strategy of ``control-
through-deterrence'' that initially focused enforcement resources on
regaining control over one sector at a time--starting with the sectors
most in need of attention. In many ways, these efforts paid off:
crossing successfully became gradually more difficult and the fees
charged by smugglers rose accordingly. Yet, border-crossers shifted
their efforts to other, less well-secured (but also more dangerous)
areas and once over the line, unauthorized immigrants found jobs easily
and faced little threat of apprehension and removal. As a result, many
migrants continued to cross, but their passage became costlier and
riskier--and deaths along the border mounted. Migrants who successfully
ran the gauntlet of crossing the ever more heavily patrolled border
started to defer trips back home, turning the enhanced border
enforcement strategy into one that effectively ``locked people in,''
rather than keeping them out.
Part of the lesson from this experience is that although border
enforcement remains a necessary part of the strategy for controlling
unauthorized immigration, it must be supplemented by a smart interior
enforcement strategy. Until recently, this strategy has been based
almost exclusively on penalizing employers for hiring illegal workers--
an approach that has never developed roots and, as a result, it has
never received adequate resources or worked particularly well even when
resources were made available. A renewed commitment to manage migration
much better will require more resources, a review of employer sanctions
that re-examines U.S. enforcement methods from the ground up, and
serious consideration of alternatives. As we move toward a temporary
work visa program, enforcement of labor standards and other workplace
protections will also have to be rethought and become essential parts
of the enforcement agenda.
Leg Three: Expanding visa numbers must become a co-principal in the new
policy architecture for recapturing control over unauthorized
immigration
However generous the earned regularization provisions of a
comprehensive U.S. response to immigration is, and however well-
conceived and properly funded enforcement efforts come to be, they will
be for naught unless the number of available visas also expands.
Expanding visas will give American employers access to legal foreign
workers while allowing would-be migrants a more realistic opportunity
to migrate legally to work, to join family members, or both.
Unauthorized immigrants, and the overwhelming majority of Mexicans and
Central Americans in particular, are largely employed in low-wage, low
value-added jobs, mostly but not exclusively in the service sector,
making these positions a priority for additional visas. Temporary work
visas will be an appropriate solution for some of these entries. For
any large-scale visa program to maintain its integrity, however, it
must be accompanied by tough but fair enforcement as well as by
imaginative financial incentives to return. At the same time, we must
also be clear that neither enforcement nor return incentives will work
in every case; some workers will still want to stay and some employers
will still want to keep their most reliable employees. Creating a
clear, if demanding, path to permanent residency is the only way to
address this policy challenge.
While more work visas are thus an essential migration management
tool, family reunification will remain a core value in the U.S.
immigration system (and it will continue to play a crucial role in
fostering immigrant integration). As such, it must receive its share of
attention in any serious effort at immigration reform. Our
administrative failings in this regard are legion. As Chart 3 makes
clear, the backlogs in out immigration adjudications' system are
massive and contribute unnecessarily to unauthorized immigration.
Part of the reason for the backlog is legitimate. Delivering
immigration benefits must be accurate, security considerations must be
satisfied to virtual certainty, and the service must be professional,
courteous and above reproach. But immigration benefits must also be
delivered in a timely fashion. The cost of failure in that last regard
is not just longer waiting lines and the likely (but largely
unnecessary and avoidable) swelling in the unauthorized population; it
is the breeding of disrespect, if not disregard, for the rules, a
phenomenon that has an hugely corrosive effect on the rule of law. That
effect is not unlike that which offends so many law-abiding Americans
when they see unauthorized immigrants come and/or stay in our country
illegally.
A look at Chart 3, which tracks the total benefit applications
received, completed (a number that reflects approvals plus denials),
and pending since 1980, makes clear that until the early 1990s, pending
applications were holding fairly steady both in absolute numbers (in
the low hundreds of thousands) and relative to completion rates. So
were the numbers of received and completed applications. Demand began
to grow as those who received lawful permanent status under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 became eligible for
benefits, primarily as petitioners for their immediate family members.
Yet, for a period, the immigration service was more or less able to
keep up with most of the additional demand.
Things started to fall apart, however, by the mid-1990s, when the
IRCA-fueled demand for adjudications combined with the surge in
naturalization petitions that resulted from what some analysts have
characterized as that period's ``assault on immigrants.'' That
``assault'' culminated in three pieces of legislation in 1996: The
``Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act,'' the ``Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act,'' and the
``Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.''
Surges in demand, however, are not the only variable responsible
for what happened to adjudications after 1996. The naturalization re-
engineering that followed the political debacle of the Clinton
Administration's efforts to promote naturalizations in 1995 and 1996,
created a sharp completion trough that lasted until 1998. Following the
reengineering, completion rates increased again until FY 2002, when, in
the painstaking review of all immigration procedures that 9/11 made
necessary, they dropped precipitously once more--a drop from which they
have shown no signs of recovering so far. In fact, at this time, the
immigration benefits' overall adjudication backlog is well over six
million (it stood at 6.2 million at the end of FY 2003, with more than
1.2 million pending ``green card'' adjudications and multiyear
naturalization delays).
Creating a system in which immigrants will ``wait for their turn''
requires renewed commitment on our part to adjudicate petitions for
immigration benefits in a much more timely fashion. This includes the
commitment to appropriate the requisite public resources to clear these
backlogs.
ENACTING THE AGJOBS AS A DOWNPAYMENT TOWARD COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION
REFORM
The three ``E''s of reform set standards for judging not only the
``completeness'' of any reform proposal but especially the likelihood
that we would control illegal immigration while promoting U.S. social
goals and economic priorities. Viewed through the lenses of both human
rights and economics, the three-legged stool of reforms proposed here
will bring millions of hard working, law-abiding people ``out of the
shadows'' with absolutely no disruption to the economy--and do so while
building a deep reservoir of good will in the region whose returns will
be counted in terms of increased security, greater stability, improved
prosperity, and good will.
Do these lofty goals mean, then, there is nothing that can be
achieved in this legislative session that is a downpayment for, rather
than an excuse not to, undertake comprehensive reform? Put differently,
are there no legislative ``baby steps'' that can be taken now that can
set the table for more comprehensive reform after the elections? There
is in fact one such well thought out piece of bipartisan legislation
that is pending already before the Congress: The Agricultural Job
Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act, or ``AgJOBS.'' The President
chose not to mention this bill in his statement on immigration but the
White House has apparently indicated to the Bill's authors that if the
legislation is enacted, the President will sign it.
In essence, AgJOBS would stabilize the agricultural workforce in
perishable crops--a workforce that is almost entirely Latino and three-
quarters or more unauthorized--while protecting better in fact all of
that sector's workers. It would do so by allowing unauthorized workers
to work legally and begin to earn lawful permanent residence if they
have worked in U.S. perishable crop fields for 100 work days in 12
consecutive months during the 18 months prior to the legislation's
enactment (thus targeting the more experienced workers). These newly
legal temporary workers would be able to remain in the U.S. for up to
three years and take any job. However, they would have to perform a
minimum of 360 work days of agricultural work in the subsequent six
years (and required minimums in the first three of these six years)
before they can obtain lawful permanent residence.
New workers would also be able to gain legal access to this
economic sector with fewer procedural requirements--thus guaranteeing
growers more predictable access to the legal and stable workforce they
seek. In return, work-related benefits, legal protections, and labor
standards throughout the sector (such as wages, housing/housing
allowances, collective bargaining rights, and, most notably from a
worker protection perspective, a federal private right to action and
the ability of third parties to bring complaints to the U.S. Department
of Labor) would also be enhanced, in many instances dramatically so.
Agjobs has been painstakingly negotiated, has made its peace with
American agriculture's long ``exceptionalism'' with regard to
immigration rules, and, most importantly, it is a vast improvement over
the status quo. It thus meets most criteria of what reform legislation
on immigration must come to terms with--while its single sector focus
tackles smartly and removes one of the toughest issues on which
comprehensive immigration reform efforts have always stumbled.
returning to mexico: being smart about and building upon the bilateral
COOPERATION OPPORTUNITIES THE NAFTA HAS CREATED
At the moment, debate in the United States is largely focused on
unilateral approaches to immigration control, including much-needed
changes designed to ``putting our own house in order.'' While some of
the dimensions of a new approach to immigration must involve nationals
of all countries--earning green cards, for instance--cooperation with
Mexico (and Central America) continues to have distinct advantages.
A phenomenon as complex as migration, and in which so many sectors
of American society--including ``government at all levels''--are so
deeply ``implicated'' (in the January 2001 words of former Texas
Republican Senator Phil Gramm), cannot be managed as well unilaterally
as it can with the cooperation of our neighbors. Pragmatism, even
humility, is no weakness if the focus is on the right prize, an insight
that is being reinforced everyday in our ``war on terror'' and one
referred to explicitly in the President's 2004 Budget Statement
regarding the Department of Homeland Security.
Furthermore, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has
created a framework for cooperation on and, consequently, ample
opportunities for joint action in the region that the U.S. Congress,
most analysts, and key stakeholders on this issue did not have in their
field of vision in the drafting and deliberations of the 1986 attempt
at large-scale immigration reform. Nor were Mexico's or most notable
Mexicans' public comments at the time particularly helpful or
cooperation-inspiring. As a result, reaching out to Mexico (or Canada)
20 years ago was not a realistic option and few actors gave it serious
consideration.
Today, ten years after NAFTA and two-plus years after the September
11, 2001, attacks on our homeland, there is a far greater appreciation
of the fact that homeland security does not start at our borders.
Border controls are in fact more effective the further away they begin
from our physical borders, while the fight against human and other
trafficking stands a much better chance at success when undertaken in
cooperation with like-minded countries. Mexico and Canada are thus
essential assets in our homeland security arsenal.
In this perspective, one of NAFTA's principal contributions to the
U.S. is creating an environment in which deeper and broader bilateral
relationships between the United States and Mexico (and the United
States and Canada) on matters that go well beyond trade has become
possible--and in some ways, even routine. This reality has set the
stage for far greater cooperation on security, migration and other
difficult issues. Whether we are able to draw out of these
relationships what we need in terms of our security and our migration
management aims is almost a direct function of how much capital of all
types we are willing to invest and where we are willing to make these
investments.
Specifically, working with the Mexican Government in the political
context created, even if inadvertently, by NAFTA, can pay crucial
security dividends for us. For instance, it can lead to agreements
whereby Mexico can take an ever more active role in disrupting people-
smuggling networks, the same networks that are often thought to be
responsible for the smuggling of other illicit materials, and in
controlling access to its territory by those seeking to use Mexico as a
transit or staging area for people and goods seeking entry into the
United States illegally.
Defeating these networks and disrupting illegal entry and passage
routes--domains in which the Mexican Government is making substantial
progress but receives little public credit in the U.S. (while
simultaneously paying a significant political price in Mexico)--is not
just a U.S. priority. The Fox Administration has an increasingly
finely-tuned appreciation of the fact that, by undermining the rule of
law and undercutting his government's credibility, smuggling syndicates
and criminal networks make Mexico's own good governance aims more
distant. Furthermore, Mexico's limited policing resources will be able
to cover less ground if more people attempt to use it as a transit
country into the United States. Hence the coincidence of bilateral
policy interests--a reality that Mexican leaders at times seem to
appreciate more than their U.S. counterparts do, especially those in
the U.S. Congress.
The most obvious way in which true, organic cooperation with Mexico
can help the United States is with the management of our common border.
Significant efforts to cooperate in border management are already
underway, but can be expanded and deepened. Tying this cooperation to
reforms in U.S. immigration policy may be the best way to give the
Mexican government the political ammunition it needs to make full and
active cooperation at the border even more possible.
The possibilities for mutually useful cooperation do not stop at
the border. In the three-legged stool approach to immigration reform I
have outlined, Mexico has much to offer. Its public records can be a
valuable resource for verifying the backgrounds and eligibility of
candidates both for legalization and temporary work program
participants. The Mexican Government's cooperation in conceiving of and
implementing a large scale temporary worker program must also not be
underestimated.
Cooperation on all these fronts will require both the United States
and Mexico to come to view stability and predictability in their
bilateral migration relationship as a goal that brings enormous
benefits to both countries. There is indeed evidence that this idea is
beginning to take hold. In the United States, the language used to
discuss the issue in some mainstream political circles has shifted from
``illegal aliens'' to ``willing workers.'' Mexico, for its part,
appears to understand better that policies that may appear to offer it
the most immediate economic and domestic political rewards (such as
arguing only for a temporary worker program or taking its part of the
joint responsibility for managing the common border lightly) may prove
to be shortsighted--and that working with the United States to build a
common pillar of security and prosperity is indeed in the best
interests of its citizens.
As the discussion over immigration reform moves forward in the
United States, Mexico will continue to hold a prominent place both in
the debates and the solutions. The extensive and complex migration
relationship that has evolved between the two countries in the last 100
years may be the greatest obstacle facing immigration reform in the
United States; their deepening and broadening political and economic
relationship, however, may offer the best chance of surmounting this
obstacle.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir.
Let me now introduce Dr. Valenzuela. I have mentioned the
Aspen Institute conferences. He has been a tremendous resource
to Members of Congress. I very much appreciate your testimony
at the Aspen Institute. We look forward to your testimony here
this morning. Would you please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARTURO A. VALENZUELA, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Dr. Valenzuela. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to appear before the
committee and I want to commend you for this hearing today.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, over the last two decades, the
relationship between the United States and Mexico has grown in
visibility, scope, complexity, becoming one of the most
important bilateral relationships that the United States has in
the world.
Mexico's growing importance for the United States is the
reflection of fundamental changes that have taken place in
Mexico and in the world economy, changes that have accentuated
the integration of both countries. In 1950, Mexico was a semi-
authoritarian, largely rural country of 25.8 million people
with a life expectancy of 49 years and only half of its
population literate. Today Mexico is an overwhelmingly urban,
competitive democracy with close to 100 million inhabitants, a
life expectancy of 69 years, and a literacy rate of 87 percent.
It is the 11th most populous country in the world with an
economy that ranks among the 15th largest.
With the approval of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, Mexico became the third largest export market for
the United States and an important destination for U.S. direct
investment. U.S.-Mexico trade is now $232 billion, three times
what it was before NAFTA. And of course, we know that the long
2,000-mile border, the busiest in the world, has over 340
million legal crossings a year, suggesting the growing
integration of border communities.
Mexico accounts also for 25 percent of the significant
increase in foreign-born residents of the United States, the
largest share of that category that any country has had since
1890 when Germans accounted for 30 percent of all residents
born abroad. In turn, Mexican migration is a driving force
behind the surge of the Latino population in the United States,
which at 37.4 million has become the largest minority in the
country, over 60 percent of whom are natives of the United
States. It is estimated that about 66 percent of the total
Latino population, that is, about 25 million, are of Mexican
origin. Mexicans also constitute the largest number of
immigrants who entered the country illegally, perhaps as many
as 5 million of an estimated 7 million to 8 million
undocumented workers.
Employment in the United States has been an important
outlet for Mexico's population whose per capita income is a
fifth of that of its neighbor to the north and has 40 million
citizens living in poverty. Mexico, in turn, has supplied labor
in critical areas of the U.S. economy, at a time when the
population is aging and the United States faces the imminent
retirement of the baby boom generation. But growing integration
also poses numerous challenges including illegal immigration,
unfair trade and labor practices, law enforcement problems,
narcotics trafficking, environmental, health and security
concerns, and many others.
It is important to stress that while Mexico commands far
greater attention, it is not central today to U.S. foreign
policy priorities and imperatives. Rather, policy toward Mexico
is driven in fits and starts by a myriad of domestic factors.
It is a policy that is often diffuse, fragmented, and
contradictory, spread across numerous government agencies with
little overall coordination and focus. The very
institutionalization of the relationship, which helps to
routinize it and manage more fully its complexity, has also the
unintended consequence of Balkanizing Mexico policy, losing
sight of the overall national security and foreign policy
priorities of the United States.
With the overall engagement with Mexico being largely
positive, it is also true that United States policymakers have
not fully assimilated the implications for the United States of
the profound changes taking place in Mexico and their relevance
to fundamental U.S. interests. In an uncertain and dangerous
world, Mexico also needs to be conceptualized first and
foremost in security and strategic terms. This means taking
seriously the implications of the ongoing political, economic,
and social transformations taking place south of the Rio
Grande.
It is important to remember, Mr. Chairman, that not too
long ago, in 1988, the election in Mexico was deeply flawed and
in 1994 we saw several assassination attempts. Political
institutions have lagged behind in Mexico the rapid changes
that have taken place in the Mexican economy and society and
account in part for some of the failures of Fox administration
to advance needed economic, social, and political reforms,
including critical reforms in tax policy, energy, education,
justice, and broader reforms of the state. It is not an
exaggeration, Mr. Chairman, that Mexican politics today is
facing a serious stalemate.
In particular, Mexico's inability to implement energy
reform and fiscal reform in a country where tax revenues
account for only 12 percent of the national product has
severely hampered the country's ability to become fully
competitive internationally.
Now, it is not hard to articulate why the relationship with
Mexico is of such vital interest. A prosperous and stable
Mexico is essential to the well-being of the United States. A
failed Mexico, on the other hand, of course, would present
enormous challenges to the United States.
Now, the relationship with Mexico needs to be based, it is
absolutely clear, on trust but also on a mutuality of interests
that are not held hostage to disagreements in other areas. The
souring of the promising U.S.-Mexican dialog initiated by the
Bush administration because Mexico did not go along with U.S.
preferences in the U.N. Security Council regarding the war with
Iraq is a case in point. It sent a message that U.S. views
progress on bilateral issues with proposal as concessions that
are subject to Mexico agreeing with U.S. foreign policy
priorities, rather than essential steps that also advance U.S.
interests.
Now, what should be the general thrust of U.S. policy
toward Mexico? To the credit of Presidents Bush and Fox in the
early conversations that they had, they identified two key
neuralgic areas for both countries in the years ahead, issues
that are both intimately related. The first is the vast
asymmetries in the standard of living between the two
countries, and the second is the problem of migration and labor
mobility.
Now, the Partnership for Prosperity, which speaks to the
issue of asymmetries, was signed by the two Presidents and did
reflect a new emphasis. It does respond to Mexico's urging that
the U.S. and Canada take a leaf out of the European experience
where large investments were made by the richer countries in
the poorer countries of the European Union such as Spain and
Portugal that were also primarily labor-exporting countries.
The problem, Mr. Chairman, to date is that the Partnership
for Prosperity includes no real tangible commitment from the
United States. Private investment, a central feature of the
scheme, can only work with substantial public investment, and
the Bush administration has been long on rhetoric and short on
substance regarding real efforts to support Mexico.
On immigration, both Presidents signaled at the beginning
of the Bush administration that they were prepared to break the
mold and seek genuine immigration change. It is clear that the
U.S. economy has benefited enormously from migrant labor, and
yet U.S. immigration laws, rather than protecting American
jobs, tolerates a two-tiered labor market, one with no labor
rights, poor working conditions, insufficient wages, and no
rights to organize.
At the beginning, high level conversations between both
countries centered on accomplishing two objectives, instituting
a temporary worker program that would permit large numbers of
Mexicans to come to the United States to work on a short-term
basis, permitting greater circulation of labor back and forth.
And these programs would expand the very limited ones geared
today to agricultural workers.
The second objective that was discussed at the beginning of
both administrations was to find mechanisms to regularize the
status of illegal workers in the United States with the option
of placing them on a path toward citizenship.
Now, unfortunately, that fruitful conversation came to an
end, and it is not true, Mr. Chairman, that immigration reform
was set back by 9/11. Already before the terrorist attacks,
opposition from conservative circles in the Republican Party
had led the President's political advisors to caution against
any real progress in this area.
Now, I am pleased that President Bush, in hosting President
Fox at his ranch in Crawford earlier this month, seems to have
signaled that he wants to get the administration's Mexico
policy back on track. And the President's speech calling also
for immigration reform is encouraging because it puts this
issue at the center of the national debate.
Unfortunately, the President's speech indicates that the
White House has backed away from the fundamental tenets of
immigration reform that was discussed at the beginning of their
conversations, tenets that pointed immigration reform in the
right direction. Rather than seeking a two-track policy that
would expand temporary worker programs on the one hand and
provide for regularization of the status of immigrants already
in the United States with a path to citizenship on the other,
the administration has opted for an ill-defined temporary
worker program that would include those seeking temporary
employment in the United States and those already working in
the country without proper documentation.
Mr. Chairman, such a program will simply not work because
it is based on faulty assumptions. The most serious is that
undocumented immigrants in the United States, many of whom have
worked here for many years and have families in this country,
would be willing to sign up for a temporary worker program that
might force them to return to their country of origin after a
limited time period. And with no concrete guarantee that their
status in the United States could be made permanent, there
would be then few incentives for them to participate and to
come out of the shadows.
A realistic reform would recognize the contributions these
immigrants have made to the American economy and provide them
with a legal path toward regularization of their status and
citizenship should they choose to do so.
A temporary worker program with a clear time line and no
specific limitations on size is also based on faulty premises
because it assumes that workers will come to the United States
for a finite period of time and then return to their homeland.
If businesses are willing to hire in the United States, despite
legal restrictions barring them from hiring undocumented
migrants, and workers face the reality of unemployment back
home, they will continue to pursue employment opportunities in
this country. A mechanism for adjusting status is essential for
any temporary worker program.
It is also critical that workers in temporary worker
programs be fully covered by U.S. labor laws. In that sense,
Mr. Chairman, I think that the bipartisan legislation along the
lines that Senator Hagel has presented and discussed earlier is
a far better and more sensibly conceived package than the ones
that have been outlined by the President even though he has not
spelled them out completely.
In concluding, let me return and finalize my remarks by
simply going back to the thrust of what I said at the
beginning. Even the best conceived immigration reform proposals
will not solve the inexorable population and social pressures
that stem from the reality of contiguous societies with vast
differentials in living standards. Mexico will continue to
export workers to the United States as long as U.S. wage levels
are higher and jobs are available.
The United States can no longer take Mexico for granted.
While managing the complex and broad agenda involving two
nations with 400 million inhabitants, the United States must
not lose sight of the fact that Mexico is an essential partner
that must successfully meet the challenges of building
democracy and creating a better life for its citizens. And this
requires, Mr. Chairman, a U.S. foreign policy with vision and
leadership that sees Mexico in broader strategic terms and is
willing to expend the energy and resources to ensure that
Mexico can become a full partner in the North American
Continent.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Valenzuela follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Arturo A. Valenzuela
My name is Arturo Valenzuela. I am a Professor of Government and
Director of the Center for Latin American Studies in the Edmund A.
Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. In the first
administration of President William Jefferson Clinton I served as
Deputy Assistant Secretary in the U.S. Department of State where my
primary responsibility was the formulation and implementation of U.S.
policy towards Mexico. In President Clinton's second term I served as
Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and
Senior Director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security
Council where I also focused considerable attention on U.S. relations
with Mexico at a time when that country moved through a political
transition of historic dimensions.
Mr. Chairman, over the last two decades the relationship between
the United States and Mexico has grown in visibility, scope and
complexity, becoming one of the most important bilateral relationships
for the United States in the world. In its 1999 polling of elite public
opinion, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found that Mexico
tied in third place with Russia, just below Japan and China, at the top
of a list of countries with which the U.S. has ``vital interests.''
President George W. Bush scheduled his first foreign trip to Mexico and
proclaimed ``the United States has no more important relationship in
the world than our relationship with Mexico. . . . We are united by
values and carried forward by common hopes.''
Mexico's growing importance for the United States is a reflection
of fundamental changes that have taken place in Mexico and the world
economy, changes that have accentuated the integration of both
countries. In 1950, Mexico was a semi-authoritarian largely rural
country of 25.8 million people with a life expectancy of 49 years and
only half its population literate. Today, Mexico is an overwhelmingly
urban competitive democracy with close to 100 million inhabitants, a
life expectancy of 69 years and a literacy rate of 87%. It is the
eleventh most populous country in the world with an economy that ranks
among the fifteen largest. Its relative standing vis-a-vis the United
States can be appreciated by the fact that the U.S. population fell
short of doubling since 1950 while Mexico's quadrupled. Although the
Mexican birth rate has dropped substantially in recent years, it
remains much higher than that of the United States. As Mexico moved
from a closed to an open economy the United States has absorbed over
80% of Mexican exports. With the approval of the North American Free
Trade Agreement, Mexico became the third largest export market for the
United States and an important destination for U.S. direct investment.
U.S. Mexico trade is now $232 billion; three times what it was before
NAFTA. The long 2000-mile border, the busiest in the world, has over
three hundred and forty million legal crossings a year, suggesting the
growing integration of border communities.
Mexico accounts for 25% of the significant increase in foreign-born
residents of the United States, the largest share of that category that
any country has had since 1890 when Germans accounted for 30% of all
residents born abroad. In turn, Mexican migration is the driving force
behind the surge of the Latino population in the United States, which
at 37.4 million has become the largest ``minority'' in the country,
over 60% of whom are natives of the United States. It is estimated that
about 66% of the total Latino population (25 million) are of Mexican
origin. Mexicans also constitute the largest number of immigrants who
entered the country illegally, perhaps as many as 5 million of an
estimated 7 million undocumented workers.
This increase in commerce, population movements and migration has
been accompanied by economic and cultural changes that have brought
benefits to both countries and are rapidly transforming both societies.
Employment in the United States has been an important outlet for
Mexico's population whose per-capita income is a fifth of that of its
neighbor to the north and has 40 million citizens living in poverty.
Mexico in turn has supplied labor in critical areas of the U.S.
economy, at a time when the population is aging and the United States
faces the imminent retirement of the baby boom generation. But growing
integration also poses numerous challenges including illegal
immigration, unfair trade and labor practices, law enforcement
problems, narcotics trafficking and environmental, health and security
concerns.
Mexico's greater visibility in recent years on the Washington
public policy agenda debate is a fairly new phenomenon. And yet it is
important to stress that while Mexico commands far greater attention it
is not central to U.S. foreign policy priorities and imperatives.
Rather, policy towards Mexico is driven in fits and starts by a myriad
domestic factors. It is a policy that is often diffuse, fragmented and
contradictory, spread across numerous government agencies with little
overall coordination and focus. The growing density of the relationship
has resulted in increased efforts to institutionalize it as exemplified
by the 14 working groups of the Bi-National Commission that brings
cabinet members from both countries together every year. The very
institutionalization of the relationship, which helps to routinize it
and manage more fully its complexity, has had the unintended
consequence of further Balkanizing Mexico policy, losing sight of the
overall national security and foreign policy priorities of the United
States. To the fragmentation of U.S. policy at the federal level must
be added a myriad of interactions at the state and local level
particularly in the border region. More than with any other country in
the world, policy towards Mexico is driven not by security or foreign
policy imperatives, but by domestic considerations.
While the overall of engagement with Mexico is largely positive, it
is also true that United States policy makers have not fully
assimilated the implications for the United States of the profound
changes taking place in Mexico and their relevance to fundamental U.S.
interests. In an uncertain and dangerous world Mexico also needs to be
conceptualized first and foremost in security and strategic terms. This
means taking seriously the implications of the ongoing political,
economic and social transformations taking place south of the Rio
Grande, transformations that raise serious concerns about the short and
mid-term ability of Mexico to prosper and consolidate its democratic
institutions.
Although Mexico's transition to democracy has been less daunting
than those of Eastern and Central Europe, the country is still forging
the key institutions and practices of a competitive democracy and has a
significant way to go in establishing the full rule of law. It is
important to remember that the 1988 election in Mexico was deeply
flawed and that as recently as 1994 Mexico saw the assassination of
prominent political leaders, a guerrilla uprising in the South and a
genuine struggle to ensure the legitimacy of the presidential contest
in that same year. Political institutions have lagged behind the rapid
changes that have taken place in the Mexican economy and society and
account in part for some of the failures of the Fox administration to
advance needed economic, social and political reforms, including
critical reforms in tax policy, energy, education, justice and broader
reforms of the state. It is not an exaggeration to say that Mexican
politics is facing a serious stalemate. A weak president without
majorities in Congress and little control over his own party has had
difficulty navigating a new political reality where opposition parties
are also fragmented, authority is increasingly decentralized, and
critical institutions such as the police and the judiciary are fragile
and corrupt.
Policy paralysis and the absence of reforms threaten to undermine
Mexico's economic progress. NAFTA and the fact that trade represents
40% of the Mexican GDP has helped to cushion the Mexican economy from
the deeper economic crisis affecting other countries in the Western
Hemisphere. Nonetheless, Mexico has not experienced sustained real per
capita growth since 1980. The cycle of economic crises, which usually
coincide with the end of presidential terms of office, may not have
been broken with Zedillo's successful transfer of power to Fox. Fox,
who promised 7% growth rates, has presided over a decline in real per-
capita income as Mexican's fear that their export engine is being
threatened by the booming Chinese economy. In particular, Mexico's
inability to implement fiscal reform in a country where tax revenues
account for only 12% of the national product has severed hampered the
country's ability to become fully competitive internationally.
It is not hard to articulate why the relationship with Mexico is of
such ``vital interest'' to the United States. A prosperous and stable
Mexico is essential to the well-being and security of the United
States. Should the Mexican political transition succeed and Mexico's
economy prosper, the United States stands to gain from trade and
economic integration while experiencing a reduction in the pressures
for illegal migration. A prosperous Mexico can help improve living
standards in Central America and the Caribbean and provide leadership
to what is currently the most peaceful continent in the World. Should
the Mexican political transition falter and the Mexican economy
stagnate the costs to the United States could be enormous.
U.S. officials should not confuse the will of the Mexican
authorities to undertake certain steps with their capacity to respond
or cooperate. This is particularly true in the law enforcement and
judicial areas. The will may very well be there but the capacity, in a
context of archaic institutions and rapid social and political change,
may be woefully lacking. Or, Mexican officials like their U.S.
counterparts may simply not have the political and public opinion
support to carry out an unpopular policy the U.S. wishes to implement.
By pressuring Mexico because of poor performance in certain areas, the
U.S. may unwittingly undermine those very elements in the Mexican
government and broader political establishment, including the
opposition, that have a commitment to improving institutional capacity
and cooperation with the United States.
In cooperating with Mexico to help the country steer the right
course, U.S. officials must be mindful not only of the fact that Mexico
is going through a difficult transition where democratic institutions
are not yet fully in place, but also that Mexico is a sovereign country
acutely sensitive for historical reasons to an overbearing U.S.
presence. Indeed, on certain issues, including the rights of migrants,
the death penalty, or the role of international organizations and
conventions, Mexico has and will differ with United States policy. That
difference should not be interpreted as a betrayal on the mistaken
presumption that U.S.-Mexican relations should be based on an
acceptance by the latter of U.S. policy in order to deserve U.S.
friendship.
The relationship with Mexico needs to be based on trust, but also
on a mutuality of interests that are not held hostage to disagreements
in other areas. The souring of the promising U.S. Mexican dialogue
initiated by the Bush administration because Mexico did not go along
with U.S. preferences in the U.N. Security Council regarding the war
with Iraq is a case in point. It sent a message that the U.S. views
progress on bilateral issues with Mexico as concessions that are
subject to Mexico agreeing with U.S. foreign policy priorities, rather
than essential steps that also advance U.S. interests. Ironically, the
effect of U.S. actions and the personal recriminations that were levied
against Fox contributed to undermining Fox' standing in Mexico,
weakening his capacity to press his reform agenda and jeopardizing U.S.
interests. It is tragic that the Bush administration lost its footing
on Mexico, and indeed on the broader interests the United States has in
the Hemisphere.
What should be the general thrust of U.S. policy toward Mexico? To
the credit of President's Bush and Fox in their early conversations
they identified the two key neuralgic issues for both countries in the
years ahead, issues that are intimately related: the vast asymmetry in
the standard of living of the two countries and the problem of
migration and labor mobility.
Like other Latin American countries Mexico followed an import
substitution strategy of economic development, protecting infant and
state sponsored enterprises from competition. The policy was successful
in promoting growth and industrialization. Mexico grew on average of 6%
per year from the 1940s through the 1970s and industrial growth rates
where higher. That policy was not sustainable, however, as it spawned
inefficient industries and over-bloated state institutions with
widening deficits. Mexico was able to stave off the vulnerabilities of
its economic model through increased oil production--but an over
reliance on oil and international borrowing coupled with weak macro-
economic discipline contributed to the economic crisis of the 1980s. As
a response, Mexico set into place some bold new initiatives to open its
economy and seek a trade agreement with the United States. U.S. policy
also moved away from ``aid'' to ``trade'' as the key engine of growth
that would parallel new policies aimed at assuring fiscal and monetary
discipline and the downsizing of the state.
In the aftermath of the serious economic crises that have hit Latin
America in the late 90s many observers are reassessing the reforms of
the 90s. Growth has not occurred automatically despite significant
economic reforms and privatizations. As a result, today far more
attention is being paid to the quality of institutions and the
transparency of rules and procedures. And, many observers of Mexico,
which has gone farther than any other country in Latin America in
encouraging trade, are beginning to question whether trade alone will
suffice, if the domestic economy does not show stronger signs of
growth. The serious downturn of 1995 exposed the weakness of the
Mexican banking system and continuous problems of lack of transparency.
At the same, time it has highlighted the weakness of investment in
infrastructure, in effective state institutions and in education as an
essential element in promoting sustainable growth. Mexico's greatest
challenge is not simply privatization and the opening of markets--it is
in laying the foundations for competitiveness in an era of
globalization.
The Partnership for Prosperity signed by the two presidents did
reflect a new emphasis. It responds to Mexico's urging the U.S. and
Canada to take a leaf out of the European experience where large
investments where made by the richer countries in the poorer countries
of the European Union, such as Spain and Portugal that were also
primarily labor exporting countries. Massive transfers of resources
helped to level the playing field in Europe bringing up the standards
of living of the poorer countries and setting the groundwork for common
economic and monetary policy. While not envisioning a similar process
of integration, Mexico has underscored that the integration of North
America will not be successful until the disparities in standards of
living are reduced.
The problem to date is that the Partnership for Prosperity includes
no real tangible commitment from the United States. Private investment,
a central feature of the scheme, can only work with substantial public
investment and the Bush administration has been long on rhetoric and
short on substance regarding real efforts to support Mexico. The
imaginative initiative embodied in the New Millennium challenges would
simply not apply to a country such as Mexico. In short, U.S. policy
must couple a push for reforms, trade and private initiative with
greater attention to investment in infrastructure and education.
Although there is considerable controversy over the degree to which
illegal immigrants in the United States generate wealth or are a public
burden, both in terms of law enforcement and social service
expenditures, the costs to the U.S. are likely to increase if Mexicans
can't find gainful employment at home. At the same time the
opportunities for Americans to sell to 100 million Mexicans next door
will be less if the purchasing power of the average Mexican does not
increase. A genuine Partnership for Prosperity is needed with
substantial and real commitments over the median term. At time when
U.S. willing to spend 87 billion with little debate to secure Iraq,
some thought needs to be given to the importance of ensuring the long
term viability of a country with which the United States has ``the most
important'' relationship in the world. Needless to say, any substantial
commitment from the United States needs to be coupled by tangible
reforms in Mexico particularly in energy and tax policy.
On immigration both president's signaled at the beginning of the
Bush administration that they were prepared to break the mold and seek
genuine immigration change. It is clear that the U.S. economy has
benefited enormously from migrant labor. And yet, U.S. immigration
laws, rather than protecting American jobs, tolerates a two-tiered
labor market, one with no labor rights, poor working conditions,
insufficient wages and no rights to organize. High level conversations
between both countries centered on accomplishing two objectives:
instituting a temporary worker program that would permit larger numbers
of Mexican to come to the United States to work on a short term basis,
permitting a greater ``circulation'' of labor back and forth. These
programs would expand the very limited ones geared to agricultural
workers by including other job categories. The second objective was to
find mechanisms to ``regularize'' the status of illegal workers in the
United States with the option of placing them on a path towards
citizenship.
Although these same issues affect workers of other nationalities,
moving ahead with Mexico was justified in the bilateral conversations
by Mexico's inclusion in the North American Free Trade Association and
its unique status as a country sharing a long frontier with the United
States, a status shared only by Canada also a NAFTA member.
It is not true that immigration reform was set back by 9/11.
Already before the terrorist attacks opposition from conservative
circles in the Republican Party had led the president's political
advisers to caution against any real progress, particularly on
``regularization.'' Despite the increasing importance of Hispanic
voters of Mexican descent in American politics, the administration was
not willing to ``go to immigration'' as Bill Clinton went to ``Nafta,''
bucking opposition from his own party. On immigration the position of
both parties has shifted, as the labor movement more closely allied
with the Democrats now appears to be more receptive to immigrant
workers and sees them as future members.
President Bush's hosting of President Fox at his ranch in Crawford
early this month is a welcome step that suggests that the
administration may be moving to place U.S.-Mexican relations back on
track after a long hiatus. The president's speech calling for
immigration reform is also encouraging because it once again places an
issue that is central not only to the relations between both countries,
but to the Latino community in the United States, at the forefront of
the national policy debate. The president should be commended for
underscoring that the United States is a nation of immigrants and
immigrants continue to make a substantial contribution to the nation's
progress. He also is correct in noting that immigrants are subject to
abuse and discrimination and laws affecting immigrants must be changed.
Unfortunately, the President's speech indicates that the White
House has backed away from the fundamental tenets of immigration reform
that was discussed by the two governments in the early months of the
administration, tenets that pointed immigration reform in the right
direction. Rather than seeking a two track policy that would expand
temporary worker programs, on the one hand, and provide for
regularization of the status of immigrants already in the United States
with a path to citizenship, on the other, the administration has opted
for an ill defined temporary worker program that would include those
seeking temporary employment in the United States and those already
working in the country without proper documentation.
Such a program will simply not work because it is based on faulty
assumptions: The most serious is that undocumented immigrants in the
United States, many of whom have worked here for many years and have
families in this country, would be willing to sign-up for a temporary
worker program that might force them to return to their country of
origin after a limited time period. With no concrete guarantee that
their status in the United States will be made permanent, there would
be few incentives for these workers to come out of the shadows. Indeed,
many would fear that taking such a step would jeopardize their ability
to continue to work in the United States, with the risk of being
separated from their families and livelihoods.
A realistic reform would recognize the contributions these
immigrants have made to the American economy and provide them with a
path to citizenship should they choose it. Legalization opportunities
should not be reserved only for Mexicans, but for workers of all
nationalities in similar circumstances. Such a policy would not only
address the problems of discrimination and abuse, which undocumented
workers face and which reverberates across the Latino community; it
would also address critical national security needs. The conventional
wisdom after 9/11 was that any program that granted legal status to
individuals who entered the U.S. by violating U.S. laws was simply out
of the question politically, particularly for a Republican
administration. And yet, that argument can be easily turned around.
Precisely because of the importance of security considerations it is
untenable for the U.S. to permit 7 million people to reside and work in
the country when their identities and status are not fully known. In
the name of national security as well as good immigration policy, the
U.S. should move regularize the status of individuals who have been
productive residents, working and living in the United States for some
time.
But, a temporary worker program with a clear timeline and no
specific limitations on size is also based on faulty premises if it
assumes that workers will come to the United States for a finite period
of time and then return to their homeland. If businesses are willing to
hire in the United States (despite legal restrictions barring them from
hiring undocumented migrants) and workers face the reality of
unemployment back home, they will continue to pursue employment
opportunities in this country. A mechanism for adjusting status is
essential for any temporary worker program.
It is also critical that workers in temporary worker programs be
fully covered by U.S. labor laws in order to avoid the abuses that
characterize current temporary worker programs in the agricultural
sector and their predecessors, including the infamous ``Bracero''
program instituted during World War II. Such a program cannot be open-
ended, but rather be limited in scope. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that
bipartisan legislation along the lines of the Hagel/Daschle proposal is
far better conceived to address these problems than the proposal
outlined by the President.
In concluding, I must return, however, to the thrust of my remarks
at the beginning of this testimony. Even the best conceived immigration
reform proposal will not solve the inexorable population and social
pressures that stem from the reality of contiguous societies with vast
differentials in living standards. Mexico will continue to export
workers to the United States as long as U.S. wage levels are higher and
jobs are available. Although this dynamic has beneficial aspects for
both countries as Mexico has available labor and the United States
increasingly needs additional labor, a fully open border that permits a
natural adjustment between the supply and demand of labor, as well as
goods and capital, will not be achieved until the fundamental
asymmetries between both countries is overcome.
The United States can no longer take Mexico for granted. While
managing the complex and broad agenda involving two nations with 400
million inhabitants, the United States must not lose sight of the fact
that Mexico is an essential partner that must successfully meet the
challenges of building democracy and creating a better life for its
citizens. That requires a U.S. foreign policy with vision that sees
Mexico in broad strategic terms and is willing to expend the energy and
resources to ensure that Mexico can become a partner on equal standing
on the North American continent.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, sir.
Let me start the questioning. We will once again have a 7-
minute. We will rotate. Hopefully, we will not tax the patience
of our witnesses by too lengthy an inquiry.
What you all have said is tremendously important. Dr.
Flynn, I noted three ideas here that are worth exploring. When
someone gets sick, people anticipate the person will come in
for treatment. We identify illness, as well as potential
epidemics, in this way. The suppression of that could be
ominous, leaving aside these overall macroeconomic or
immigration issues that we are talking about.
In our intensity of focus on security after 9/11, by the
hardening of the border regime, we may have led, if not quite
to the creation of a ``coyote'' industry, then certainly to an
increase in divisive means, quite apart from the transportation
and trucking anomalies. Sorting out how this is to be done is
critically important, because of all the side effects that come
with it.
An important implication of this hearing is that
immigration has to be looked at as important in terms of our
own security, given the nature of the war against terrorism,
whether it be al-Qaeda cells or allied situations, including
nongovernmental groups and very small groups of people. To the
extent that we do not know who is in our country, because
illegal immigrants are not identified correctly, we will have
an invisible population beyond our own law. Obviously such a
situation would create great hazards.
It seems to me that those three points, regardless of how
we come out on some other issues, really need to be felt by
each one of us in the Senate, and hopefully by the
administration.
Let me just say, Dr. Valenzuela, your opening comments are
an excellent tutorial on Mexico. Just the statistics themselves
are important for each one of us to understand, including the
dimensions of the population size, and the fact that Mexico is
the 11th largest country, with from 100 million to 110 million
people. Some would say that the figure you gave of 40 million
people in dire poverty it's even larger than 50 million or half
of the entire population of the country. Even then, with the
employed wage levels that approximate in terms of income--maybe
one-fifth, 20 percent, of the average wage levels and income in
our country--there is an enormous disparity.
To play the devil's advocate for a moment, some skeptics
about this kind of a hearing, and this kind of a dialog, might
wonder about this huge disparity, this huge population, of let
us just say 50 million people who are in dire poverty, in
hopeless condition, still dream of something happening in their
lives. The young ones want to make something happen for
themselves and their families. As a result, they take great
risks. Perhaps hundreds of thousands, maybe millions consider
migrating to the United States.
Regardless of how we structure our immigration policy with
regard to those who are now undocumented in our country quite
apart from those who may be on the way, whether it is a hard-
line policy or a soft-line policy and so forth, some Americans
would say, given the huge number of people and the huge amount
of hope that is here, the population of the United States is
likely to expand rapidly. Now, some would say, well, as a
practical matter, it will expand anyway. You are all sort of
missing the point that in fact these things happen. The
pressures are so great. We have witnessed this. You just sort
of cope with this.
The critics do have a point. In essence, how do we maintain
basic institutions in our country, whether they be public
schools under great pressure, hospitals or clinic facilities?
For example, in my State, during the last congressional recess
I recently visited another one of the Success for All programs
in innercity Indianapolis. There are a number of students who
are from Mexico, recently arrived. As a matter of fact, the
turnover in that particular school is 75 percent of the entire
student population in the past year. Even the Leave No Child
Behind program has a difficult time testing who was there last
year and whether there was progress, because a whole different
group of people are here this year. In a practical way, we must
face these problems.
The fact is that these students are learning English. They
are learning to read. A lot of good things are happening in
their lives. From a humanitarian standpoint, you are delighted
that that is the case, but you also see that the public school
system lacks money. The State of Indiana is running a $1
billion deficit. I suppose Connecticut does not have one that
big, but it may be bordering on this in terms of State support.
The situation in Indiana is not unusual for an innercity public
school system. Suddenly, there are many more young people who
are in the schools or in institutions.
One thing we have talked about today is, well, what can we
do with the prosperity for Mexico program that we talked about?
The comment was made, that, well, it is there but there is not
much emphasis by our government, quite apart from private
industry. From the Mexican side, there is sometimes great
suspicion. I deliberately mentioned PEMEX because I know that
this creates great vibes of difficulty. Mexico needs revenue
for their government to offer services, to have things that
they want to do.
If the United States and Mexico are such big friends, we
have to be in a position to be able to advise each other on how
to achieve better democratic institutions, and better economic
prosperity, if we are serious about changing the gap and
addressing the pressures that this puts upon immigration.
Otherwise, I suspect Senators will be having a hearing very
similar to this a decade from now, with a different group of
people, but with many of the same problems, which might indeed
by then be exacerbated by everything that has happened in the
previous 10 years.
In terms of a macropolicy, what advice can you give? Maybe
all of the above? That is, you do the prosperity project; you
try to be humane in immigration; you try to identify who is in
the country. Within the broad scope of this hearing, please
give us some more good counsel.
Dr. Valenzuela. Should I start?
The Chairman. Yes.
Dr. Valenzuela. Well, I tried to stress, Mr. Chairman, that
the key for us is to understand that the United States has
fundamental interests with Mexico, but we need to look at
Mexico from a strategic point of view and not just simply get
lost in the multiplicity of the issues of the bilateral
relationship.
What do I mean by look at it in a strategic way? We need to
understand that Mexico is going through a very complex
transition. It is a political transition that is not fully
complete. There are still a lot of questions about how Mexico
is going to address that. The first government in a long time
that has been fully democratically elected is now facing
significant difficulties. So Mexico is a country that is right
on our border, 100 million people. It is going through a
difficult process of transition. The United States cannot
ignore that.
Now, I happen to believe that the glass is half full not
half empty. I think that the progress that has been made in
Mexico is extraordinary. If you compare it with many other
places in eastern Europe and others that went from a one-party
state to a competitive democracy, it is really on the right
track. But it is in our fundamental interest to address the two
prongs I think of the relationship. One is the immigration
issue and the other one is the question of the asymmetries
between the two countries.
On the asymmetries between the two countries, the Mexicans
are correct when they point to the fact--how did the Europeans
handle this sort of thing? When they looked at the whole
process of European integration, they realized that there were
some countries that were significantly poorer than the other
countries and that it was in the interest of the Germans and
the French and the other countries in fact to bring the others
up. It is extraordinary what has happened to Spain and what has
happened to Portugal and what has happened to the other
countries.
I believe that Mexico really can become more competitive.
It has got huge challenges. Competition is the critical
challenge for Mexico. It has to become more competitive in the
international global environment of today. This means more
resources in infrastructure. It means resources in education.
It means more resources across the board.
And where are we with those sorts of things? With all due
respect, Mr. Chairman, if we can spend $87 billion on a project
of reconstruction in one part of the world, let us pay some
attention to our own hemisphere and the challenges that we face
in our own hemisphere.
The Chairman. Dr. Flynn.
Dr. Flynn. Mr. Chairman, I may point out one of the
unintended consequences of our struggle with our immigration
policy in terms of how it works and how our enforcement efforts
have sort of confounded it is that issue that you raised about
the illegal population putting pressure on these institutions.
What we know now, from watching this over time, is the case
that Senator Craig made. What we did in terms of 9/11 is we did
not just try to lock people out, we locked people in.
As the border has become harder and became harder
throughout the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, instead of
having seasonal labor, young men basically or middle-aged men
coming up, working a time, going home with their remittances
and basically that is where they want to live, that is where
they want to bring their fortune back, that the costs of
getting across the border got too high. So they had to bring in
their family because they could not go home. And then we put
the pressure on the social institutions that flow from that.
So it is not to say given the overall demographic trends,
given the paucity of economic opportunities, that this trend of
whole families moving across the border will not continue, but
it is clearly an outgrowth of our effort to harden the
enforcement here that has created the demand for bringing
dependents into the country and keeping them here even in many
cases when they prefer to go home, at least for portions of the
year. So that issue is intertwined. It is sort of narrower.
At a more macro level, I would raise this sort of basic
notion of moving beyond the border and the investment we are
making along the border is really the issue of transportation
infrastructure. There is little question that Mexico is
woefully behind in building the kind of transportation systems
it needs to have a fully integrated marketplace to make sure
those jobs can stay there and people can stay there and work.
There is an opportunity, I would suggest, under the notion
of security. If we build a big development in the
transportation areas we call intelligent transportation
systems, knowing where trucks are--we do this in our EZ Pass
designs and so forth. One of the opportunities is the 21st
Century Transportation Equity Act talks about building the
whole ports to plane corridor, the I-69 NAFTA highway. We
basically often stop at our own edge of our own border, and
then you get into very rugged sides on the other side. We can
imagine I think advancing an improvement of that
infrastructure, building a single inspection station. It does
not have to be at the border. Put it someplace where it makes
more sense, not at the base of a bridge or in a busy area, have
Canadian, Americans, and Mexicans working side by side, the
kind of thing you have at the base of the Chunnel on both sides
of the English Channel. You declare sovereignty where each
country can enforce their laws in one place. Then you start
getting out of sort of the small truck and other kinds of
industries that cause a lot of environmental damage, that are
not registered and so forth.
We can think more imaginatively if we are willing to do the
kinds of things of really putting a blank sheet on integration
and the opportunity that presents. We built our transportation
systems to go west, young man. They are east-west, both on the
Canadian and the U.S. side particularly. Now, our economic
relationships are increasingly pivoting on a north-south, but
none of the infrastructure has been adapting for that. That has
to happen even if we did not have security issues because of
the nature of where our economies are going, but when we build
new infrastructure, just like it makes a lot more sense to
build a home, handicap accessible, in its design instead of
trying to do it afterwards, we can basically begin to think
about how we can integrate these concepts of management within
those developments.
But we have to get out of this very narrow, prescriptive
and Balkanized approach to dealing with these issues within our
government and see these connections. I get frustrated seeing
the Department of Transportation efforts to improve this here
with no security link and then have now the new Department of
Homeland Security weigh in and introduced new requirements and
protocols that can upset the whole queuing and everything else
that is associated with the transportation side. It becomes
almost impossible. You get a 10-year environmental impact
statement process to develop upgraded facilities on the border,
but when the border is congested, you get mass pollution. We
need to take a fresh slate at really looking at the way in
which these zones are managed and look at how they are
integrated in the broader context and we need to do it now
because the stakes transcend even our security concerns. They
are really about this vital relationship that we should be
trying to advance.
The Chairman. Those are excellent suggestions.
Dr. Papademetriou.
Dr. Papademetriou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
respond to your question in three different ways: the things
that Mexico can best do primarily on its own, the things that
we can do and we should do primarily on our own, and then the
things that we need to do together.
We know the things that Mexico can do. They fall under the
overall rubric of good governance and that includes
improvements in terms of political governance. Arturo
Valenzuela has told us about some of the improvements that have
been made there and they are, indeed, phenomenal. There have
also been great improvements in terms of economic governance.
They are not ``there'' yet, but they are on the right path. And
then the third one is social governance. Here is where the
Mexican Government has an extraordinary difficult path and a
way to go yet.
The thing that we have to do better bu ourselves is to
really think about our laws, whether they are immigration laws
or labor laws. How good are they? What are we trying to
protect? Are they really accomplishing the things that we think
that they are, and should be, accomplishing? At no point in any
immigration reform proposal are we going to just sit back and
let immigration just happen. I do not think that even the
extremists often associated in a derisive way with the Wall
Street Journal viewpoint about open borders would at any point
suggest that we should just sit back and enjoy it. But we have
to have regulations that make sense and we have to implement
whatever it is that we write on the books. So if we need to
rewrite what we have on the books, let us do so.
Finally, there are things that the United States and Mexico
must do together. The Partnership for Prosperity is one of
them. But it will require significant investments on the part
of our government. Somebody has to lead. The private sector
will follow, and perhaps will be responsible for the lion's
share of investments over time. However, in the startup phase,
we are going to have to commit some money.
On migration, what we have to change is the expectations
that poor Mexicans have about opportunities in the United
States and, the calculation that they will make. The
calculation has to change from, my God, there is absolutely no
other alternative. I will take whatever chances are necessary,
including dying--and there are several hundreds of them dying
every year. I will pay ``coyotes'' or organized syndicates any
amount of money because I have got to make it to the other
side. The calculation only needs to change to something that
says, you know what? I hear that there are some opportunities
about to become available: a new factory is going up, the
educational system is getting better, and something is being
done with all of these remittances that we do not pay to much
attention to. That is $13 billion, $14 billion, $15 billion,
possibly $20 billion in remittances annually that goes back to
Mexico. We can also think perhaps of multiplying the affects of
those funds through smart kinds of investments. So, we have to
change the calculus at the level where decisions are made, and
the entire literature on migration tell us the decisions are
made at the level of the family or the household.
With regard to the security issue, we are fixated on the
border. If this was a budget hearing, you would have heard that
the President is asking for another half a billion dollars for
border-related security improvements. It is difficult to take
border and immigration spending out of the overall Department
of Homeland Security budget, but together, this part of the
Homeland Security budget is going to be over $10 billion.
I wonder often what would $300 million in strategic, smart
investments in Mexico per year might do and whether in the long
term--and I do not mean after we are all dead, but in the next
5 or 10 years--this kind of sustained investment might, indeed,
begin to make a difference in people's lives to the point where
the calculus at the individual and family level may change.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Very helpful.
Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, again for the
hearing.
As I am sitting here, I kind of regret we did not have you
come on first because I think invariably what happens with
second panels is the administration witnesses and others leave
the room. I think not only have we benefited from your
testimony, but I think the administration could have benefited
tremendously from hearing all three of you talk in ways in
which I think this hearing could be most instructive and
helpful. So I thank all three of you very, very much for your
ideas and thoughts.
Just a couple of my own as I was listening to you. I think,
Arturo, one statistic I do not think you shared with us is the
age of the Mexican population today. The number of people of
that 100 million who are under the age of 18. Do you recall
what that is? I know it is staggeringly high.
Dr. Valenzuela. That is correct. When you look at the
demographics of both countries, our concern over Social
Security and what is going to happen to the baby boomers and
who is going to pay for our retirement, who is going to be
working to cover that, it is being answered as we speak right
now by the movement of a younger labor force into the United
States.
Your comment also reminds me of the comment that Senator
Lugar made about school kids. There are a lot of immigrants who
come into the United States who may not have had much education
but who got their education also in Mexico. We are benefiting
from the fact that even if it was very, very poor or maybe very
inadequate, nevertheless, we have people who are bricklayers
and others who have substantial amount of training that they
have gotten elsewhere and we benefit from that as well.
Senator Dodd. Well, it is very important to note that
obviously. And the demographic explosion and the urbanization
of Mexico I think are too very important. We have a tendency to
look at this from a two-dimensional perspective, that is,
United States versus Mexico. Within Mexico itself, you are
watching the same phenomenon, that same calculus that a family
has made about taking the risk of crossing a border with all
the dangers inherent in that, have earlier made the decision to
leave Chiapas and these other areas and to move into the
greater Mexico City area, which I think has a population of
some 25 million, some number like that. It is a staggering
number. I think it is the largest city in the world or
certainly near the largest. So they are demonstrating already
their concerns about the ability to have much hope where they
are.
Getting beyond even just the immigration issue, we are
still unfortunately trapped in this--less so, but still trapped
with a paternalistic notion, the concessional idea that you
mentioned, Arturo. We fail yet to understand the critical
importance to us of the well-being of Mexico from both an
economic, political, and social standpoint. We have yet to
break through that, unfortunately. It is not just this
administration. It seems to be an inherent problem that goes on
year after year after year. Until you break that mentality to
some degree, it is awfully difficult to start talking about the
concepts that all three of you have raised here. Maybe we are
doing some of that here today.
I was a supporter of creating the Homeland Security office
and so forth. But I had great hesitations in my own mind--I may
have expressed them. I am not sure I did, but I wish I had if I
did not--about lumping all these agencies together. The very
fact that we have taken the INS and thrown it into a Homeland
Security office says volumes about where our heads are when it
comes to this issue. Instead of understanding immigration as
being a far more broad-based subject matter than the issue of
security--and I do not minimize the importance of security, but
putting it under that umbrella, then you look at this issue
through that prism. As you do, then your judgments are colored
in terms of how we deal with these larger questions. It ought
to be a basis of a bilateral relationship here.
I think certainly the asymmetrical points you make about
Europe. You mentioned Portugal. You mentioned Greece, Ireland
certainly. Look at what happened in Ireland. Today the most
expensive country in Europe and certainly the fastest growing
economically until recently was the Irish economy, the ``Celtic
Tiger,'' that just took off because there was an investment
made by the European community to do what? Exactly what Dr.
Flynn talked about, infrastructure, roads, transportation
networks and so forth, the Internet highway that made it
attractive for foreign investment to come in. They made
themselves appealing and thus are now making a contribution.
Ten years ago, 40,000 young people left Ireland every year
to come to the United States, or to go to England, to go to
France for their economic prosperity and future. That was their
calculus. Today Ireland has the problem of immigration coming
in. And it did not take long. It turned very quickly. Now,
there are differences obviously in a country of 4 million and a
country of 100 million with all the other issues. But
nonetheless, it is an example of what can happen when you
change the calculus and how things are looked at.
So I find myself sort of here we are, we are talking
remittances, which is a great thing. But it is as if somehow
the continuation of the remittance program was really the
ultimate answer here. Registering people and so forth. The
costs associated with that. Someone brought up the issue of
budgets. No one raised the issue and it is hard to do it here,
but just the cost of registering people and so forth instead of
going at the issue of how do you create economic growth to such
a degree that the calculus that the individual family makes is
going to be at least tempered by the fact that there may be
other opportunities.
I am tremendously grateful. I am glad I could stay around
and listen to the three of you share your thoughts. I would
like to figure out some way to make them available to people in
our own committee here. I know they are loaded with paper and
so forth. I know you look around. You do not see the number of
people here. But you have made a significant contribution to
this debate, and I am once again very grateful to the chairman
for elevating this debate and discussion.
I do not really have any questions unless you have any
final comments the three of you want to make. But I think you
have all brought very, very solid ideas to the table. I for one
am very, very grateful to hear them.
I want to invite you to our interparliamentary meeting. We
are going to be meeting in Mexico this year. I may be back in
touch with the three of you and see if there is not some
opportunity maybe for you to come and address this
interparliamentary group as well on some of these ideas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Dodd.
Apropos of your comment, it might be useful for us to circulate
to our members the statements of our witnesses so that they
might have the benefit of those. Their staffs may already have
made those available to members, but let's take an additional
precaution and re-distribute them, so that there may be an
opportunity to emphasize the remarks you have made. There will
be a full record of the dialog with the Senators who were
present at this committee hearing, and who were raising
questions or making comments to you.
We did have, at one point or another, by my count, 10
Senators in the hearing this morning.
Senator Dodd. Good.
The Chairman. That is significant. Ten percent of the whole
Senate at least was involved in this issue today. Perhaps they
appeared for only short periods of time, but nevertheless they
are sensitized to the important issues that we raised. I am
sure that we will raise these issues again.
We thank each one of you for the special care that you gave
in statements, as well as in your additional responses and
thoughts. They have been helpful to us, hopefully to our
administration, and to the dialog of the American people, who
have heard this hearing by other means. We thank you for
coming, and we look forward to inviting you again.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the committee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Responses of Hon. Roger F. Noriega to Additional Questions for the
Record Submitted by Senator Norm Coleman
Question 1a. Would you comment on the regularity with which the
U.S. raises concerns about the murders, particularly the Kiecker case,
and the apparent lack of adequate law enforcement at the local and
state level in Chihuahua?
Answer. Our Embassy in Mexico City and our Consulate General in
Ciudad Juarez have formally protested the treatment of Cynthia Kiecker
and raise her case at every opportunity. Senior officials of the
Department have also raised the matter with their Mexican counterparts
and will continue to do so.
With respect to the situation in Chihuahua, and particularly Ciudad
Juarez, involving the murders of women, we follow this issue closely
and have discussed the matter with officials of the Mexican Government,
including in conversations between Secretary Powell and Mexican Foreign
Secretary Derbez. The U.S. Government has provided training and
technical assistance in the past and stands ready to provide further
assistance.
Question 1b. President Fox has developed a federal response to this
crisis. Can you tell me what has been the result of this federal
attention and whether the U.S. is assisting in this effort?
Answer. President Fox has ordered the Federal Attorney General's
Office (PGR) to assist local authorities in bringing to justice those
responsible for these crimes. In June of last year, units of the
Federal Preventive Police were sent to Ciudad Juarez to reinforce the
local authorities. In August, a joint task force was created between
the PGR and the State Attorney General's office. In October President
Fox appointed a commissioner to coordinate the Mexican Federal
Government's participation in the case, and in January of this year the
PGR named a special prosecutor on the matter.
The Mexican Government claims that all this appears to have reduced
the incidence of murders of women in the city. The Mexican Government
has also advised that, while overall the investigations are still not
advancing as fast as they wish, of 328 cases involving murders of
women, 103 convictions have been obtained and arrest warrants have been
issued in another 27 cases.
We note that Mexico has been open to outside expert evaluation of
the problem and has invited numerous entities, including the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights Rapporteur on the Rights of Women, to visit Ciudad Juarez
to examine the situation.
Offers of technical assistance and training have been made to
Mexican law enforcement authorities by U.S. law enforcement authorities
and a working group has been formed with the Mexicans to facilitate the
provision of assistance. The U.S. Government funds and coordinates a
broad range of training, material, and technical assistance to Mexican
federal law enforcement agencies to increase their crime-fighting
capacities, including their ability to render assistance to Mexican
state and local law enforcement. We have offered to tailor technical or
other assistance to the PGR or to state and local police, if desired by
the appropriate Mexican authorities, to help them address the crimes in
the Ciudad Juarez area.
Question 2a. Can you please detail for me the types of law
assistance the U.S. provides to Mexico and any measurable results for
this aid?
Answer. In FY 2003, the United States Government, through the
United States Agency for International Development, provided assistance
related to rule of law and judicial reform in several key areas:
Served as the key advisor to the Mexican Presidency on the
development of the Justice Reform Package that President Fox
presented to the Mexican Congress on March 29, 2004;
Drafted a modern code of criminal procedures that serves as
a model and guide for the conversion of the Mexican criminal
justice system from a written to oral adversarial system; and
Advised on the creation of court-annexed mediation programs
in 10 states and provided training to over 150 mediators.
(Hundreds of civil cases ranging from commercial law to family
law were successfully mediated and demand is on the rise in
Mexico for this method of increasing access to justice.)
USAID support for the rule of law in FY 2004 will include
continuing to work with the Mexican Presidency, as well as federal and
state judiciary, public defense, and prosecutors, especially in the
Mexican states along the border, to carry out President Fox's planned
comprehensive overhaul of Mexico's criminal justice system. USAID is
assisting in this process, much as it did with the Civil Service Law,
by providing state of the art technical assistance to identify key
issues, exposing reform leaders and opponents to these issues and how
they are resolved in other countries, and sponsoring venues for
constructive dialogue among interested parties in Mexico, implementing
agencies from other countries, and international experts.
In FY 2004, USAID will also help seven more states set up court-
sponsored mediation centers to increase access to justice for
disadvantaged sectors of the population, support and advise human
rights NGOs that run treatment and legal aid centers for victims of
torture and human rights abuses, and advise on the creation of
certification standards, here-to-fore non-existent, for law schools and
lawyers.
Question 2b. What priority do we place on the rule of law program
in our overall assistance to Mexico?
Answer. We place a very high priority on rule of law programs in
Mexico and the Fox administration itself places a priority on key
structural reforms that will institutionalize the democratic change of
2000. On March 29 President Fox submitted a judicial reform package to
the Congress, a wide-ranging proposal to transform Mexico's legal
culture and judicial system.
At the Mexican Government's request, USAID helped develop this
judicial reform package, and USAID's highest priority democracy
activity is to assist with its passage and thereafter with
implementation at both the Federal and state levels.
The United States Government is the principal international donor
and key advisor supporting criminal justice reform. USAID assistance is
a key element of the U.S. Mission's law enforcement program closely
coordinated with other U.S. agency efforts in Mexico. Other USG
agencies (the Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security, and
the Department of Justice) are providing assistance to police and anti-
narcotics efforts.