[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 109-119]
U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER SECURITY--
NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES FOR THE ARMED SERVICES
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
AUGUST 2, 2006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
32-984 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Ninth Congress
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York LANE EVANS, Illinois
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
California SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri STEVE ISRAEL, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia RICK LARSEN, Washington
JEFF MILLER, Florida JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOE WILSON, South Carolina JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio TIM RYAN, Ohio
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota MARK E. UDALL, Colorado
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan
CATHY McMORRIS, Washington
MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
Robert L. Simmons, Staff Director
Jenness Simler, Professional Staff Member
Alex Kugajevsky, Professional Staff Member
Loren Dealy, Professional Staff Member
Brian Anderson, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2007
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, August 2, 2006, U.S. Southern Border Security--
National Security Implications and Issues for the Armed
Services....................................................... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, August 2, 2006........................................ 47
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2006
U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER SECURITY--NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS AND
ISSUES FOR THE ARMED SERVICES
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative from California, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Blum, Lt. Gen. H. Steven, Chief, National Guard Bureau, U.S. Army 13
Calhoon, Deputy Chief Patrol Agent Jeffrey A., Yuma Sector Border
Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 17
Hancock, Col. Ben D., Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air
Station, Yuma, U.S. Marine Corps............................... 15
Juan-Saunders, Hon. Vivian, Chairwoman, Tohono O'odham Nation.... 22
Pineda, Maj. Gen. Antonio J., National Commander, Civil Air
Patrol......................................................... 19
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Blum, Lt. Gen. H. Steven..................................... 53
Calhoon, Deputy Chief Patrol Agent Jeffrey A................. 61
Hancock, Col. Ben D.......................................... 58
Juan-Saunders, Hon. Vivian................................... 70
Pineda, Maj. Gen. Antonio J.................................. 67
Reyes, Hon. Silvestre........................................ 51
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted]
Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Questions submitted.]
U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER SECURITY--NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS AND
ISSUES FOR THE ARMED SERVICES
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, August 2, 2006.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1 p.m., in the
Officer's Club, Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Hon. Duncan
Hunter (chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. It's good
to be here in Yuma, and addressing a very critical, very
important challenge for America, and we have got a good
assembly of excellent witnesses and we look forward to the
testimony today and to the questions from the Members of the
Congress.
Before we do that, let me do one thing that I think is
appropriate at this time, and that is that I was really struck
last year when one of our great citizens, Yvonne Llanes, and I
hope--is that the correct pronunciation, Yvonne Llanes.
Ms. Llanes. Yes.
The Chairman. Who is the wife of the great Gunnery Sergeant
Llanes over here, had a very severe accident in a parking lot
here in Yuma, and saving her life was a team of Marines, some
retired, some active, and my wife Lynne and I had an
opportunity to be present when weeks later in the hospital, in
fact, one of the Marines came in with his family and saw--got a
chance to reunite with the lady whose life he'd helped to save.
And, I thought it might be fitting to introduce them at
this time, and I think Rick Van Curen is here, could you stand
when I introduce you? He's now a Detective, he's a former
Marine, now with the Department of Public Safety. Corporal
James Christian is here, and Corporal Howard Martin, and they
are standing next to Gunnery Sergeant Darrell Llanes, and, of
course, Yvonne. So, ladies and gentlemen, let's give some great
Marines, who have served this community so well.
Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today, and we hope
you have the endurance to stay for this entire hearing. We
really appreciate you, and I want to let you know that the
values that you learn as United States Marines, to see those
values manifested on the streets of Yuma, in an emergency
situation, was really, really heartwarming, I think, not just
to those of us who know about it from knowing the people, but
also all the people who read about it in the papers and saw the
incident on television.
I think to a large degree that has inspired thousands and
thousands of people, who when they see an accident, when they
see somebody who is in trouble, when they see a neighbor who
needs help, will move as quickly and as efficiently as you guys
did.
So, your next job is to go out and recruit some more
Marines, so that Gunny Sergeant Llanes can get his quota up
this month. Thank you very much, appreciate it.
The Committee on Armed Services meets this afternoon to
learn more about the complexity of providing border security
along the Southwestern Border and how current border security
challenges impact the United States armed forces, both active
duty and National Guard. This is precisely why we decided to
get out of Washington and hold today's field hearing at the
Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Arizona, and I think it's
clear now that Yuma is the focus of the entire country, because
of the central position it takes with respect to this very
important challenge.
The mission of the Air Station is to serve as one of the
Marine Corps' premium and premier aviation training bases. In
fact, the Air Station supports 80 percent of the Corps' air-to-
ground aviation training. What's more, virtually every Marine
Corps fixed wing squadron underwent pre-deployment training
here prior to going to Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, illegal aliens routinely impact the Air Station's
ability to perform its mission, by transiting the 2.8 million
acre Barry M. Goldwater bombing and aviation training range,
disrupting training operations, and I first learned about this
several years ago while asking how the operations were going,
and being told that they were being shut down intermittently
because of folks who were moving through the range, and because
of the safety implications of those excursions. The range runs
along the U.S.-Mexican border for nearly 40 miles. The flow of
illegal aliens is substantial--imposing real financial and
readiness costs.
The National Guard is experiencing an additional impact of
border security challenges. As you very well know, the
President announced a five point immigration reform initiative
in a nationally televised address on May 15th. One of those
five points, and the most important in my view, is securing the
border. To do that, the administration plans to increase the
number of Border Patrol agents from about 12,000 to about
18,000, and make greater use of barriers and high tech
surveillance on the border.
But until Border Patrol has the necessary personnel,
training, and infrastructure, the President has asked the
National Guard to step in and provide assistance. Today, we'd
like to get an operational update on the troops deployed to the
southern border, particularly in the Yuma sector. How has the
partnership between National Guard and Border Patrol worked so
far? What success has this partnership borne? What impediments
has the National Guard or Border Patrol identified to ensuring
the success of this activity and how might you address such
impediments?
Yesterday, the Committee held a hearing on a similar
subject at Selfridge Air National Guard Base outside of
Detroit, Michigan. The Northern Border is very challenging in
terms of geographical size, terrain, and the volume of commerce
passing between the U.S. and Canada. In fact, it's remarkable
to look at that massive waterway and also the major bridges,
where you have extraordinary traffic, and I thought we had
extraordinary traffic between the U.S. and Mexico, but Canada
does, in fact, have a very high volume of commercial traffic.
Yet, although the U.S.-Mexican border is smaller by some
2,000 miles than the border between the United States and
Canada, but that notwithstanding:
The southwest border exceeds the northern border by nearly
300 percent with respect to the volume of travelers crossing
it. On average, the southwest border accounts for over 94
percent of all illegal alien apprehensions each year. As a
result, the Border Patrol currently deploys 90 percent of their
agents along the border with Mexico and deploys a greater
amount of technology.
Yet, despite the fact that 90 percent of the Border
Patrol's agents are stationed along this border, the
partnership with the National Guard reinforces a point that we
can all agree on--the Border Patrol can't do it alone.
Today, we would like to hear how other, less traditional
organizations such as the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) or Yuma's
neighbors to the east, the Tohono O'odham Nation, might be able
to assist in the effort. What issues does each organization
face regarding policy, planning, resourcing, and contributing
to border security?
This is an important topic, one that I have been following
since the very start of my own career. I am grateful and
enthusiastic to be able to learn more about this subject today.
Thank you to the fine men and women here at the Marine Corps
Air Station who have made this event possible.
We are very grateful for being hosted here, and I am also
pleased to introduce our panel in a few minutes. I think we
have assembled witnesses that will provide more than simply
routine perspectives on this issue. And, before I introduce
them, I would also like to thank the Members of the Committee
who have traveled from their home districts to be with us today
as we further explore this important topic.
Mr. Butterfield, thank you for joining us in Michigan and
for staying with us as we traveled here today, far from your
home in North Carolina. And, Mrs. Drake, you win the prize for
endurance for traveling from Virginia Beach this morning for
the hearing and returning home to your district this evening.
So, you are going to get some air miles today. We are
fortunate to have an outstanding Member from Arizona on the
Committee, Mr. Trent Franks, and a Member from my home state of
California also on the Committee, Mr. Ken Calvert. And to our
colleague from the full House, whose district we are in, Mr.
Grijalva, welcome, sir, and thank you for being with us today
also. Your constituents here have been every bit as
accommodating as the folks in Michigan.
And finally, I know that my good friend, Silvestre Reyes,
who is the great Chief of the Border Patrol in El Paso, and the
author of the operation entitled, ``Hold the Line,'' is not
with us today, Silvestre really wanted to be here, but
Silvestre had a very interesting experience in El Paso before
he became an outstanding Member of Congress, and that is that
one day he decided to stop illegal immigration, and he did it
without orders or permission from Washington, D.C., and he
forward deployed all of his Border Patrol agents and, in fact,
they held the line for a number of weeks in El Paso.
And, in talking to some of the Immigration officials in
Washington, D.C., the impression I got was that they were just
about ready to court martial Chief Reyes, and then they saw the
people applauding, because after about a day and a half the
auto theft rate in El Paso dropped by 50 percent, and all of a
sudden the people were applauding, and Chief Reyes, instead of
getting court martialed, got the Bronze Star instead.
So, for all you Marines, you know, sometimes there's a thin
line between a court martial and a Bronze Star. Chief Reyes is
an extraordinarily courageous gentleman and a great Member of
Congress on the Democrat side of the aisle, and I wish he could
be here with us today, but he's not here, and he's been to
Afghanistan and Iraq about 12 times, so really an extraordinary
record, but Mr. Butterfield has got his statement, we will
enter that, Mr. Butterfield, into the record.
Mr. Butterfield. I think he wanted me to read it, would
that be in order?
The Chairman. Absolutely. In fact, we will ask Mr.
Butterfield to read Chief Reyes' statement.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
The Chairman. But, first let me introduce our witnesses and
then we will go down the line, and we will take his statement
first.
Mr. Butterfield. All right.
The Chairman. Our witnesses today are Lieutenant General
Steven Blum, who is the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
Thank you, General, you have got a lot of irons in the fire.
You have got almost 350,000, by gosh, I rode out with you, I
better get it right, about 342,000 Army National Guardsmen
deployed, as well as lots of Air National Guard deployed, in
the war fighting theaters.
At the middle of that, you had to send a lot of people,
which you did very quickly and very effectively, to Katrina,
the biggest natural disaster in our history. You are
responding, literally, all over the world to military
challenges and in this country as well, and now you have been
tasked to assist the Border Patrol and the Department of
Homeland Security on the border.
So, you are a gentleman with a lot of missions, and we
greatly appreciate you being with us today.
Colonel Ben D. Hancock is a Commanding Officer, Marine
Corps Air Station, Yuma, United States Marine Corps. Colonel
Hancock, thank you for hosting us today, always good to be with
you, and we always enjoy your presence. And, Congressman Rick
Renzi also sends his hello to you from another part of Arizona,
he hopes he can get together with you soon.
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent Jeffrey A. Calhoon, of the Yuma
Sector Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security, thank you, Chief, for being
with us, we appreciate you.
And, Major General Antonio J. Pineda, National Commander of
the Civil Air Patrol, who recently had been engaged in flying
the border. In fact, a number of folks may know my brother
John, who saved people from dying in the desert by putting out
water, and has done that studiously and with great exertion
over the last many years, has very, very much applauded the
fact that the Civil Air Patrol is out doing patrols on the
border, so that these folks that come across when the Coyotes
tell them that the road is only two miles to the north, and it
is 20 miles to the north.
Pretty soon they are staggering around out in the desert,
and when the Border Patrol gets to them quickly enough they
save their lives, but having the Civil Air Patrol out there,
where they can radio in to the Border Patrol when they see
people out there, is, I think, a really excellent use of the
Border Patrol, and I have talked to some of your people, we
look forward to your testimony, but thank you for
participating.
And, Chairwoman Vivian Juan-Saunders, Tohono O'odham
Nation, is that a correct pronunciation, ma'am? Well, thank you
for being with us.
Another thing that I'd like to do, and I need to do so that
Representative Grijalva can ask questions, is simply ask
unanimous consent that Representative Grijalva be allowed to
participate with us and just ask questions in the regular
order. So, without objection, so ordered, and, Mr. Grijalva,
you are very much welcomed to the Committee, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. So, at this time, what I'd like to do is to
ask our Members of the Committee if anybody would like to make
a statement. I have already made my statement, I'd like to ask
Representative Butterfield if he would like to at this time
read Silvestre Reyes' statement.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Let me first join the Chairman in thanking the witnesses
for coming forward this afternoon to give us your testimony.
This is a very important day in the life of this Committee, and
what you have to say to us this afternoon will be very
valuable. So, thank you, thank you very much.
I represent the 1st District of North Carolina. I have only
been in Congress for two years, and so this is a learning
experience for me, and so I look forward to what you have to
say.
We were in Michigan yesterday, and I learned so much, and,
hopefully, we will do the same today.
It is good to see my friend to my left, he and I serve in
Congress together, he's been a great friend and a great leader
to me since I have joined the Congress.
But, I have come today to read a statement from Mr. Reyes.
I am going to read it very quickly. It is about three pages,
but he feels very passionately about this, and so I am going to
read it and try to read it as verbatim as I can.
``Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to take part
in this afternoon's hearing on border security and its
implications for America's armed services. I also appreciate
our panel of witnesses joining us today.
As you know, this hearing is one in a series scheduled by
the House Republican leadership for the months of July and
August on border security and immigration. I maintain that
these hearings are more about politics than policy, and that
the American people would be far better served if Congress was
instead working to reach a compromise on meaningful border
security and immigration legislation.
However, as a 26 year veteran of the United States Border
Patrol and a Member representing a congressional district on
the U.S.-Mexico border, I believe I have a responsibility to
share my experience with my colleagues, with the hope that
almost five years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Congress
and the Administration will finally do what needs to be done to
secure our borders and keep America safe.
With that being said, I would like to touch on an issue of
great importance to our national security, and that is the
readiness levels of our military and particularly of the Army
and the National Guard. The Guard has been doing exceptional
things for this country. They have valiantly answered every
call, and I know that they will continue to perform admirably
and with great courage in the future.
I am concerned, however, that we are handicapping their
other efforts by charging them with this border security
mission. I am also troubled by the potential for degraded unit
readiness and shortages of equipment and personnel, which could
affect the ability of the National Guard to fulfill its mission
now and in the future. I look forward to hearing from General
Blum, in particular, on these important issues.
We also need to be mindful of the fact that to fund this
new Guard mission, $1.9 billion has been redirected from other
defense spending priorities. Of course, we would not be in this
unfortunate situation if Congress had been adequately funding
the Border Patrol, which is the agency charged with securing
our Nation's borders, at the necessary levels over the years.
Since coming to Congress, I have consistently lobbied my
colleagues for greater resources for border security, including
additional Border Patrol agents, equipment, and technology;
more immigration inspectors and judges; and thousands of new
detention beds so we can end the absurd practice of catch-and-
release of other-than-Mexicans, or OTMs, once and for all.
Yet in every instance, the President and the leadership in
Congress have failed to deliver these necessary resources.
Congress is already 800 Border Patrol agents and 5,000
detention beds short of just what was promised in the 9/11 Act.
Clearly, almost five years after the terrorist attacks, the
Administration and Congress have a lot of work still to do.
In response to our Nation's border security concerns, some
people, including my good friend from California, Mr. Hunter,
have suggested that we should construct several hundred or even
thousands of miles of border fencing. I respectfully disagree.
When I was Chief of the El Paso Sector of the Border
Patrol, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, that limited, strategic
border fencing can be an essential tool for curbing illegal
entries in densely populated, urban areas of the border region.
Since being elected to Congress almost a decade ago, I have
supported Mr. Hunter's efforts to facilitate the construction
of a border fence in the San Diego area.
Unfortunately, however, there are no one-size-fits-all
solutions for border security, and that is why I oppose the
730-mile border fence provision included in the House-passed
border security bill, as well as proposals for a nearly 2000-
mile fence to run the entire length of the U.S.-Mexico border.
In communities with large numbers of people in close
proximity to the border where there would otherwise be
thousands of illegal entries per day, it makes sense to
construct and maintain a physical barrier at the border. On the
other hand, it is simply not worthwhile to build fencing
through remote desert and other areas of tough terrain, where
the number of attempted entries is comparatively much lower.
Instead of building 700 miles of fence at an estimated cost
of $2.2 billion--an estimate that many believe to be very, very
low--we should invest that money in the personnel, equipment,
and technology that will provide a meaningful solution to our
border security concerns. For example, that amount of money
would be enough to recruit, train, equip, and pay the salaries
of enough new agents to double the current size of the Border
Patrol.
Not only would construction costs of a 700-mile fence be
exorbitant, but to guard and maintain hundreds of miles of
fencing often in remote areas would be a nightmare for the
Border Patrol in terms of cost, personnel, and logistics.
Furthermore, depending on the geography of an area, a wall can
actually be a hindrance to the Border Patrol as they attempt to
monitor who or what may be coming at them from the other side.
Also, all of the walls in the world would do nothing to
address the somewhere between 30 and 60 percent or so of those
currently in this country illegally who, like the 9/11
attackers, actually came to the U.S. legally on some kind of
visa or through other legitimate means, and overstayed.
Instead, in these more remote areas our limited border
security resources would be much better spent on additional
personnel, equipment, and technology such as sensors to create
what is often referred to as a virtual fence. A virtual fence
could also be implemented more quickly and therefore could help
us gain operational control of our borders sooner.
This approach is preferred by the Border Patrol. Congress
needs to listen to their advice in these matters, since they
are the ones with the boots on the ground in the border region
and are the real-world experts in border security. A wall is
not a panacea; there is much more that needs to be done to help
keep America safe.
With that, I look forward to hearing from the other Members
joining us today, as well as having the opportunity to talk to
our witnesses about these issues.''
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, these are the remarks of my
colleague, Mr. Reyes, and I thank you for your patience to
allow me to read it into the record.
The Chairman. Oh, certainly.
Mr. Butterfield. And, I ask that--and also would like to
associate myself with these comments, and ask that the
statement be included.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes can be found in the
Appendix on page 51.]
The Chairman. Certainly, the comments will be taken into
the record, and I can understand now why my old friend,
Silvestre Reyes didn't want to personally come to deliver
those, he didn't want to hear me tell him he was wrong, but I'm
going to put him down as undecided.
Mr. Grijalva, do you have a statement you'd like to make?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Please, proceed, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Very briefly, and thank you, and thank my
colleagues on the dias for the opportunity to be engaged in
this particular hearing. I appreciate it very much.
Colonel, thank you, and the fine men and women under your
command, for their hospitality, logistics and support they have
given to each of us individually, our staffs, and to this
hearing, appreciate that very much. This hearing has a narrow
focus, and I think the fine witnesses we will hear from today,
we need to hear their perspectives, get the information from
them, and that's appreciated.
But, I think I'd like to begin, if I may, sir, with the
obvious, we have a dysfunctional and a broken immigration
system, and the corresponding pressures that it places on all
sectors of our Nation, not just our armed forces, not just our
Border Patrol, not just the Native American communities that
happen to be in the border, and four of those I represent in
this district, but also the economic pressures that it's
placing on our country, and the economic dependency that we
have on this issue, the human factors, and I want to thank the
Civil Air Patrol for the humanitarian work that they do on this
issue. Four or 500 people die every year in District 7, and
it's a tragedy, and thank you for what you do on that issue.
The political pressures that it places, and I want to
associate myself with the comments that Congressman Reyes made,
we should be about the business of crafting a workable,
sustaining and fair resolution and solution to the issue of
immigration, immigration reform, security and enforcement.
This issue, not only for myself, but I hope for everyone in
this dias has been a complex, taxing, and all-encompassing
issue. I would hope, I sincerely hope, that as we go through
these hearings across this country that the objective is not to
further divide, the objective is not to further harden
positions, and that the objective is not to marginalize people,
that the objective is to be secure, enforce the law, and at the
same time come up with a solution that is workable, that
involves earned legalization, and a guaranteed secure access to
a work force.
We are in a unique community here. I am very proud to
represent the border. Yuma lives on the border, its people work
on the border, the interaction. I understand the focus today
but I would have liked to hear from people in this community to
talk about the economic realities, the cost realities, the
human toll realities. I would have liked to hear from Lorena
Magana about her perspective as a person involved in this
issue. I would have liked to hear from Paul Mulhardt about the
western grower association and what that issue means to the
economy and the reality of this area.
We are not going to hear that but I think as we begin to
try to craft common ground, sensible solutions in the future--
and I hope we get to that point. I sincerely do and I pray we
do--that we will hear from these people and that they will be
part and parcel of crafting something realistic, something fair
and, as I said before, something sustainable.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and thank you for the
time.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. We will go to the
gentlelady who has traveled from Virginia and is going back
this very day to make an appearance at this important session,
the gentlelady from Virginia Thelma Drake. Thank you for being
with us. That is a long haul.
Ms. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you, first, for having the meeting for House Armed Services
Committee to come and to talk about the issues, to see what is
happening here. The district that I represent in Virginia is
bordered on the east by the Atlantic ocean so it is completely
different than the issues you face here in Arizona. That is why
it is important for us to come to hear your testimony, to see
members of the public who are here.
Even though Virginia is not a border state, the issue of
immigration is the top issue that I'm contacted by our
citizens. I have had over 4,000 either e-mails, phone calls,
letters in the year and a half that I have served in Congress.
I think that shows you just a slice of how important this is to
our nation, what a challenge the issue of immigration is. I
believe first and foremost the role of government is to protect
our citizens, defend our nation, and border security is
certainly top on that.
I thank the panel for being here and look forward to your
testimony as we continue to have this discussion across
America. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Drake. Nobody does a better
job on our committee. I know you have a lot of folks in Iraq
and Afghanistan and lots especially Navy and Marine personnel.
I know this is a diversion from your regular duties but an
important thing and thanks for coming. Appreciate it.
Ms. Drake. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks, has
been an outstanding member of the Committee. Thank you, Trent,
for being with us and the floor is yours, sir.
Mr. Franks. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Am I on here?
The Chairman. You are on now.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I think that is
deliberate on somebody's part.
Let me just first say I want to express my own appreciation
to you for your presence here. I think it is an indication of
not only your understanding of the intrinsic connection between
border security and national security, but it is also a
statement on your part that you care about this state as the
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. It is a rare
privilege to have someone of that stature in our state and we
appreciate it very, very deeply.
That said, I believe it is appropriate that the Armed
Services Committee would be here on this particular issue
because, as Thelma Drake so eloquently said, the first purpose
of the Federal Government is to defend this nation against all
external enemies. We live in a day where our traditional
equation of defense has changed significantly since terrorists
have become so prominent in our thinking.
Not so long ago the Cold War focused on an enemy that we
understood their capability and it was very significant but
their intent was still in question. We, in a sense, placed our
security to some degree in their sanity. Today we face an
entirely different equation with terrorism that we understand
their intent all too well and it becomes our preeminent to
responsibility to interdict and prevent their capability.
Consequently, I believe that Armed Services Committee being
here to consider the issues related to border security and how
it affects our national security are very simply. Terrorists
would like nothing better than to exploit our porous border to
the end that they might do us irrefutable kind of harm.
If terrorists were able to obtain a nuclear weapon from
some malevolent source and were able to detonate, say, a
nuclear weapon in one of our major cities, all of the
discussion here would change completely. All of the ancillary
issues would essentially be out of our mind and we would be
focused on making sure that we protected our border against
such terrorist incursion in the first place.
But at that point our markets would be damaged. Maybe tens
of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans would be
dead, and our concept of weapon would be changed forever. We
live in those golden hours, I believe, when there is time to
prevent all of that. I think, as I say, very appropriate that
this group of people has come together for the expressed
purpose of making sure that we do.
I especially want to thank the National Guard and their
presence here because it is very appropriate that the National
Guard should guard the Nation and we appreciate you being here.
Mr. Chairman, again, I just am grateful for your presence here
and for making this all happen. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Franks.
Mr. Calvert is a great member of the Committee and, Ken,
thank you for coming down from Riverside. The floor is yours.
Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted
to very quickly thank the United States Marine Corps for
hosting us here today and thank the witnesses. I want to hear
their testimony. On the way over here I was able to fly over
the All American Canal which we are going to be mining shortly
which will help conserve water. And I went over here to the
Yuma Desalter which you remember back in our younger days when
they talked about building that and we are going to be firing
that up again pretty soon. You have a nice day here in Yuma. I
want to thank the people here in Yuma for hosting this.
I also want to thank my friends in the Marine Corps. I get
to represent Camp Pendleton which is a little cooler than Yuma
but the Marines here are fantastic and the military is doing a
great job. I am just happy to be here and listen to our
witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
Let me just set the stage as we start out with General Blum
because a great deal of what the National Guard is going to be
doing, and is doing, is assisting with fence construction and
fence repair. The border fence is associated with San Diego. I
think it is important to tell the story of that fence.
Before we built the fence in San Diego, we have a 14-mile
double fence there, we had what was described as a no-man's
land. It was a place where armed gangs and many of them with
automatic weapons would rob, rape, and murder mostly the
illegal aliens coming across the border at night. It was a
place that was so bad that Joseph Wambaugh, the best-selling
author, wrote his book Lines and Shadows about the attacks that
took place there in the evening as the drug people and the
smugglers of people moved vast numbers of contraband across
that border.
In fact, it was so bad that the San Diego police force had
an undercover group led by Sergeant Lopez who dressed as
illegal aliens and they would wait for these armed gangs to
attack them and at that point they would have a conflict and
perhaps have an arrest or an armed confrontation.
When we built the double fence we completely eliminated the
drive-through drug trucks. We had 300 drug trucks a month
streaming across bringing cocaine to America's children and we
stopped those cold. We stopped the average of 10 murders a year
and the countless rapes and attacks that took place on that
border cold.
The reason we were able to stop them was because in putting
the double fence up we took away the one thing that the border
gangs needed to survive which was transborder mobility. In the
old days if they were pursued by the border patrol from the
north, they would go south and they would be safe.
If they were pursued by Mexican authorities from the south,
they would go north, they would step over the line and they
would be safe from them. So when we built the double fence we
took their mobility away and we put them out of business and we
saved lots of lives and we saved the tranquility not only of
the southern neighborhoods of San Diego County, but also the
northern Tijuana neighborhoods benefitted from that double
fence.
Now, similarly we eliminated or we reduced by over 90
percent the smuggling of narcotics and people across that 14-
mile smugglers corridor. When we did that, that was the most
prolific smuggler's corridor in America. Lots of people talked
about lots of ways to bring order to that part of the border
but we never brought it until we built the border fence.
Now, what a smuggler has to do to get across the San Diego
double fence is he has to cross the first fence. He has to then
go across a wide border patrol, a high-speed border patrol
road. He then has to sit down with his welding gear in plain
site on the American side of the border and cut a hole. It
takes quite a while to do that. If people are around and if
they have sensors and if they see and if the border patrol is
on the job, which it is, they are not successful at doing that.
Today we live in a post-9/11 world. We live in a world
where over 155,000 of the people that we interdicted last year
on this border coming across from Mexico weren't from Mexico.
They came from every country in the world including 1,100 of
them from Communist China including people from North Korea,
including people from Iran. We have discovered that people have
television sets around the world and they have discovered that
the way to get into the United States illegally now is not to
come across or not to come into Los Angeles (LA) International
Airport anymore as they sometimes used to do in the old days.
It is to come across the land border between the United
States and Mexico. Together with that we now have a population
of a quarter million criminal aliens. Those are people who have
robbed, raped, murdered, committed crimes against people and
against property in the United States and they are serving time
in Federal penitentiaries who come from other countries of the
world. Some of them are very dangerous gangs, so-called MS13s,
for example. Some of them coming from countries that won't even
take them back.
As we talk about fine tuning an immigration bill that may
in some way solve immigration problems with respect to Mexico
and the United States, it is clear today that is not the end of
the problem. There are people that want to come to the United
States to do harm to American citizens who don't want a job,
who don't come from Mexico, and who don't have any interest in
what type of legislation we may be passing with respect to
immigration.
I think one thing is clear and I think it has been accepted
by both major political parties, and that is we need to know
two things in this country with respect to the border. We need
to know who is coming across, who it is, and what they are
bringing with them.
We don't have that ability today and our experience in San
Diego when we use almost 75 percent of the entire border patrol
for the Nation when that was the most prolific smuggler's
corridor in America, our experience is that once we built the
double fence, we were able to pull border patrol off that area,
off that section of the border because the double fence
leverages your personnel and allows you to patrol the border
without having to have the thousands and thousands and
thousands of people who otherwise if you had to have only a
manpower system, only a so-called virtual fence would work.
The other aspect, and my friend Silva Reyes mentioned a
virtual fence, and we are going to want our witnesses to
comment on that, but in the old days when we would have 2,000
people rush across the border at a given time and maybe 25 or
26 border patrol agents would catch 25 or 26 people and the
other 975 out of the 1,000 would make it across the border and
disappear up the freeway, that made us realize that simply
having sensors or bells that rings or whistles that go off or
TV stations that you can monitor doesn't solve the problem.
If you have a virtual fence, which is recommended by some
people, you have to have responders and you have to have
responders in large number. For example, for the thousands of
people who came across in those massive transits on a given
signal, you would have needed thousands of border patrol agents
at one place at one time and we didn't have them.
I think the case is being made that it is appropriate to
have a fence across the southern border. Beyond that the
National Guard is not just building fence. They've got some
people that are dedicated to that but they are doing lots of
other things. To those ends we have focused this hearing on how
the Department of Defense, but particularly the National Guard,
can assist in border enforcement.
We have General Blum with us today. It is interesting to
travel with this gentleman because his eyes are on Iraq,
Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, lots of other places around
the world and lots of issues. He has taken time from that
important focus to focus on this southwest border of the United
States.
General Blum, thank you for your service to America. Thanks
to everybody that wears the uniform of the United States and
particularly your folks in the National Guard. Tell us how the
National Guard is supporting border enforcement.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. STEVEN BLUM, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD
BUREAU, U.S. ARMY
General Blum. Thank you, Chairman Hunter. Members of the
Committee, thank you as well. It is my honor to come here today
and discuss the most recent mission for the National Guard.
The Chairman. Pull that mic a little closer if you could,
sir.
General Blum. As you mentioned, Chairman Hunter, we are
doing a lot of things around the world but nothing is more
important that defending our nation here at home. The President
and the Secretary of Defense have most recently tasked your
National Guard to assist civilian authorities, in this case
Customs and Border Protection Agency, to increase the security
along our nation's borders. The National Guard's mission is not
a military operation per se.
It is a military support operation to Federal and civilian
law enforcement. The lead agency for this, the supported agency
is the Customs and Border Protection Agency. The National Guard
will perform a myriad of tasks to enhance the capability of the
Customs and Border Protection Agency to do their job more
effectively. The National Guard will not be performing a law
enforcement function.
We will not do the Customs and Border Protection Agency's
law enforcement job. We will do lots of military skill jobs
that will free other law enforcement agents to do their job
more effectively. We will provide the eyes and ears for the
Customs and Border Protection Agency. We will help them with
what they call tactical infrastructure which are fences, roads,
barriers, lights, sensors, and other impediments to illegal
traffic.
We are not militarizing our border. We are not trying to
close our border. We are trying to secure our border from the
illegal activity that you and your committee has alluded to so
far. We see this National Guard participation as just one facet
of the President's five point comprehensive immigration
program. We are certainly not the solution.
We are part of the solution supporting an agency that is
also part of the solution. Even the Customs and Border
Protection Agency efforts is just a part of a larger
comprehensive plan that has to deal with this complex problem
of illegal activity in immigration. We are not trying to stop
immigration. We are trying to control the legal aspects of it.
We see this as a temporary mission. The Department of
Defense has agreed to support the Department of Homeland
Security and provide the guard to do this for up to two years.
The first year the President has said very clearly that there
will be up to 6,000 National Guardsmen, Army and Air, along the
southwest border of this nation in support of this operation.
This morning I am pleased to say the President would like
us to reach the 6,000 mark by the first of August. We exceeded
that. We will ramp down very soon to 6,000 but today we have
about 6,200 National Guard Army and Air citizen soldiers from
30 states around our nation that are in the states of
California, Arizona, and New Mexico and Texas in support of the
Customs and Border Protection Agency.
This is not a new mission for the National Guard. Those of
you that live along the southwest border, as you alluded to,
Chairman Hunter, was the California Guard that significantly
contributed to the construction and the establishment of those
double barrier fences and roads that you talked about that are
so effective in San Diego sector.
We will do some of that work here. That will represent
perhaps 25 percent of our total effort from California to
Texas. The Yuma sector where we are today represents part of
the main effort between Tucson and Yuma. Customs and Border
Protection have asked us to weigh our effort on the Arizona
sector so we have done that. About 40 percent of the force that
we have deployed to the southwest border is here in Arizona.
About 50 percent of the troops that are in the Yuma sector,
almost half, will be doing something called entry
identification team work which will be increasing the eyes and
ears of the Customs and Border Protection Agency. The first
group that is in here is largely made up of soldiers from North
Carolina and Virginia. I already have good reports back from
Deputy Chief Calhoon that these are seasoned experienced
soldiers.
Many have done this exact type of work on the borders in
Afghanistan and in Iraq. They are not neophytes to this type of
work and they will be hugely helpful in expanding the eyes and
ears of the Customs and Border Protection Agency.
Our military readiness is a concern for all of us,
especially those on your committee, sir, and those in the
Pentagon. I give you my professional assurances that the
military readiness of the National Guard will not be degraded
by this mission. As a matter of fact, a very strong argument
could be made that it will enhance the readiness of these units
that are doing these type of operations, not only here at home
but overseas.
It will give them real training and the training will have
a lasting operational goodness and enduring positive effect on
the Customs and Border Protection Agency. It won't be training
for training sake. It will be actually routine training for us
that contribute significantly to the capabilities of the
Customs and Border Protection Agency.
The mission will be executed as a state and Federal
partnership as I think it should be. The National Guard will be
in U.S. Code Title 32 status which, for those of you in the
room that don't know exactly what that means, it means that the
troops will use Federal equipment. They will use National Guard
units that are completely 100 percent funded and resourced.
The pay and allowances and the operation and maintenance
costs of this operation will be borne by the Federal Government
in the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland
Security. There will be no cost put on the backs of the
southwest border states or the states that come in to assist in
this mission. This will all be underwritten by the Federal
Government.
What we have here are Federal resources applied against a
Federal mission in support of a Federal law enforcement agency
that has the rightful job of protecting the border. Yet, the
flexibility is there between the president and the governors to
let the governors command and control the military forces that
are operating within their state to accomplish this mission. To
me it's a model for the way we should be doing business here in
the United States of America when it comes to homeland defense
and support the homeland security.
It is important to also note that this mission will not
impair our ability to respond to natural disasters, terrorist
events, hurricanes, or any wildfires, flooding, or all the
other myriad of normal activities that the Guard gets called
out to do by their governors. For instance, a perfect example
is many of the soldiers that are in the El Paso sector this
morning have been diverted from their border patrol assistance
mission to assist with saving lives and evacuating people in
the recent flooding that is going on in the El Paso district.
As soon as that abates, they will go right back to their
Customs and Border Protection Agency operation. This is a
prudent use of the force and it doesn't put American citizens
or the ability for governors to defend and protect their
citizenry with their National Guard at risk.
Once again, your National Guard has been called on for the
security of this nation and once again we will answer that
call. We have successfully delivered on time and ahead of
schedule 6,000 National Guardsmen to support Customs and Border
Patrol. We are working California, Arizona, New Mexico, and
Texas. This is a mission your National Guard can do. It is a
mission your National Guard should do and we can do it well. I
look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Lt. Gen. Blum can be found in
the Appendix on page 53.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, General.
Colonel Hancock, thank you for hosting us. The floor is
yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF COL. BEN D. HANCOCK, COMMANDING OFFICER, MARINE
CORPS AIR STATION, YUMA, U.S. MARINE CORPS
Colonel Hancock. Chairman Hunter, distinguished members of
the Committee, Marine Corps Station, Yuma, Arizona, it is my
pleasure to be here today to appear before you and discuss this
vital issue for the Marine Corps, Department of Defense, and
our nation.
Marine Corps Station, Yuma, is encouraged to operate to
avoid security problems. They have also found some success in
addressing these issues. My goal today is to discuss these
issues and successfully have achieved a date. There were
concerns and few solutions. I just want to address this form
here, it was authored by the United States Marine Corps for use
by all Armed Services and some foreign services as they trained
marines. Currently there are no physical barriers separating
the range. Numerous illegal aliens cross into the United States
border areas of southern California mentioned before or parts
of southeastern Arizona that essentially follows the
undocumented alien deviation unmarked 47 miles of the border we
share with Mexico and 52 miles from the base to the border.
Pedestrian and drug traffic is reported by Customs and
Border Protection agents and military personnel. The
enforcement agents are either make an apprehension or
established a group of vehicles in the hazard areas.
Historically it has resulted in a loss of range time and at
times impacted their training events. While illegal pedestrian
entries continue in high numbers for 2006, increased efforts in
coordination with Marine Corps Station Yuma and Yuma sector
have sharply reduced the impacts of training.
Also, coordination of the Border Patrol and increased
resources allow us to detect alien presence early, coordinate
Customs and Border protection response and thereby minimize the
floor for errors. Marine Corps Station, Yuma has added range
capabilities to coordinate border protection also with border
patrol operating one sector, simultaneously while military
aircraft would do training and range.
Customs and Border Patrol can also surge its operations in
close coordination with the Marine Corps. They also support a
large selection of signs in order to minimize the impacts of
undocumented aliens (UDAs) on key training events that cannot
be rescheduled due to events that were prior to 2.1f.
All have increased Customs and Border Protection efforts
and coordination downturn vehicle entries and, in fact,
training but there is more to be done. In close coordination
with the Customs and Border Protection found through question
one has been cooperating with the Customs and Border Patrol
proposal for vehicle variance a virtual wall for intrusion
detection technology, all-weather patrol improvements for
timely response. Control plans have often been coordinated at
the local level to further improve border security and fully
address the Marine Corps concerns for combat readiness.
Military aircraft currently uses the entire area right down
to the border. We work that airspace use agreement with the
Customs and Border Protection to coordinate military traffic
and Customs and Border Protection aircraft and helicopters to
meet commission requirements. Any further control measures
along the border or airspace strict military use of the
airspace is a concern to us.
Marine Corps meets the standards of controlling the borders
set by the Department of Homeland Security and have worked
toward their responsibility. Operation control of the southern
border, our border, on the way back military training through
the Marine Corps. Marine Corps control of the border is a
Department of Homeland Security permission and one of
responsibility. We also have responsibilities to secure
training areas and to provide for public safety on the range.
Marine Corps Station, Yuma also has other responsibilities like
range control, law enforcement personnel, and environmental
planning to assist the Department of Homeland Security in
controlling the border to reduce or eliminate training defects.
Congress reserved our mandate for environmental
stewardship, management and operational control with the
Department of the Navy for 25 years up to 2024 under the
military Lands and Control Act in 1999. Marine Corps Station,
Yuma takes its environmental stewardship responsibility very
seriously because departmental stewardship equates to range
availability and military training on public lands.
Marine Corps has served the core of the issues that extend
beyond the direct impacts of combat readiness to include
potential impacts of the National Wildlife Refugee. Coordinated
efforts for a fence, a virtual wall, and all-weather road
access or any other form on the border may be successful in
enforcing the range.
Some of the activity can lead to traffic and resulting
Customs and Border Protection response to this activity may
increase the impacts to National Wildlife Refuge and presumably
the resident danger. Past experience has demonstrated the
necessity of limiting impacts to our neighbor and land
management agencies which addresses the home.
Second, I want to talk about the consequences to
neighboring endangered species we afford protection through
military training. The best measures can also be consquences
with redirected border crossing, sound environmental planning,
and continued coordination of all federal, state, and local
stakeholders.
In conclusion, while border security remains a Department
of Homeland Security responsibility, Marine Corps Station, Yuma
will continue to support Customs and Border Protection in its
mission to secure our southern border. Marine Corps Station,
Yuma's approach has always been to balance the security needs
of our nation and the Customs and Border Protection mission of
our stewardship responsibilities for managing the west. Our
best success has made these consultations result in close
coordination with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Marine Corps will maintain its outstanding relationship with
Customs and Border Protection to achieve our goals of a secure
border with limited impacts. I will welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Hancock can be found in
the Appendix on page 58.]
The Chairman. Okay. Colonel, thank you very much for a very
full statement.
Deputy Chief Calhoon, thank you for being with us today and
for your service and the service of all your personnel.
STATEMENT OF DEPUTY CHIEF PATROL AGENT JEFFREY A. CALHOON, YUMA
SECTOR BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Chief Calhoon. Thank you. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member
Butterfield, and distinguished members of the Committee, on
behalf of the men and women of the Yuma sector, welcome to
Yuma, Arizona.
I would like to thank Col. Ben Hancock for hosting this
event. We truly do have an excellent group working relationship
with Marine Corps Station, Yuma probably unheralded in the
civilian law enforcement world with a Federal and military
unit.
It is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today
to discuss our continued efforts along the border in the
interest of homeland security. The Department of Homeland
Security and Customs and Border Protection is steadfast in our
commitment to secure the homeland.
Operation Jumpstart, a partnership with the National Guard,
gives CBP an immediate short-term resource that allows
increased border security while we, the Border Patrol, recruit
and train additional Border Patrol agents according to the
President's plan, and implement a secure border initiative.
Operation Jumpstart will greatly assist us in moving
forward with our mission as we continue to gain, maintain, and
expand operational control of the border using the right
combination of manpower, capital structure, and smart
technology.
The key component in the midst of resources needed to
accomplish CBP Border Patrol's primary mission of preventing
terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United
States. Infrastructure construction like currently being
provided at the Yuma sector through our partnership with the
Department of Defense, and the National Guard most recently,
includes physical barriers, roadways, and other related
projects.
Through the Department of Defense the National Guard
support to date including three Jump Start projects, the Yuma
sector has received six miles of all-weather roads, seven miles
of primary fencing, three miles of permanent vehicle barriers,
two miles of tertiary fencing, over one mile of high-intensity
lighting. Our efforts in the Yuma sector have already produced
tangible efforts and results.
We are expanding this support with the National Guard, as
General Blum indicated, in the form of an entry identification
team, National Guard Eye on the Border, looking in areas where
we are not, for incursions.
Last fiscal year, 2,706 vehicles crossed illegally into the
United States through the Yuma sector's area of responsibility.
As a result, the Yuma sector was chosen as a pilot site for a
permanent vehicle following system. This tactical
infrastructure project combined with a significant increase in
personnel and aircraft operations contributed to a 50 percent
decrease in the number of vehicle incursions this year compared
to the same period last year.
We recognize there are many challenges that lie ahead for
us. We are concerned with the level of illegal activity in our
border area east of Yuma, specifically the Barry Goldwater
Bombing Range and wildlife area. In this eastern most extreme
area of Yuma sector is almost four hours driving time from
Yuma. The Barry Goldwater Range have unique environmental
concerns and lack the road infrastructure conducive to
efficient border enforcement operations.
We must work toward an efficient solution in these areas
that promotes conservation of our natural resources, allow the
Marine Corps Air Station to train, and yet enhance our ability
to secure the border. The men and women of the CBP Border
Patrol face challenges on a daily basis and we are determined
to protect the United States border between the ports of entry.
Our men and women place themselves in harms way to protect
America, our local communities, and our way of life. I would
like to thank you for this opportunity to present testimony
today. I look forward to any questions that you might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Deputy Chief Calhoon can be
found in the Appendix on page 61.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Deputy Chief.
Now, General Pineda, thank you for being with us today. We
greatly appreciate you and the floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ANTONIO J. PINEDA, NATIONAL COMMANDER,
CIVIL AIR PATROL
General Pineda. Good afternoon Chairman Hunter, Congressman
Butterfield, and members of the Committee. I am Major General
Tony Pineda, the Civil Air Patrol National Commander. I am
pleased to have this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Civil Air Patrol assets for humanitarian assistance, aerial
reconnaissance and radio relay. In the course of these training
missions if our aircrews observe individuals in distress, the
this training missions supporting U.S. Southern Border Security
Operations.
I would like to assure you Civil Air Patrol is the perfect
fit to support this effort because of the skill, expertise, and
experience this organization brings to the table.
Giving you a little bit of history of the Civil Air Patrol,
first let me tell you who we are and what we do. The Civil Air
Patrol was founded in December 1941, one week before the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Fulfilling a wartime need, our
organization of 150,000 volunteer citizen aviators helped
halted the deadly, destructive attacks by Nazi U-boats
operating in America's coastal waters.
On July 1, 1946, President Harry Truman established the
Civil Air Patrol as a federally chartered civilian corporation,
and Congress passed Public Law 557 on May 26, 1948, making the
Civil Air Patrol the auxiliary of the new U.S. Air Force. Civil
Air Patrol was and is still today charged with three primary
missions: aerospace education, cadet programs and emergency
services. Today I would like to concentrate my comments on the
emergency services mission.
The Civil Air Patrol operates as an all-volunteer civilian
community asset and the auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force with
almost 57,000 members. It includes eight geographic regions
consisting of 52 wings, one in each of the 50 states, Puerto
Rico and the District of Columbia for a total number of units
that exceeds 1,500. Civil Air Patrol operates one of the
largest fleets of light aircraft in the world with 530 aircraft
and our volunteer members fly nearly 110,000 hours each year.
Additionally, Civil Air Patrol maintains a fleet of nearly
1,000 emergency services vehicles for training and mission
support.
Emergency services is our niche. Civil Air Patrol conducts
95 percent of all inland search and rescue in the United
States, as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center
at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. The Civil Air Patrol also
provides disaster-relief organizations and is equipped to
provide near real-time damage assessment, light transport and
communications support.
We perform aerial reconnaissance for Homeland Security and
assist other Federal agencies in the war on drugs.
Finally, we maintain the most extensive emergency
communications network in the Nation with over 16,000 radios
nationwide with 65 years of experience and the ability to fly
low and slow Civil Air Patrol crews and aircraft are the ideal
observation platform. Federal and state agencies frequently
call on the Civil Air Patrol to take vital damage assessment
photos to search for crash victims. Our air crews are an ideal
resource throughout the country because of their experience in
search and rescue and their ability to provide aerial photos at
such a low cost. Our customers, especially the U.S. military,
pay a very small fee for the outstanding service we provide,
generally less than $120 per flying hour.
Civil Air Patrol also supported the United States Homeland
Security last year by taking part in several vital exercises at
the request of the U.S. Air Force. As a result, Maj. Gen. M.
Scott Mayes, 1st Air Force Commander, stated, ``Civil Air
Patrol has become an important partner in our homeland defense
mission. Because of the cooperation between Civil Air Patrol
and North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), we're better
able to meet our nation's requirements for rapid response to
any threat to our air sovereignty. This kind of teamwork is
vital to our rapid-response capability. Together, when we're
called upon, we'll be ready to act, and act fast.''
The Arizona Border Mission. That same level of Civil Air
Patrol commitment and cooperation continues today and is what
we are here to discuss today. At the request of the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force we have recently increased training in
Arizona in the anticipation of follow-on taskings.
Civil Air Patrol is training in Search and Rescue, Aerial
Reconnaissance and Radio Relay. In the course of these training
missions, if our aircrews observe individuals in distress,
appropriate authorities are notified. We are actively
developing a Concept of Operations so that we can smoothly
transition to support of the Border Patrol on both borders in
north and south should the Department of Defense receive a
request for assistance. The bottom line is the Civil Air Patrol
is ready to do what we can do to help to protect lives along
the border.
Civil Air Patrol began flying these missions along the
Arizona border on Monday, July 17 through July 31. As you can
see on Exhibit 1, the numerous locations of aircraft assets in
the southwest region of our country. Now, taking a closer look
at Exhibit 2, it shows our southern border mission bases. Our
initial task was to fly a mission from six locations in Arizona
and that would be Yuma, Glendale, Goodyear, Chandler, Tucson,
and Fort Huachuca.
As of July 25, 2006 Civil Air Patrol volunteers have flown
100 sorties for a total of more than 300 flying hours at a cost
of about $30,000 using Civil Air Patrol Cessna C-182 aircraft,
you see here in Exhibit 3 along with the descriptions of the
capabilities.
Beginning July 26, the Civil Air Patrol's New Mexico wing
joined the effort by providing two additional Cessa 182
aircraft and one Gippsland GA8 aircraft with aircrews to
supplement the work being performed by the Arizona wing of the
Civil Air Patrol. While we have not found any individuals in
distress, we discovered possible suspicious activity that was
reported to the Border Patrol authorities.
For example, on Saturday, July 22, Civil Air Patrol
aircrews identified two late model vehicles with doors open in
close proximity to improved roads. They also identified 8 to 10
individuals near the border and alerted a nearby Border Patrol
ground team. Further, on Sunday, July 23, aircrews sighted a
number of abandoned vehicles which they reported to Border
Patrol personnel.
Finally, on Monday, July 24, Civil Air Patrol aircrews
identified a sport utility vehicle (SUV) and two or three
suspicious persons in wash areas at two different locations.
Again, both sightings were reported to Border Patrol. Exhibits
4 and 5 are samples of the aerial photo samples from several of
these missions. Note the abandoned vehicle shown here in the
first photo and the makeshift border camp shelters shown in the
second photo.
Some of our aircraft are equipped with equipment that we
can transmit these photos in real time from the aircraft to the
Border Patrol agents if they have computers in the vehicles or
in their offices so they can see what is going on. That will
enable them to also contact our aircraft. The majority of them
also have global telephones that they can talk right to the
pilots and send them to other areas if they need to.
The rainy weather pattern in southern Arizona has been a
challenge to fly aircraft at low altitude. We believe this
current weather pattern may be aiding in the safe transit and
survival of people attempting the border crossings and has
decreased the number of sightings of people in distress.
In conclusion, as Civil Air Patrol celebrates 65 years of
service we are fully prepared for the challenge yet to come.
Whatever dangers or opportunities lay ahead, our volunteers are
ready to answer the call with the same patriotic spirit that
has always distinguished Civil Air Patrol's missions for
America. I can tell you that Civil Air Patrol is the right fit
for this mission and remains committed to assisting border
security operations for long as is needed and will be ready
when called. However, a couple of issues that may limit our
effectiveness must be addressed.
First, as agencies work together on a mission such as this
one, the effectiveness and outcome of the effort will be
enhanced by placing one agency in a position of overarching
authority. This lead agency could then most efficiently and
effectively orchestrate and direct all operational and support
activity to accomplish the mission.
Second, since Civil Air Patrol is a private non-profit
corporation and the Air Force Auxiliary, should ``Posse
Comitatus'' apply to operations such as this one? That could
create a problem because we are limited as to how far we can
follow any vehicles or illegal activity that may be happening.
CAP has raised the level of aircraft technology. One
additional technology is tailor made for border admissions
which will likely take place at night and will enhance our
ability would be the existing infrared technology used by many
law enforcement aircraft today. That particular equipment can
also be installed in our aircraft to be used on the border.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the members of
this Committee for your strong and devoted support of Civil Air
Patrol. As National Commander of this outstanding group of
citizen volunteers, I encourage you to recognize the fact that
Civil Air Patrol continues to provide an irreplaceable,
professional and highly cost-effective force multiplier to
America.
Through the voluntary public service of nearly 57,000
members, Civil Air Patrol makes a priceless and positive impact
in communities by performing disaster relief and search &
rescue missions, and also by providing aerospace education and
cadet programs. Civil Air Patrol serves as a guardian of the
skies and a skilled resource on the ground, wherever the call
and whatever the mission. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of General Pineda can be found in
the Appendix on page 67.]
The Chairman. General, thank you very much.
Chairwoman Juan-Saunders, thank you for being with us
today. We appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF HON. VIVIAN JUAN-SAUNDERS, CHAIRWOMAN, TOHONO
O'ODHAM NATION
Ms. Juan-Saunders. Thank you, Chairman Hunter and members
of the Committee. My name is Vivian Juan-Saunders, Chairwoman
of the Tohono O'odham Nation. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today about our challenges and efforts to protect the
southern border. The Tohono O'odham Nation is located in
southern Arizona and comparable to the state of Connecticut. If
you will look at the map identifying the waterways. Directly to
the right of that map is the Tohono O'odham Nation. Double the
37 miles and add one mile and you will have the Tohono O'odham
Nation.
We also have aboriginal lands that are part of the area
there. We also have aboriginal lands that extend into Mexico.
We have 28,000 enrolled members and 1,400 enrolled members in
Mexico. The current southern border cuts into the heart of the
aboriginal lands of our people so consequently we have members
who reside in Mexico which creates barriers of positive
influence.
Also I would like to mention that 75 miles of our nation is
the largest stretch of miles of any Indian tribe in the United
States. There are 35 capital tribes located on or near
international boundaries with Mexico and Canada and the Tohono
O'odham Nation has the largest stretch.
I would like to emphasize the importance of recognizing the
Tohono government as we discuss border policies and formulating
policies. In 1993 we experienced an effect created by Federal
policy known as the Gatekeeper policy that increased
enforcement in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California.
Consequently, this created a funnel effect for our 75-mile
stretch experiences 1,500 undocumented immigrants a day 16
percent of our law enforcement tried to curb this. Today we
have security officers I have with me assistant police chief
Raul Chiprador who has served 15 years with the police
department.
We have no jurisdiction over border issues. All we can do
is detain and wait for Customs and Border Protection. They have
been on our reservation for over 30 years. Prior to the
Department of Homeland Security and under its umbrella
organizations, Customs was operating on our reservation for the
last 25 years. I would like to share that we are part of the
western corridor. We are in Congressman Raul Peral's
congressional district. Border Patrol has reported that we are
one of the busiest court orders on illegal immigration.
I would like to emphasize that we neither have permission,
manpower, or the resources to adequately address this crisis on
our nation. We have worked diligently and cooperatively with
the Armed Services in supporting their work in protecting the
southern border.
Currently we spend $3 million annually of our own travel
resources addressing these issues. We spent $10 million so far.
We have received less than $1.8 million of Federal resources.
When you compare that to what we spent certainly it doesn't
measure to what we would like to see.
Tohono O'odham Nation does support the current interest. We
also recognize that people historically who have traveled to
the Tohono O'odham nation we have welcomed and we have provided
assistance. However, today in the 21st century we are
experiencing the impact and it has become a burden and we are
caught in the middle of this whole problem.
On the one hand we have undocumented immigrants heading
north. We have law enforcement heading south and we are caught
in the middle. It creates a very high stress level for people.
I certainly have respect for the years that we have survived in
this capacity.
Tohono O'odham Nation does support the establishment of two
substations on the east and west end of our reservation.
Otherwise, it would have taken an act of Congress to support
the efforts of Customs and Border Protection to establish the
substations that are shared by our police department.
We have also supported the construction of illegal barriers
and they are constructed to combat the illegal immigration and
the illegal use of motor vehicles in the furtherance committed
on our lands.
Tohono O'odham Nation is comprised of 11 political
districts. The two district that are adjacent to the
international border have supported barriers of fencing. We
also support the Department of the National Guard. Just
recently over a month ago the tribal council approved the
deployment of 90 National Guard troops to be deployed.
Currently we have 40 who are operating on Tohono O'odham
Nation.
One of their tasks will be to help prevent vehicle barrier
threats. If the Customs and Border Protection erected this
fence, it would cost $3 million a mile so how can the National
Guard erect a fence that we are looking at a cost of $400,000
per mile. Border Patrol engaged in direct consultation with the
Nation on securing the necessary right-of-way easement and
culture resource for emphasis and we developed behind
construction processes and enforcement techniques to prevent
illegal entry on the Nation's land.
The 75-mile stretch that I'm referring to has over 93
archeological sites as well as the already planned national
monument because it is part of our aboriginal territory we are
concerned about the 110 archeological sites that we have on the
property.
The Tohono O'odham Nation also developed a government-to-
government relationship understanding with Luke Air Force Base.
The Air Force Base currently uses air space to train F16
military pilots. We recently visited the base and spoke to the
commander before he left for Iraq. He served as a vital role in
training not only pilots from the United States but from the
Philippines and Italy.
The Tohono O'odham Nation continues to demonstrate its
commitment to working cooperatively with the Armed Services and
their mission to protect the border. In return we request
respect for our people, respect for our land, and respect for
our laws. We commend the Committee as you consider ways to
formalize or institutionalize consultations between Armed
Services and their relations and interactions with Indian
tribes.
The request I would like to make is further discussions on
institutionalizing consultation between the Armed Services and
the military. The air force base model is one that I would like
to recommend highly as a model to use with the Department of
Homeland Security.
In closing, on behalf of the Tohono O'odham Nation, I thank
the Committee for holding this important field hearing and for
extending the invitation to share our views. I would be happy
to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Juan-Saunders can be found
in the Appendix on page 70.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. I'm going to
wait for the second round of questions. I think I will yield my
time to the lady who traveled the farthest today to be here,
the gentlelady from Virginia, Thelma Drake. The gentlelady is
recognized.
Ms. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to point
out to you that Langley Air Force Base, which is your
headquarters for the Civil Air Patrol, is in the 2nd District
of Virginia so it is very nice to have you here telling us what
they do.
Chief Calhoon, I think in everything we have heard of how
everyone is interacting together, it just makes me think that
this really falls on you. I mean, you are the one that is
responsible for border security so I have a couple of questions
for you.
First of all, how is the interaction going? How are you
able to interact with the various groups and is there anything
we need to do to make that a more seamless interaction?
Chief Calhoon. Well, as I said previously, we have an
exceptional long-term relationship with the Marine Corps Air
Station. We impact them at significant border areas. Their
range wardens communicate on our radio frequencies with our
agents assisting protecting illegal entries of all pedestrians.
Couldn't ask for a better relationship.
The National Guard presence here is relatively new since
about June. The first augmentation of that will be long-term
support of personnel that have worked in what we would call a
non-law enforcement role in our communication centers helping
us fix our vehicles. That is working very well.
Most recently, as the General indicated, in North Carolina
and I understand Virginia guarding here what we call local
entry identification teams which are deployed on the border.
That was an outstanding product on the part of that unit.
Having experience in the Iraq operating border they value the
benefits of training exercises as well as taking part in
assisting us at the border with the local law enforcement
agencies and our local Indian reservations, the Quechan Indian
Reservation.
Ms. Drake. Mr. Chairman, our Virginia Guard who are here
are volunteers because we are a coastal state and this is
hurricane season so we are very proud of them that they have
volunteered to come and deal with this important issue.
One thing that we have talked about in Congress, too, is
whether you should have the authority to look at a border
patrol auxiliary on the order of Coast Guard auxiliary or Civil
Air Patrol. Is that something you think you would like to look
at or you would like us to tell you?
Chief Calhoon. A decision like that would be made at a much
higher level than I actually hold at the present time. However,
the United States Border Patrol values citizen input. We rely
on sightings and tips from citizens that are phoned into us.
It's a very valuable tool. We are agreeable to all forms of
assistance.
Ms. Drake. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, because I
know there are a lot of questions, I just wanted to stress that
we would like to know if there is something we can do better
because you are the one who is one the front line and you are
the one that is responsible. I think we think things are
working well, when we put them in place but we need to know if
they are not, if there are things that we can do that make it
easier to accomplish your job.
Chief Calhoon. We are looking forward to the arrival of the
new 6,000 personnel getting them through the system. We really
appreciate and need the assistance of the National Guard
helping us to expand our enforcement capabilities. We are also
looking forward to the implementation of the secure border
initiative. Whatever that new technology will be will greatly
enhance our effectiveness. Whatever the Committee could do to
support those roles would be greatly appreciated.
Ms. Drake. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, has
made the long run with us here. He was up with us in Michigan
and did yeoman work up there and came down today. We really
appreciate your efforts and your dedication to this set of
hearings. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. It has been a long two days, Mr. Chairman
and it has been a pleasure traveling with you. You are a man of
enormous energy. That is a private joke. We won't get into
anymore detail.
General Blum, I have said to you privately and I will now
say to you publicly thank you for your service to our country.
You are an extraordinary military man and I thank you so much,
as well as the other members of the military here assembled.
General, you mentioned today that we are now up to 6,200
guardsmen. That's the official figure as of today. Is that
correct?
General Blum. Yes, sir.
Mr. Butterfield. All right. So you have essentially met the
deadline that was imposed on you by the Commander in Chief?
General Blum. Yes, sir. In fact, we have exceeded a little
bit and now----
Mr. Butterfield. You can level out to the 6,000?
General Blum. We will do that in the next few days.
Mr. Butterfield. All right. Am I correct to assume that the
Guard will in no way engage in law enforcement activities?
General Blum. You are absolutely correct. Our orders from
the Department of Defense is that we will not engage in law
enforcement activities. Every governor receiving troops and
every governor controlling troops here has signed on a
memorandum of agreement to that effect. While we are in
operation in this Title 32 status while we could do that by
law, by policy we will not do that.
Mr. Butterfield. Do you see your mission changing from year
to year or do you think it will remain the same?
General Blum. I think our mission will change probably
even more quickly than that and more dramatically. I think as
we put infrastructure on the border and capability on the
border in support of the Customs and Border Protection Agency,
the patterns of illegal activity will alter and change and we
will certainly adjust to provide support to the Customs and
Border Protection Agency as they see the need to restack the
capabilities or relocate the troops and the infrastructure to
places where the main effort may change over the next two
years. What we do, I expect, will change somewhat but I do not
at anytime see us doing law enforcement activities.
Mr. Butterfield. Would you allocate for me the roles that
the 6,000 personnel will play?
General Blum. Yes, sir. There are about 16 major
categories where we will be supporting the Customs and Border
Protection Agency. Some will be, as was alluded to earlier,
fence construction, road construction, road maintenance, some
transportation. Entry identification teams makes up in this
sector in Yuma almost 50 percent of our effort.
Of the forces that are here in this sector, and they are
considerable, half of those, almost exactly half of those, will
be expanding the eyes and ears of the Border Patrol. Some will
be highly visible so that they have a deterring effect. Other
will be invisible so that they are very effective in catching
illegal activity and reporting it to the legitimate law
enforcement agency, Customs and Border Protection, so that we
can observe and report both day and night, 24 hours, seven days
a week, in places where the Customs and Border Patrol were
unable to observe and unable to communicate so we will be
providing some communications, augmentation so that can be
effected. Aviation support to move our people to do aerial
surveillance both day and night, and also to assist the border
patrol in some of their movements, engineer work.
Mr. Butterfield. No searches and seizes?
General Blum. None at all. None whatsoever.
Mr. Butterfield. Even though you have the authority to do
it?
General Blum. We have the authority lawfully to do it but
by policy and the agreement of the Border Patrol and Department
of Defense, the National Guard will not arrest, apprehend, take
into custody, process, or handle detainees or people that are
arrested or yield by the Customs and Border Patrol.
What we may do in an extremist condition is self-protect
ourselves because many of our soldiers will be armed if they
are in a mission profile that would require them to be able to
self-protect themselves, or to offer protection to the Customs
and Border Patrol agents that tend to operate in small numbers.
They could encounter a situation where one of our entry
identification teams actually sees a Customs and Border Patrol
member in duress or having his life threatened. If that were to
happen, we would, in fact, intervene and take appropriate
action as any other citizen would have the right to do.
Mr. Butterfield. Are you familiar with the July 20
directive from the Commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection? That is, the provision that gives the authority to
designate border patrol agents as Customs officers with the
right to make searches and seizures?
General Blum. Yes, sir, I am. That authority, if I
understand it correctly--help me out there, Deputy Chief. That
is Article 19. Is that what that is?
Chief Calhoon. Yes, Title 19.
General Blum. Title 19. Congressman, what that is that
allows the access----
Mr. Butterfield. Let me just read it to you. I don't want
to catch you off guard here. ``Authority is delegated to the
Chief of Border Patrol and to the Chief Patrol Agents assigned
to the southwest border to designate Border Patrol Agents as
Customs Officers under 19, thereby vesting such agents with the
authority under the Custom laws to, among other things, make
searches and seizures. The exercise of this authority shall be
confined to Operation Jumpstart.''
General Blum. The reason that was done, first of all, that
will not be universally applied. Certain states have decided
not to allow that to happen. What that is for is to allow us to
have the National Guard have legal access to private landowners
to be able to transit their land or travel on their land and
this allows us to do that under the umbrella of the Border
Patrol. In some states that will, in fact, be used in three of
the states that will not be used. They will seek and obtain the
land use or the land transit permits from the landowners
themselves. That is a decision made between the Border Patrol
sector chiefs and the governors of the states where they are
operating.
Mr. Butterfield. Finally, let me ask you this, General. Of
the 6,200 personnel who are now in the region, do they fall in
all of the 16 categories or just some?
General Blum. The general answer would be all of them. In
every sector we will be doing entry identification team work
which is observed and reported. The magnitude is about 50
percent of the effort. It does vary within the nine Border
Patrol sectors. In the Yuma sector it is about half of the
force doing that because of the topography and geography and
the lack of fencing or roads.
We need to get eyes and ears out there where we can't do it
in a mobile fashion or have it channelized by barriers and
fences right now. Aviation is in all of the sectors. Medical is
in all of the sectors. Communication support is in all of the
sectors. General maintenance is in all of the sectors. Engineer
work is in all of the sectors. Brush removal is only being done
in one sector. I am trying to be as honest and as specific as I
can be. The percentages of what we do is driven by the nine
Border Patrol sector chiefs. They established a priority of the
assistance that they want. It is not the same in any sector.
The size of the force is not the same in any sector and the
task list and the percentage of troops assigned to those tasks
varies by sector because this border is not homogenous. It is
quite different. In fact, even the 37 miles that we are looking
at in this Barry Goldwater Range about 30 of those miles are
open desert and about seven miles pretty rough restricted
terrain.
What we do and how we operate there will be quite different
and the type of fencing and barriers we employ there will
probably be modified to the terrain to be effective for the
terrain. All of that would be decided, frankly, by the Barry
Goldwater Range and by the Customs and Border Protection
Agency. The National Guard will try to satisfy the supported
agencies that we are tasked to support.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. I would hope that if you add a
seventeenth category of search and seizure, and I hope that you
don't, but if you decide to expand the authority of the
Guardsmen, I hope that we would not read about it in the
newspaper first, that this Committee would have advance notice
that you are going to do that.
General Blum. Sir, if that decision is made, it will be
made at the Department of Defense level. It will be made at the
highest level of policy development in the Department of
Defense and maybe perhaps even higher than that. Right now that
is where the policy guidance that I have been issued is the
National Guard will not engage in search and seizure. It will
not engage in apprehension. It will not do law enforcement per
se. It will only perform tasks that enable the lawful licensed
badge-carrying law enforcement officers to more effectively do
their job and actually serve as----
Mr. Butterfield. But necessity may call upon us to change.
General Blum. If that is the case----
Mr. Butterfield. If that happens, I would like for this
Committee to know.
General Blum. Oh, absolutely. I will personally inform
this Committee if that were to happen.
Mr. Butterfield. Yes. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chief Calhoon. Mr. Chairman, could I clarify that?
The Chairman. Absolutely. Go right ahead.
Chief Calhoon. I believe the purpose of that memorandum was
to grant authority under Title 19 within 25 miles for the
purpose of patrolling the border. California opted to use the
Border Patrol to allow Guardsmen on private property rather
than seek right of entry grievance with the owner. I believe
that is what that memorandum is addressing, not necessarily
conferring arrest authority to the Guard.
The Chairman. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina. The gentleman from California, my nearby seat mate
from Riverside, Ken Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, how are you distributing your men and women across
the border from California down to Texas roughly?
General Blum. Congressman, off line and not for a public
hearing I can give you detail to where every soldier is and
what task they are performing in what geographic region of the
border. Because we don't want to arm illegals who may use that
against us for an unintended purpose, let me just say that we
have taken the request of the Border Patrol per the nine Border
Patrol sectors that exist along the southwest border and they
have prioritized our effort and they have guided us where they
want our capabilities, where they think it will best amplify
their ability to do their job.
Mr. Calvert. So roughly it is based on need?
General Blum. Yes, sir. It is based on need as determined
by the people who are here to support the Customs and Border
Protection Agency.
Mr. Calvert. The next question, with the fencing that was
put in California as Chairman Hunter described, the double
fencing and other fencing that was primarily put in California
first because of the diligent work of the Chairman of this
Committee. I have known him for many years. We affectionately
call it Hunter's Fence down there along the border. Did that
move a substantial part of the problem east?
General Blum. Who are you asking?
Mr. Calvert. For the record I will ask the Chief.
Chief Calhoon. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. Now, from your perspective would you like to
see that fencing continue to move down the border?
Chief Calhoon. Yes. In fact, we are working on fencing here
in Arizona.
Mr. Calvert. So from the information you have that fencing
is effective?
Chief Calhoon. Fencing by itself requires some agents.
Mr. Calvert. Absolutely. But, I mean, the fencing does work
as an impediment from the people crossing the border?
Chief Calhoon. It does. Its greatest value is the build-up
of urban areas. It does work.
Mr. Calvert. Representative Franks brought up an issue of
people other than from South America or Central America coming
across the border. What individuals have you picked up other
than from South America across that border that you mentioned
in open session?
Chief Calhoon. In the Yuma sector we have apprehended
aliens from about 35 different countries from primarily Central
and South America.
Mr. Calvert. Anyone from outside of Central and South
America?
Chief Calhoon. Yes. There are European and Communist
countries that are occasionally apprehended.
Mr. Calvert. Anybody from, let's say, Syria, Iran?
Chief Calhoon. I would have to get back to you on that
issue. It is only my 45th day in the position and I am kind of
weak on Yuma this week.
Mr. Calvert. If you can get back to us. Maybe some
gentlemen here in the back have some information. The
individuals that you have apprehended, were they here across
the border to get a job picking tomatoes?
Chief Calhoon. No indication that they were going to pick
tomatoes.
Mr. Calvert. Do you have a standard interrogation process
of individuals like that that come across the border?
Chief Calhoon. A Syrian would be referred to the joint
index center and be interviewed by an FBI agent and an ICE
agent as to what is intent is, who he is, who he might be
associated with because he would be an alien from a special
interest country.
Mr. Calvert. And that information has not been made public
as far as the amount of individuals, the purpose or reasons why
they attempted to come into the United States?
Chief Calhoon. Not to my knowledge. I am not aware of a
public statement made regarding that.
Mr. Calvert. I would like to pursue that. The other issue
is, I co-chair the Methamphetamine Drug Caucus in the House
which means that we are trying to stop the utilization of meth
in the United States. It used to be much of the methamphetamine
that was consumed in the country was made in small drug labs
throughout the United States.
We understand now that upwards to 90 percent of all
methamphetamine now is coming across the border into the United
States. These drug gangs are getting more and more dangerous.
Can you describe for the Committee what kind of weapons that
these drug gangs are using that come across the border?
Chief Calhoon. In the Yuma sector we have encountered
smugglers with handguns as large as 44 caliber,. some long-arms
and some shotguns.
Mr. Calvert. Now, in some other sectors you may be familiar
with are they using fully automatic weapons?
Chief Calhoon. I was stationed in Nogales, Arizona last
year when two agents were shot by narco traffickers. The
investigation revealed they were shot by 30 caliber semi-
automatic rounds.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. I have gone over my five minutes but one
other question that maybe both the Civil General you could
answer and also General Blum. You mentioned ``Posse
Comitatus.'' Since 9/11 there are some people who think we
ought to relook at Posse Comitatus and maybe amend it in some
way or change it in some way based upon today's reality. Do you
think that is something we should look at?
General Pineda. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind.
Mr. Calvert. General Blum?
General Blum. I have a differing opinion. I have
consistently said we have 460,000 citizen soldiers that are
trained and disciplined and are not subject to Posse Comitatus.
That can be used in this country to do law enforcement. If the
President and the Secretary of Defense so decided, you could
take the entire National Guard and put them in Title 32
anywhere in this nation and use them as a law enforcement
officer under the laws of each of the states and territories of
our nation. In my mind unless we have a situation that would
require more than a half a million armed and trained soldiers
and airmen in support of civil law enforcement, I would not
change a law that has served this nation well for nearly 150
years.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield on that question?
Mr. Calvert. Yes.
The Chairman. I saw, General, where you said you thought
this law--for people who don't know what the Posse Comitatus
is, it is a law that was derived after the Civil War that said
that military forces could not perform civilian law enforcement
functions; namely, arresting people. I have heard the issue
that some people have said the Civil Air Patrol can't be flying
over the border looking for people on the basis that somehow
violates this ancient law.
We have looked at that and when the military got into the
drug war because the drug smugglers were overwhelming Customs
at one point because they had the faster airplanes, they had
the automatic weapons, they had the sensors, they had the
communication, we brought the military in. Our lawyers looked
at this thing carefully and we came to the conclusion that a
military aircraft, a Black Hawk helicopter, can follow a drug
plane down and follow him even as he taxies to a halt on some
remote air strip.
As long as a Customs agent or a Border Patrol agent gets
out and makes the arrest, the driver of that Black Hawk
helicopter can be a military guy. I think that a pretty
strained argument has been made by some people that don't want
you folks participating if they claim that flying a thousand
feet above the earth taking a picture with a camera is
arresting somebody.
You are certainly not arresting somebody. You are not
coming in any contact with them. You are not exerting any force
on them. General Blum, do you have any opinion on that? Do you
think that would fall under that restriction just for flying
over and basically----
General Blum. No, sir. I don't, but I would also caution
and say that is my best professional opinion. I think it would
probably be best to get somebody trained in law a little bit
further than I am. I am very familiar with Posse Comitatus and
the provisions of it. The National Guard is not restricted when
it is under the command and control of the governor by Posse
Comitatus. What I am saying is you have about half a million
people that could augment civilian law enforcement local,
state, or Federal on any given day.
What you are describing is not really hands-on law
enforcement work. It is really you are observing and reporting.
It is just like we are doing with these entry identification
teams. We are observing and reporting and we are not arresting.
We are not apprehending. We are not searching. We are not
seizing or any of those things.
We are strictly in a support position so that we can
provide that information to the lawful licensed law enforcement
agency to go out and make the arrest, make the apprehension,
detain the individuals, take them into custody, and then
process them so the chain of custody and the rights of the
individual are protected in that process.
The Chairman. And one reason we wanted you folks to make
these border surveillance runs is to also if you saw the
people, the 400 people who die in the desert each year from
dehydration and sunstroke, if you could see people in
distress--I know you didn't mention that because that was
tasked to you during this training--you could report that back.
Thankfully you didn't see any people in this last couple of
weeks but we certainly don't want some legal argument keeping
you from flying what also is a humanitarian mission.
General Pineda. Absolutely. I would like to make a
clarification.
The Chairman. It is Mr. Calvert's time so go right ahead.
Mr. Calvert. I would be happy to let you continue.
General Pineda. If I may, I would like to make a
clarification. I agree with General Blum when it comes to that.
In my civilian life I am a 35-year-old law enforcement officer
so far. In two years hopefully I will be able to retire but
right now I have to agree with him that it is going to take
quite a bit of training to do that part.
When I said ``absolutely'' I was referring to the ability
of the Civil Air Patrol to be able to perform those
humanitarian missions. Right now if we see persons crossing
from Mexico, we can follow them 25 miles into the United
States. If we see the same persons on the United States side,
we can't follow them anywhere. All we can do is just fly over,
report them to the U.S. Border Patrol, and leave the area. That
is what I am talking about. But I do agree with the General,
the other way will take a lot of training and a lot more
complex.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will move around
with some questions. I hope my questions are as brief as some
of the answers and we will take it from there.
There was a report that was done, a recent report that was
done, on border security to the Select Committee on Homeland
Security in the House. There was a statement in there that
said, ``Like squeezing a balloon. The policy has moved illegal
immigration from one sector to another without decreasing the
overall volume of illegal crossings.''
I mention that because I think we are talking about some
hindsight issues, if I may, in terms of the military and their
relationship to Homeland Security and Border Patrol. That is,
that the collaboration happens, I think, while policy is being
developed so that like the Barry Goldwater Range.
We are not dealing with the consequence of undocumented
crossings when we knew that was an unintended consequence of
shifting certain enforcement prerogatives in certain areas. I
comment because I think that is a part that this learned
Committee could look at is how are you going to coordinate and
how are you going to have that collaboration prior to and not
deal with the consequences after the fact. I mention that.
The other issue I was going to ask General Blum. In a
newspaper, and that gives you the opportunity every time I say
newspaper quote. Unfortunately I am quoted correctly but you
might not have been so I'll give you that opportunity. ``More
than two-thirds of the Army National Guard 34 brigades are not
combat ready.'' That was the beginning of the story. ```It will
cost up to $21 billion to correct the top National Guard,' the
General said Tuesday.'' That dealt with equipment shortages
primarily. ``Further behind or even more dire situation than
the active Army but we both have the same symptoms. I just have
a higher fever.''
You said earlier in your testimony that in some way this
deployment of 6,200 is not affecting readiness and could
potentially enhance that. Is there a contradiction between what
is written in the press and what you just told the Committee?
General Blum. Well, what is written in the press was taken
out of context and it could lead you to a wrong conclusion.
Mr. Grijalva. That is why I asked the question.
General Blum. It is well documented and I have said many
times, in fact, in front of Chairman Hunter's Committee, that
the National Guard as a deliberate policy or strategy was
under-resourced for about four decades when we were a strategic
reserve. We are an operational force and have been for the last
at least six years and will probably be for the foreseeable
future.
How we resource the National Guard, how we provide money
and equipment to the National Guard has to be done in a
different manner than it was done for the previous time when we
were strategic reserve. Now that we are deployed overseas and
deployed back here at home, we have to make sure the soldiers
and airmen have the equipment they need to do the job overseas
and that is being done superbly well.
We also need to put that same kind of attention into
equipment that is back here at home that will be needed tonight
or in the next 10 minutes if a tsunami or a hurricane or forest
fire or we have to respond to some terrorist event here in the
United States. Having said that, I am glad I had the
opportunity to correct the record or make it more clear.
Everyone knows that the National Guard is at least $21
billion under-funded to purchase the equipment it does not
have. If the Army redistributes equipment, I don't need that
much money. I only need the money to buy what they do not
provide the National Guard in kind. In other words, if I need
three trucks and they give me two trucks, I need the money to
buy the third truck. Right now to buy down the list of what the
National Guard actually needs over the next few years or the
next five years is $21 billion.
The Army understands that, the Army accepts that, and the
Army has rolled up our requirements within the total Army's
requirements so that its active guard and reserve requirements.
I realize this is a little bit outside of what this hearing is
about but since you asked, I wanted that cleared up.
Mr. Grijalva. No. The point being that this deployment of
6,200 of your troops along the border, my question was to
extend that readiness to them as well.
General Blum. Let me put it in perspective. 6,200 people
is less than 2 percent of the force. We are doing that not by
mobilizing them and taking them away from their homes for a
year or a year and a half. They have to pull two weeks of
annual training and two to three weeks every year. What we have
done is said, you know what, to come all the way to the
border----
Mr. Grijalva. And the percentage. Could you break it out
for percentages for me? What percentage of that troop
deployment of the National Guard ends up in the Yuma Tucson
sector?
General Blum. Forty percent of the 6,000 the first year
initially will go into the Tucson Yuma sector. Whether that
will stay that way will largely be determined by how the
illegal activities react to that deployment. If all nine sector
chiefs say, ``Yes, we have it about right,'' we will probably
leave it that way. But if Deputy Chief Calhoon comes in and
says, ``We can reduce the force in Tucson. We need to move more
to Yuma,'' then we will do it.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me just reclaim my time. July, that is
not the peak month in terms of the activity you have to deal
with. September and October, those months become peak months.
That is my understanding. Correct me.
Chief Calhoon. Yes, the summer is inactive. The previous
two fiscal years in Yuma were record Julys and not according to
the trend. Last July was a record month.
Mr. Grijalva. While I have you, let me just ask you one
question. The Chief of U.S. Boarder Patrol, Mr. Aguilar,
testified at a hearing before this Committee in response to a
question by the Chairman about the need for border fencing.
Chief Aguilar said, ``If what I'm being asked is that a fence
has to be across an entire 2000 mile border with Mexico, the
answer is no. I have repeatedly advocated for giving the Border
Patrol the right mix of resources given the situation sector
needs and priorities.'' Do you concur with that statement?
Chief Calhoon. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. And you also said that tactical
infrastructure alone, in your written testimony, will not
secure the border. Can you amplify on that a little bit?
Chief Calhoon. Our fences have continually been compromised
on the border for decades. It still requires agents behind that
fence to assure that those people that circumvent get
apprehended. A fence by itself requires agents. Otherwise, it
would be useless.
Mr. Grijalva. If I may ask, Mr. Chairman, just for
indulgence for a second just to ask the Chairwoman one
question. With your tribe being the most prominent in terms of
the responsibility they carry in terms of the 75 miles. Other
tribes are being impacted as well but not to the degree.
One of the suggestions have been to Homeland Security and
potentially the Department of Defense if that there be a
straight funding mechanism established that deals with
sovereign nations and their cooperation and work and
consultation and resources and expenditures that they are
utilizing out of their coffers to deal with this issue of
border security. That has been a conversation people have had
and I would just like your reaction to that.
Ms. Juan-Saunders. We currently do participate in regional
groups in the state of Arizona. However, we have initiated
legislation to provide required funding to each tribes'
respective locations. That is some of the recommendations that
we have allocated with different notary individuals while we
were in Washington this week.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me just take
time to thank you for your courtesy and the Committee for
allowing me to be part of this meeting and this hearing and
also to welcome you. I didn't do that at the initiation to Yuma
and to District 7 and southern Arizona. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Grijalva, thank you for hosting us
here. Speaking of hosting us, I see Mayor Larry Nelson. I have
got to tell everybody that Mayor Nelson went with myself and a
number of other people, a quarterback for the Chargers and Roy
Tyler here of Tyler's Taste of Texas, and one or two other
folks to Louisiana on a rescue mission with rescue task force.
The Mayor and I went in an airboat through the city passing
out food to the National Guard and to the people that were
having problems there. The Mayor personally carried many beds--
helped to pay for many beds that went into the refugee center.
Mayor Larry Nelson, thank you for your contribution. I do want
to note that the Mayor and I competed with Roy Tyler.
We were trying to rescue people off roofs. We didn't rescue
any people in our airboat but we did rescue a Cocker Spaniel
and I got an assist. Roy Tyler over here, though, got two
points for rescuing the Cocker Spaniel. He did leave the Pit
Bull behind. Good choice. Mayor Nelson, I don't know why I
digress like that but I saw you there and Mr. Grijalva in
mentioning the Yuma reminded me. Thank you for letting us be in
your great city.
At this time let me go to Trent Franks, also a great
members of the Committee. Trent, do you have any questions you
would like to ask?
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would just
express appreciation for all of you being here and for what you
do. Is my microphone doing that again, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. It is a conspiracy.
Mr. Franks. I told you it was a conspiracy when we started.
Again, I express that appreciation.
Colonel Hancock, if it is all right, I will start with you.
You are sort of a hero to Arizona. You have been involved in so
many different things. You have flown in the Blue Angels. You
have kind of carried on a family tradition of the military
service. I want you to know we all appreciate it very, very
much.
Having said that, you know, one of the things that struck
me was not only a cooperation it seemed like between the Marine
Corps and the Homeland Security Department but almost a
comraderie between you and the representatives there. That
said, I know there have been a lot of reports related to
illegal immigration impacting the various missions supported by
the Barry M. Goldwater Range whether it be Luke Air Force Base
or the Marine Corps Air Station. Can you put that in some kind
of perspective for us?
Colonel Hancock. Sir, about 2003 we started to see a pretty
significant impact. 2002 to 3 and 4 were pretty significant
years as far as total numbers of aliens crossing the Barry M.
Goldwater Range. Last year we had about 17,500 aliens attempted
to cross the Barry M. Goldwater Range. We started a pretty good
impact on training because of the lack of range time. The range
was open 24 hours a day and seven days a week. We saw a pretty
significant chuck of that, 12 percent, I think, 2004, or 15
percent as far as range time lost.
We can't use the range 24 hours a day, seven days a week as
far as military. The reason we exist is because of the ranges.
Ranges out in the west provide for training. Everybody comes
out here who wants to train. Everyone nationwide if they are
going to Iraq, the Marine Corps units and National Guard units
come to Yuma, Arizona to train in survival. The impact to
training was we saw last year 45 events, actual training
events, impacted due to direct union aid activity or the result
of law enforcement.
Most of our aerospace out there we don't drop bombs. When
we serve hazard areas we use weapons, lasers, etc. We are
mostly and mostly concerned with folks on the ground whether
American citizen recreation, folks lost, in the wrong area,
etc., or aliens or law enforcement to get along with. We saw
the peak of that about 45 events affected.
A new concern for us is to continue the course since then
and get better coordination from the Boarder Patrol that have
been here and the Air Department, too, and better
collaboration, better support of arms and ranges, increase in
communication suites where the Border Patrol is at, where the
agents are at. We are more likely to shut down certain portions
of the range where they are operating if we know they are out
there. Aircraft will continue to fly while supporting the
range.
To see that impacts 45 events last year, now this Task 1
for the month of July just ended one training event in that
group for the month of July. Since December of 2005 a
substantial range operation center which gives us better
support for Border Patrol, real-time coordination. We have seen
a significant decrease in training events. Less than 1 percent
of sorties in six months have been affected. It has been very
significant with the dual efforts of the Customs and Border
Protection and Marine Corps getting control.
Mr. Franks. That is good that there is a little good news
once in a while. Thank you, Colonel. Thank you for your
family's service and for your personal service to the country.
Deputy Chief Calhoon, let me just ask you, sir, I had the
privilege of touring this Yuma sector here about two months ago
with the President of the United States. At that time, if my
memory serves me correctly, there was an indication that about
160 individuals had been interdicted between January or the
first of the year and approximately two months ago. The
indications were that they were from countries that either
supported or performed terrorism. Does that meet with your--you
said that you might not have those exact numbers but that seems
significant to me.
Chief Calhoon. That actually seems like a national figure.
I'm not sure. The Yuma sector is smaller than 160 special
interest interdictions.
Mr. Franks. What percentage of 160 be of your total
interdictions?
Chief Calhoon. It would be about 10 percent. I'm sorry,
about 1 percent.
Mr. Franks. Okay. Related to that, if you have an
interdiction, what is your assumption of how many people come
over without being interdicted? Is it about two to one?
Chief Calhoon. These days we have a proactive intelligence
gathering network where we actually estimate how many people
enter, how many people are apprehended, and how many people get
away. We are more efficient this year than we were last year.
We are arresting more people, turning back more aliens, and
interdicting more vehicles than we did last year. For the month
of June we were down nearly 50 percent in apprehensions while
we were 26 percent above last year's average in the second
quarter of this year. Since June there has been a dramatic
impact in tracking illegal activity on the border. The border
is more secure and we are more efficient on the border today.
Mr. Franks. Let me just ask this last question then. It is
kind of two-part. What you attribute that to is it partly
General Blum's fault over here? If there is any one thing that
the Congress could do either some sort of statutorial action or
whatever else might be of support to you, what can we do to
make the job of the entire panel more effective and successful?
Chief Calhoon. To address the first part of your question,
there are multiple events occurring that probably impacted
illegal activity on the border during the month of June and
July. The biggest impact we believe was the news worthiness of
the headlines. My boss here believes that was a big factor was
the Army National Guard being deployed.
Mexico just went through an election that was highly
contested and they are still debating. It is very possible that
detained people in Mexico who might have crossed, as well as
some recent trends. Let me go into the history. The traditional
way that someone would pay for being smuggled into the country
was after the fact.
After he got to where he was going he would work and pay it
off. There are some indicators now that gangs and smugglers are
requiring some money up front so that is a new occurrence.
Also, that illegal aliens could contribute to a hike in the
crime rate. That could also be directly related to the
difficulty to cross or whether the National Guard on the border
are much more efficient Yuma sector Border Patrol.
Mr. Franks. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it sounds like that
spells a little bit of progress to me. Maybe I am just not
hearing carefully here.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I think it does.
Mr. Butterfield, did you have any further questions you
would like to ask?
Mr. Butterfield. Yes.
The Chairman. Okay. Go right ahead.
Mr. Butterfield. Very briefly. General, I want to get back
briefly and I am not going to dwell on much longer but the
6,200 personnel that we have been talking about, and you are
going to try to get it down to 6,000, do they include any
personnel in transition? That is what I am trying to get
settled.
General Blum. Oh, yes, sir. I am sorry. I may have missed
the intent of your question.
Mr. Butterfield. I am not sure I know what ``in
transition`` means. I know there is a category for in
transition.
General Blum. For instance, I am counting the Virginia
National Guard, the Maryland National Guard that is arriving
while we are speaking as part of that 6,200 that are here
today. They obviously will not be working for the Border Patrol
today. It will take them a couple of days to get oriented and
briefed and make sure they understand the rules of the use of
force, make sure they understand that they are briefed on the
cultural sensitivities of this mission and that will be done by
the Border Patrol people and our permanent party people or our
duration party people here in Arizona to make sure that
everybody gets the same orientation. They are coming from the
middle Atlantic states. They are unfamiliar with the----
Mr. Butterfield. Has my state arrived yet?
General Blum. Your state is already working. Your state is
already receiving laudatory comments from Deputy Chief Calhoon
because they were ready to go. They arrived sooner. They have
gone through what I have just described there in place and they
are out there doing their job now. Of the 6,200 a great
proportion, the great majority of the soldiers have already
transitioned and are under their command and control performing
the missions, the 16 major task missions that I described
earlier in direct support of the Customs and Border Patrol. As
the others move out of the training and orientation classes,
they will be picked up and taken by their chain of command and
placed in the sectors to perform the missions that the Customs
and Border Patrol has asked them to perform.
I would say any time you come down here from now until the
end of this mission there will be some people that are going
out, some people that are coming in, some are performing a
mission, some are being oriented, some are being processed to
either come into the mission or to leave the mission. That is
why my intent is to make sure that 6,000 soldiers are in
support of the Customs and Border Patrol on any given day
throughout this operation. That is it.
There will be about 800 people that are never going to be
in direct support of the Customs and Border Patrol that perform
functions that enable the rest of the force to be here to be
able to be sustained to make sure they are logistically
supported, administratively supported, and the liaisons and the
planners are not in direct support of the Border Patrol because
they are not absolutely doing tasks that the Border Patrol
request them to do but without that overhead which is extremely
lean.
Eight hundred out of the 6,200 to perform that function is
a very lean overhead to put your headquarters and your
sustaining force in there and that is what we have done.
Basically five out of every six soldiers that are down here are
indirect support of the Border Patrol. The others that are down
here are absolutely essential to being able to perform this
operation so they honestly are in indirect support of the
Customs and Border Patrol.
If it weren't for this operation, they wouldn't be here.
Now, that is a long answer but I wanted to make it absolutely
transparent and clear exactly what we are doing. The numbers
are really the wrong thing to focus on, Congressman. We were
asked to bring about 6,000 people down here. Six thousand
random people is not the answer.
The answer is to bring in the right capabilities, the right
skill sets, the right kind of equipment, the right kind of
units to make them more effective. That is what we work very
hard to do with the Customs and Border Patrol. We have tried to
do this so it isn't one size fits all. We have done this with
each of the nine sector chiefs and we have also done it with
the Commissioner and with David Aguilar, the Chief of the
Border Patrol.
At the Washington level they are aware of what we are
doing. It was bottom-up built by the sectors. They built their
menu of what they wanted. The force cap was provided by the
Department of Defense and within that 6,000 we are giving them
all of the capabilities we possibly can generate within those
numbers.
Mr. Butterfield. Let me conclude by going back to the
readiness issue that was brought up a few minutes ago.
General Blum. Yes, sir.
Mr. Butterfield. Let me talk to you about the nondeployed
units in the continental U.S. Are you comfortable with their
readiness level? I know you talked about the challenges that
you face.
General Blum. I am extremely comfortable with their
personnel fill and the quality and professionalism. We probably
have the youngest force, most experienced force, most committed
force. Probably the best human resource National Guard this
nation has ever had.
What I am concerned about and will continue to be concerned
about until I get all of the equipment that is required to
perform our military support jobs as well as our homeland
defense missions as well as our support to Homeland Security
missions, what is traditionally called state missions which
means respond to weather pattern storms or natural disasters,
but we also have to be ready for a WMD event or multiple WMD
events or counter-terrorist events and that requires the
National Guard to have in their hands trucks, radios, night
vision goggles, aviation.
Mr. Butterfield. It is our job to give it to you unless it
is reallocated from the other service.
General Blum. Right, sir. We are working very hard. I want
to be very open with this. The Army is working diligently with
us in a collaborative manner to identify what our shortfalls
are and come up with a strategy near-term, not long-term, that
they are sincere about this. The Army has already moved new
equipment that was not supposed to come to the Guard in
hurricane states to better prepare us in North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia.
In fact, right in your home state, Congresswoman. We have
moved equipment that we would not have normally gotten because
we have the retention on this issue. Frankly, they have
deferred fielding it to active duty units here that don't
perform that mission to make that happen. That having been
said, we are still $21 billion necessary to buy the equipment
that comes to us, or the equipment must come to us either from
returning it overseas and basically rejuvenating equipment,
resetting the equipment, and then reissuing it to us.
It is not an easy question to answer. It is a complex issue
but here is what I can say. The senior leadership of the Army
is committed to working with us to fix that problem and I know
the Congress is committed to working with us to fix that
problem.
I just don't want to throw a bill on the table without
having exhausted the strategies to reduce that bill for the
American taxpayer. When I come before the Chairman's Committee
and say this is what the National Guard needs, I want to do
that after we have exhausted some other alternatives to pay
that bill down for the American public.
Mr. Butterfield. We have got to work in a bipartisan matter
to make that happen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Virginia, Ms. Drake, had another
question.
Ms. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two things quickly
for Chief Calhoon. First of all, is there any coordination at
all with Mexican law enforcement? Are they working with you on
this issue? The second one deals with the issue of human
trafficking. Is that something that we are able to identify?
Are we seeing more of it and determining if someone is a victim
rather than voluntarily crossing?
Chief Calhoon. On the issue of working with the Mexican
government, we have several program in place. In the Yuma
sector we maintain a daily dialogue with our Mexican liaison
people and various Mexican law enforcement entities who share
information, talk about particular personnel who are very
apprized about what is going on operationally in Mexico.
We are setting up a checkpoint and what the focus of that
checkpoint is all about. That works very well. We are also able
to work with the local Mexican police department during
incidents if there are shots fired. We can call them directly
on the phone line. That is a very good working relationship.
We have a prosecution program in place where we target
Mexican guide smugglers and drivers. The acronym for it is
OASISS. It is a program where we can prosecute in Mexico people
who have been identified in the United States who do not meet
the criteria for prosecution in the United States. That program
has been in effect for several years now and we were able to
prosecute people in Mexico in essence for a crime that was
orchestrated in the United States but impacted Mexican
citizens.
That is the legal nexus for that prosecution. That has been
very effective. We have actually removed guides and smugglers
and drivers from the organization for quite a lengthy period
before then. That does impair the ability of the smuggling
organizations operations. Human smugglers is not an accurate
title. The smugglers in general may choose to smuggle human
cargo based on its profitability. Some alien smuggling
organizations have branched out and become narcotic smuggling
organizations based on increased investigation. Human
smuggling, as I alluded to before, the cost.
Ms. Drake. I don't mean someone who is voluntarily hiring
them to come over. I mean where they are actually trafficking
people. Have you seen much of that on the border against their
will?
Chief Calhoon. Oh, against their will.
Ms. Drake. Against their will.
Chief Calhoon. Very little incidence of people being
smuggling against their will unless you're talking about
infants that are being brought in.
Ms. Drake. No, people that are actually duped into it or
taken for the purpose of human trafficking.
Chief Calhoon. No. The investigating agency that would have
responsibility for that is the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Agency. Most of those crimes that you are talking
about would fall into their purview. The Border Patrol in
general----
Ms. Drake. It is not something you see.
Chief Calhoon. You are basically talking about slavery.
Ms. Drake. Slavery.
Chief Calhoon. We rarely encounter that. That is a crime
that is fully developed once they get to their destination and
found in the basement of a restaurant where they are being
forced to work for a pittance.
Ms. Drake. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
I think we have had a very constructive hearing today. Let
me follow up with something that I was informed us as we
started the hearing. That was that the Senate has appropriated
or has taken an amendment into their appropriations bill I
believe by Senator Sessions of Alabama that $1.8 billion for
some 350 miles of fence. He was the author of the fence
amendment on the Senate side while I offered the amendment on
the House side. I think a fence is coming. A very substantial
large fence construction. I think that is going to be the will
of Congress. That is my take on that. And the American people.
Chief Calhoon, when we built the fence in the San Diego
sector, at the time we built it we had a border patrol of about
8,000 people. Between 6,000 and 8,000. It came up slightly as
we were building the fence. We had at one point almost two-
thirds of all the border for the entire United States, southern
border and the Canadian border in San Diego County in that
number one smuggler's corridor.
That is when we had no impediments and you could watch
smugglers bringing people across and military formations
sometimes by the thousands, trucks ramming the border. We built
the fence and now we totally eliminated the drug drive-thrus.
We reduced the smuggling of people and narcotics by more than
90 percent. Totally eliminated the border gangs.
My question to you is this. As we construct this fence
across the southwest, in your estimation if we accompany that
construction with an appropriate number of border patrol agents
to man it, and the point I was making with the San Diego sector
was after we built the fence we were able to pull agents off
that section because we didn't need as many and that was the
whole point of the design of the fence by one of our national
laboratories that said you need an impediment.
You have to have something that stops people, that slows
them down so the border patrol can do its job. If we construct
this fence across the southwest border, presuming that we
accompany it with an appropriate number of new border patrol
agents. Will it be effective? Will that be an effective
impediment to the penetration of our borders by people who are
coming across without authorization?
Chief Calhoon. Yes, it will.
The Chairman. Do you think in light of the fact that we now
have in our Federal penitentiaries and our state and local
penitentiaries and jails some 250 criminals from other
countries around the world who come to the United States to ply
their trade, most of them coming across the land border, that
would have a reducing effect on that population?
Chief Calhoon. Access or ability to cross the border?
The Chairman. Yes, the ability to come in and commit
crimes.
Chief Calhoon. Right. Clearly found in the Yuman sector. We
are getting another of the nine Border Patrol sectors with that
technology. As we alluded to before, we are going to probably
shift back to controlling cross-border traffic.
The Chairman. So wouldn't you agree that the key then if we
agree that building a border fence is effective and it tends to
shift traffic, the key is to building the fence in a complete
way and to have a border that is, in fact, a complete border.
Would you agree with that prospect?
Chief Calhoon. As one solution to the problem. It would be
the longest solution in a time frame scenario. There are other
ways to do that.
The Chairman. Well, let me ask you this. I have heard
virtual fence utilized by the Department of Homeland Security.
If you have a 1,000 people rush the border at the same time in
a fairly limited area, assuming you have got the greatest set
of sensors in the world and you have whistles and bells that
will go off in your office until it drives you crazy but you
have only got a limited number of personnel to handle that huge
influx of people who come across with no impediment, no fence,
how are you going to handle then with a virtual fence?
How do you handle what your people used to call the so-
called bonsai attacks where thousands would come across at one
signal? How do you do that when you only have 25 to 30 agents
in that sector?
Chief Calhoon. I think our difference is a matter of
semantics. I would agree that by analyzing and finding an
effective tool it sounds like perhaps maybe you will get 300
miles of good border security. Those rural areas where there is
less traffic where agents are able to respond to longer
distances around the border, technology whether that is sensor
or whether that is stoplight imagery, whether it is an aircraft
with infrared radar. That is quick to come on and will continue
to be utilized.
The Chairman. Okay. Can we say that we agree on the first
350 miles?
Chief Calhoon. Not sure.
The Chairman. We are going to put you down as not undecided
on that. That is as good as I can do. Can you cross-examine him
a little more, Trent?
Thank you very much, Chief.
General Pineda, we would like to see you keep flying. That
is my personal feeling. I don't know how Mr. Butterfield and
the other members feel but you have this Civil Air Patrol
capability. You have got good visual. Obviously good optics in
your aircraft. Good communication. I was hoping because we put
the first part of the house built passed in the House of
Representatives had a humanitarian component.
That humanitarian component was to have interlocking
cameras on this section between Calexico, California and
Douglas, Arizona, about 392 miles, by May 31st. The reason we
put that down while we were building the fence was to try to
get some help before the hot season got here, before the 400 or
so people who die every year in the desert started to expire.
The last time we checked, in fact, I think my brother sent
me the statistics a couple weeks ago, it was 77 people had died
in the desert. Our thoughts were that perhaps the Civil Air
Patrol could have as well as sending critical information to
the Border Patrol with their high-tech capability on these
small aircraft, send them information on smuggling operations.
They could also save some lives so I think it is important to
get you folks back in the air.
You have now finished this training mission. From my
perspective I think you have demonstrated you can do it and I
am going to work with the Air Force and work with DOD to try to
keep you in the air. I think that helps us from a humanitarian
point of view. That will save some lives. I think it will also
assist the Border Patrol.
You folks in the Border Patrol, Chief, you have used CAP
before, haven't you?
Chief Calhoon. Yes.
The Chairman. Have you always had a good relationship with
them, a good working relationship?
Chief Calhoon. They are not at odds with us.
The Chairman. From the Chief that is a yes.
General Blum, anything else you would like to tell us here?
General Blum. No, sir. I just thank you for your attention
and your very pointed questions, very germane questions. They
help clarify exactly what the National Guard is doing and what
the National Guard is not doing and was never intended to do in
this mission. That has been helpful if for no other reason to
have this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you. I think you have clarified mission
effectively.
Let me ask are there any other members of the panel who
would like to ask anymore questions?
Mr. Grijalva, do you have anything more?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple
of follow-ups. Based on the Senate action----
The Chairman. Before you go, Mr. Calvert has got to leave.
I just want to say publicly thank you, Ken, for coming down. We
greatly appreciate your attendance and we will see you soon.
See you on the floor.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Butterfield, you are leaving, too?
Mr. Butterfield. Yes.
The Chairman. Is it something I said?
Mr. Butterfield. No, you are still my friend, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you so much. You have made the
long-run with us all the way from North Carolina to Michigan to
here. We appreciate you, Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Grijalva, go right ahead, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Yeah, very quickly. If I may, Colonel, and
also I think this is a pertinent question perhaps for the
Chairwoman as well. As the Chairman said, the Senate has taken
action on the emergency supplemental to the Department of
Defense. I think it is earmarked $2 billion for fencing along
the U.S./Mexico border primarily. I don't know yet how much
that translates into miles. Given Federal spending it could be
three miles but it possibly could be more than that.
Nevertheless, my question is the training mission and
responsibility that you have, Colonel, and the issue of
building that kind of barrier infrastructure be it a fence, be
it a wall, be it those kinds of things, short-term impact,
long-term impact on that mission if any. Just to get a comment
on that.
Colonel Hancock. Sir, we believe that the collaborative
effort among all land managers and, if I could point out again,
we are the land managers for Barry Goldwater West. The U.S. Air
Force Base is the manager for the Barry Goldwater East. The
Department of Interior, Wildlife Service agency have been
working with us also. Again, also got the Arizona Game and Fish
Department involved. All stakeholders involved with a pretty
good plan in place because the Department of Interior has been
diligent.
We don't squeeze out protection for only 37 miles. There is
a gap again maybe at which has a second impact on endangered
species Froghorn which may force the Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service to begin to restrict other activities
that also impact the environment. If we don't do this in
coordination with other agencies, we build a fast and long
effort of events along our portion of the range. It maybe
solves a lot of issues with production. Then we see
restrictions over the available air space on a daily basis.
That is our concern. It has to be coordinated so we don't
squeeze it in somebody else's area of responsibility.
Mr. Grijalva. And I do want to thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think what the Colonel and his predecessors
have done in setting up a cooperative collaborative stewardship
of that land balancing some very delicate environmental issues
with the overall mission of the services I think is phenomenal
and I would suggest that be looked at very closely as a model
because it is very difficult work.
Madam Chairwoman, any response to the issue of a fence, the
75 miles that you have contiguous, what it means or doesn't
mean to the people you represent?
Ms. Juan-Saunders. We would support a fence which could be
constructed. We initially supported a smaller fence but later
found out they changed it to a larger design and then came back
to consult with us regarding those changes. The other concern
we have is we are not in support of elaborate ceremonies so the
transborder crossing issues are limited. There is also a
concern about the type of fence found from Customs and Border
Protection regarding those concerns.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
If I may, Chief, we have talked about all the security
issues and given you are 45 days here but your experience in
Nogales as well on the border community. There is a need in
this part of the region being a border community particularly
with agriculture for a reliable, secure, consistent
availability of workers to deal with 40 percent of what we eat
in vegetables in this country given a period of time.
Without compromising your mission, your opinion on how we
continue to work and assure a reliable work force for the
economic vitality of this particular region. It is an open-
ended question but I think everybody that has worked here and
works in this sector understands that is part and parcel of the
mission that you have without compromising the overall mission
but dealing with this reality.
Chief Calhoon. Our primary mission under the Homeland
Security is the prevention of terrorists and weapons of mass
destruction from entering the United States. Immigration is a
secondary issue there. We would support issues that would make
the border a safer environment. It would remove people who
might be there for economic purposes and make our ability to
identify and/or arrest and seize those instruments.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I yield
back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and to everyone.
Colonel, did you have a final----
Colonel Hancock. There is concern also the Air Force Base.
Again their are almost simultaneously in cooperation with each
other. It is not just the impact on the base but anybody that
would make it through the Air Force portion of the range. Those
are very important. The bombing range is live impact high-
explosive bombing ranges that the Air Force operates and the
Marine Corps and the Navy, too the Air Force ranges, extremely
impact the ranges which also is a danger in that area.
The Chairman. Thank you, Colonel. We need to look at the
detail as we work this plan for the range.
Thanks to everyone that is here. Chairwoman, I want to let
you know also Ed Pastore was your champion in making sure that
you had an opportunity to be here and talk about your part of
the border. That is a very important issue and Ed did a good
job of that.
I want to thank all the members for participating and our
great panel. We have a challenge here and it is a challenge
that requires us to balance our humanitarian concerns and the
humanitarian ethic with the need to secure our borders. I think
it is clear that post 9/11 border security is no longer simply
an immigration issue. It is a national security issue and the
House of Representatives has moved out to answer to the
American people and meet this challenge and we are going to do
it by building an enforceable border.
I think the details on how you do that and how you do it
effectively and efficiently are still being worked and put
together. I think the American community is coming together in
consensus on this major proposition that we need to secure our
border. We need to know who is coming across and what they are
bringing with them. Your testimony today has contributed, I
think, greatly to the solution that we will be working over the
next many months.
Thanks a lot. A lot of you came from a long way and it was
inconvenient to be here but we appreciate your. We appreciate
all the great people of Yuma for being with us and Congressman
Grijalva for hosting us here in your district. Colonel, thanks
for letting us come on this great base. Your folks serve this
country so well and so courageously. Please let all of your
people in uniform know that we really appreciate being here. I
think it is the first time the Armed Services Committee has
held a hearing here.
The last thing, the major part of this base is named after
Bob Stump, my great predecessor who is Chairman of the Armed
Services Committee. He joined the Navy at the age of 17.
Actually 15. I think he was 16 when he got in. He was a rodeo
cowboy, state legislator and a U.S. Congressman, head of the
Veteran's Committee and the Armed Services Committee. His seat
is now held by Trent Franks who is I think filling those shoes
very effectively. What a wonderful guy you are, Trent.
Bob Stump had one model and that is, ``Let's serve this
country.'' That is what we have to do with this policy of
border patrol. Let's serve out country and let's do the right
thing for America. Thank you and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 the Committee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
August 2, 2006
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
August 2, 2006
=======================================================================
STATEMENT OF REP. SILVESTRE REYES (D-TX) ON
``U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER SECURITY NATIONAL SECURITY:
IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES FOR THE ARMED SERVICES''
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
YUMA, ARIZONA
AUGUST 2, 2006
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to take part in this
afternoon's hearing on border security and implications for America's
armed services. I also appreciate our panel of witnesses joining us
today.
As you know, this hearing is one in a series scheduled by the House
Republican leadership for July and August on border security and
immigration. I maintain that these hearings are more about politics
than policy, and that the American people would be far better served if
Congress was instead working to reach a compromise on meaningful border
security and immigration legislation.
However, as a 26 \1/2\ year veteran of the United States Border
Patrol and a member representing a congressional district on the U.S.-
Mexico border, I believe I have a responsibility to share my experience
with my colleagues, with the hope that almost five years after the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress and the Bush
Administration will finally do what needs to be done to secure our
borders and keep America safe.
With that being said, I would like to touch on an issue of great
importance to our national security, and that is the readiness levels
of our military and particularly of the Army and the National Guard. I
will be the first to say that the National Guard has been doing
exceptional things for this country. They have valiantly answered every
call, and I know that they will continue to perform with admirable
courage in the future.
I am concerned, however, that we are handicapping their efforts
with this border security mission. I am also troubled by the potential
for degraded unit readiness and shortages of equipment and personnel,
which could affect the ability of the National Guard to fulfill its
mission now and in the future. I look forward to hearing from General
Blum, in particular, on these important issues.
We also need to be mindful of the fact that to fund this new Guard
mission, $1.9 billion has been redirected from other defense spending
priorities. Of course, we would not be in this unfortunate situation if
Congress had been funding the Border Patrol, which is the agency
charged with securing our nation's borders, at the necessary levels.
Since coming to Congress, I have consistently lobbied my colleagues
for greater resources for border security, including additional Border
Patrol agents, equipment, and technology; more immigration inspectors
and judges; and thousands of new detention beds so we can end the
absurd practice of catch-and-release of other-than-Mexicans, or OTMs,
once and for all.
Yet in every instance, the President and the leadership in Congress
have failed to deliver these necessary resources. Congress is already
800 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 detention beds short of just what
was promised in the 9/11 Act. Clearly, almost five years after the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Administration and
Congress have a lot of work yet to do.
Over eleven years ago, while I was still Chief of the El Paso
Sector of the Border Patrol, I testified before the House Judiciary
Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, about the border
security strategy we implemented successfully in El Paso known as
Operation Hold the Line. At that time, in response to a question from
my friend from California, Mr. Hunter, I testified that border fencing
can be an essential tool for curbing illegal entries in communities
like El Paso or San Diego and other densely populated, urban areas of
the border region. Since being elected to Congress almost a decade ago,
I have consistently supported Mr. Hunter's efforts to facilitate the
construction of a border fence in the San Diego area.
Unfortunately, however, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions
for border security, and that is why I oppose the 730-mile border fence
provision included in H.R. 4437, as well as proposals for a nearly
2000-mile fence to run the entire length of the U.S.-Mexico border.
In communities with large numbers of people in close proximity to
the border where there would otherwise be thousands of illegal entries
per day, it makes sense to construct and maintain a physical barrier at
the border. On the other hand, it is simply not worthwhile to build
fencing through remote desert and other areas of tough terrain, where
the number of attempted entries is comparatively much lower.
Instead of building 700 miles of fence at an estimated cost of $2.2
billion-an estimate that many believe to be very low--we could invest
that money in the personnel, equipment, and technology that will
provide a meaningful solution to our border security concerns. For
example, that amount of money would be enough to recruit, train, equip,
and pay the salaries of enough new agents to double the current size of
the Border Patrol.
Not only would construction costs on a 700-mile fence be
exorbitant, but to guard and maintain hundreds of miles of fencing
often in remote areas would be a nightmare for the Border Patrol in
terms of cost, personnel, and logistics. Just to put the amount of
fencing we are talking about into perspective, that would be like
watching over and maintaining a fence built from Chicago to Atlanta.
Furthermore, depending on the geography of an area, a wall can
actually be a hindrance to the Border Patrol as they attempt to monitor
who or what may be coming at them from the other side of the border.
Instead, in these more remote areas our limited border security
resources would be much better spent on additional personnel,
equipment, and technology such as sensors to create what is often
referred to as a ``virtual fence.'' A virtual fence could also be
implemented more quickly and therefore could help us gain operational
control of our borders sooner.
The virtual fence is the approach preferred by the Border Patrol.
The Chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar, recently testified
before the House Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, in
opposition to a border-wide fence and in support of the right mix of
personnel, physical barriers, and technology to create a virtual fence
at the border. The Acting Chief of the Laredo Sector, Reynaldo Garza,
gave similar testimony earlier this month at a field hearing I attended
in Laredo, Texas. Congress needs to listen to the advice of the Border
Patrol in these matters, since they are the ones with the boots on the
ground in the border region and are the real-world experts in border
security.
It is also important to remember that addressing our border
security infrastructure is only one part of what we need to do to fix
our country's border security and illegal immigration problems. That is
why I have long supported providing the resources required to enforce
immigration laws in our nation's interior, including tough sanctions
against employers who hire undocumented workers. If it were harder for
an undocumented worker to get a job, fewer of them would try to enter
this country illegally, which would allow the Border Patrol to focus on
those who may be trying to come here to do us harm.
Also, all the walls in the world would do nothing to address the
somewhere between 30 and 60 percent or so of those currently in this
country illegally who, like the 9/11 attackers, actually came to the
U.S. legally on some kind of visa or through other legitimate means,
and overstayed. A wall is not a panacea; there is much more that needs
to be done to help keep America safe.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2984.022