[Senate Hearing 109-423]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-423
NORTH AMERICAN COOPERATION ON THE BORDER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 12, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 2006
28-131 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Aguilar, David V., Chief of the Office of Border Patrol, Customs
and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC................................................. 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Beatty, Hon. Perrin, P.C., president and CEO, Canadian
Manufacturers and Exporters, and former Foreign Minister,
Ottawa, Canada................................................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware........... 34
Castaneda, Hon. Jorge, Global Distinguished Professor of Politics
and Latin American and Caribbean Studies, New York University,
and former Foreign Minister, Mexico City, Mexico............... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Texas....................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut......... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Harris, Hon. Katherine, U.S. Representative from Florida......... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts......... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana................ 1
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona..................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from Florida..................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from Illinois................... 37
Additional Statement Submitted for the Record
Statement of the North American Business Committee of the Council
of the Americas................................................ 59
(iii)
NORTH AMERICAN COOPERATION ON THE BORDER
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G.
Lugar (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Biden, Dodd, Nelson, and Obama.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM
INDIANA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Foreign Relations
Committee is called to order. Today the committee meets to
examine the cooperation between the countries of North America
on border security. Our Nation is inextricably intertwined with
Mexico and Canada historically, culturally, and commercially.
The Department of Transportation reports that goods worth more
than $633 billion crossed our land borders in 2004 alone.
According to the Census Bureau, more than 26 million of the 39
million individuals of Hispanic origin who are legal residents
in the United States are of Mexican origin.
The flow of goods and people across our borders helps drive
our economy and strengthen our culture. But our land borders
also serve as a conduit for illegal immigration, drugs, and
other illicit items. Given the threat of international
terrorism, there is great concern that our land borders could
also serve as a channel for international terrorists and
weapons of mass destruction.
The threat of terrorist penetration is particularly acute
along our southern border. In 2004, fewer than 10,000
individuals were apprehended entering the United States
illegally through our 5,000-mile land border with Canada. This
compared with the more than 1.1 million who were apprehended
while trying to cross our 2,000-mile border with Mexico.
The Department of Homeland Security reports that about
996,000 of these individuals were Mexicans crossing the border
for economic or family reasons. The Homeland Security
Department refers to the rest as, ``other than Mexicans,'' or,
``OTMs.'' Of the approximately 100,000 OTMs apprehended, 3,000
to 4,000 were from so-called countries of interest, like
Somalia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, which have produced or
been associated with terrorist cells.
A few of the individuals that have been apprehended at our
southern border were known to have connections to terrorists or
were entering the United States under highly suspicious
circumstances. For example, one Lebanese national who had paid
a smuggler to transport him across the United States-Mexican
border in 2001 was recently convicted of holding a fundraiser
in his Michigan home for the Hezbollah terrorist group.
In July 2004, a Pakistani woman swam across the Rio Grande
River from Mexico to Texas. She was detained when she tried to
board a plane to New York with $6,000 in cash and a severely
altered South African passport. Her husband's name was found to
be on the terrorist watch list. She was convicted on
immigration charges and deported in 2004.
Since September 11, 2001, progress has been made in
deterring cross-border threats while maintaining the efficient
movement of people and cargo across North America. The United
States signed Smart Border Agreements with Canada and Mexico in
December 2001 and March 2002 respectively. These agreements
seek to improve prescreening of immigrants, refugees, and
cargo. They include new documentation requirements and
provisions for adding inspectors and updating border security
technologies. We have also established Integrated Border
Enforcement Teams to coordinate law enforcement efforts with
Canada.
Additional initiatives are included in the President's
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Agreement
announced on March 23, 2005, at the North American Summit
meeting in Texas.
But additional work lies ahead. We must sustain attention
and accountability at home for enhancing our continental
security, and continue to press our neighbors for improved
cooperation in combatting security threats. To advance these
goals, earlier this year I introduced the North American
Cooperative Security Act, S. 853. This bill seeks to: First,
improve procedures for exchanging information on border
security with Canada and Mexico; second, establish a program
that will assess the needs of Guatemala and Belize in
maintaining the security of their borders and provide technical
and law enforcement assistance to aid in the maintenance of the
Mexican-Guatemalan and Mexico-Belize borders; third, improve
our military to military relations with Mexico; and fourth,
establish a database to track the movement of members of
Central American gangs between the United States, Mexico, and
Central American countries.
Among other provisions, the bill requires U.S. Government
agencies to develop a strategy for achieving an agreement with
the Mexican Government on joint measures to impede the ability
of third country nationals from using Mexico as a transit
corridor for unauthorized entry into the United States. In
essence, with this legislation I am emphasizing that greater
cooperation with our neighbors is necessary to achieve border
security.
This morning we are joined by three distinguished panels to
discuss cooperation on North American border security. First,
we welcome our distinguished congressional colleagues: Senator
John McCain, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator John Cornyn, and
Representative Katherine Harris. Representative Harris is the
sponsor of the companion bill to S. 853 in the House. Each has
worked extensively on issues related to border security and
immigration, and we are pleased that they are with us.
On the second panel, we will hear from two distinguished
former Foreign Ministers from Canada and Mexico who have dealt
extensively with border issues. We will welcome the Honorable
Perrin Beatty, former Foreign Minister of Canada and currently
the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian
Manufacturers and Exporters Association; and the Honorable
Jorge Castaneda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico and
currently an independent candidate for president of his
country.
On the third panel we will hear from two administration
witnesses with key responsibilities for securing our borders.
We will welcome Roger Pardo-Maurer, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for the Western Hemisphere, and David
Aguilar, Chief of the Office of Border Patrol in the Department
of Homeland Security.
We thank all of our witnesses. We look forward to their
insights. I call now upon the first of the distinguished
colleagues who are before us today.
Let me pause for just a moment. Do you have a comment,
Senator Nelson?
Senator Nelson. Just a couple. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
having this hearing. We clearly have a reason to protect our
borders. The question is how, with 8 to 10 million undocumented
workers in this country.
When Senator McCain was the chairman of the Commerce
Committee he held a hearing and we were all just astounded to
hear the testimony that hundreds of people were coming across
the border just in one section of the Arizona-Mexico border.
So, clearly, we have some reason for improvement. So thank you
very, very much for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you, Senator Nelson, for being here
right from the start. We appreciate it.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Given his seniority and advanced age, I
would ask that Senator Kennedy go first. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. Very good reasoning. Senator Kennedy.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. Flattery, but I recognize where the power
is around here. John, why don't you go first.
Senator McCain. No.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
thank my colleagues as well that joined on this panel here and
the others that are testifying. This whole issue of national
security and immigration and how we are going to retain our
longstanding historic tradition as a country of refuge that has
recognized hardworking people that want to come here and make a
contribution and make the country better is in conflict at the
present time.
I think this hearing is of enormous importance because it
recognizes that we have to work with other countries. We cannot
solve the problems of immigration or immigration reform or
border security by ourselves. We need active cooperation with
Canada, Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico, as you have outlined in
your own program. Many of the ideas that you have in your own
program are ideas that Senator McCain and I have incorporated,
in our legislation.
So we want to first pay tribute to you and the committee
for recognizing that whatever we are going to do to secure our
borders has to be done in relationship both with Canada and
Mexico, and also with the countries of Central America.
The idea that we are going to be able to enforce our
borders to limit the numbers of illegal people, hopefully, is
an idea that has passed, because it does not work. We have
spent $20 billion over the last 10 years in trying to solve our
problems with enforcement alone. We are building a fence down
in Mexico, but it is 1,800 miles, 4,200 miles in Canada. We do
not have enough fence, we do not have enough troops to guard
our borders.
If we are interested in national security--and this has
been the area that Senator McCain has been a leader on in our
committee and also in the working through of this program--we
have to control our borders. If we are going to be interested
in where we are going in terms of our economy, we have to
control our borders. It is not open borders or closed borders;
it is smart borders.
The idea that we have well-trained, well-disciplined border
guards down there chasing after gardeners and bartenders across
the deserts in the South is just ridiculous. They ought to be
doing what they have been trained for and that is searching out
the dangerous individuals in al-Qaeda and those terrorists that
are coming across our border, and that is not what is happening
today.
That is why Senator McCain and I have proposed legislation
that understands, number one, that successful legislation
depends upon cooperation and active involvement by Mexico and
the countries in Central America, as well as Canada, but quite
frankly the areas of greatest challenge are on the border on
the South. Number two, our bill has a fair and reasonable
temporary worker program and permits earned legalizations for
the 11 million people that are here. This is not an amnesty
program. No one gets a free ride. No one goes to the head of
the line. No one gets a free pass on this.
Individuals have to demonstrate that they are here, that
they have worked, that they are clear in terms of national
security, and then they have to have an earned record for a
number of years, for the 4 years before they even get on the
road toward working for a green card, 11 years before they even
have the chance of citizenship. Finally, number three is the
visa reform.
We believe that this is the only true way that we can
comply with, one, national security issues; two, the control of
our borders; three, working out a fair and just system which
can help American companies and industries; and finally, be
true to a longstanding honorable immigration policy which has
recognized that people come here who have skills, who want to
work, and want to contribute to this country.
We are looking forward to working with this committee,
Chairman Lugar. Chairman Specter has set a date of July 26 for
a hearing on this proposal. We are eager to work with our
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and to work with this
committee to try and bring American border security,
immigration reform, and fairness and justice for people,
bringing them out of the shadows so that they can play a
constructive role in terms of our American tradition and
history and economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. Senator From
Massachusetts
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
importance of improving cooperation among the North American
governments on border security and immigration reform.
The United States, Canada, and Mexico have a proud history of
friendship and mutual cooperation. Our countries share the world's
longest nonmilitarized borders and we are historically and economically
interdependent.
After September 11, our governments worked closely together to
increase coordination and communication to address terrorist threats.
With Canada, we have entered into numerous joint initiatives to improve
the management of our borders, such as the Shared Border Accord, Border
Vision, and other ``smart border'' accords to share intelligence and
strengthen border security.
The United States and Mexico have also taken significant steps
toward improving security. These are important achievements that have
helped to make us all safer, but much more needs to be done. I'm
particularly concerned that we have done little to address the
longstanding problem of illegal immigration.
In the last 10 years, we have spent more than $20 billion to
enforce our immigration laws. Yet, our efforts have not been adequate.
We've tripled the number of border patrol agents, and tried countless
measures to strengthen border enforcement. We are even building a
fence. Yet, illegal immigration continues. The proof is in the
numbers--nearly 11 million persons are living in the United States
without authorization. Those already here are not leaving, and new
immigrants keep coming in.
Every year, thousands of Mexicans and others come to the United
States, to work and join their families. Illegal immigration has been
averaging 485,000 persons a year. To deal with the growing numbers of
unauthorized workers, we have to modernize our laws to meet the
challenges of the 21st century. Reforming our immigration laws will
improve the security of each of our countries, strengthen our
economies, restore control over our borders, and end the rising number
of deaths.
It's essential that we work with Mexico and Canada on migration
problems and enforcement. A major mistake we made in the past is to
assume we can control illegal immigration on our own. America needs to
do its part, but Mexico and other nations must do their part, too, to
replace illegal immigration flows with regulated, legal immigration.
Mexico's southern border is increasingly being used as a transit
corridor for third country nationals attempting to enter the United
States illegally. The Border Patrol estimates that they will apprehend
nearly 150,000 non-Mexicans crossing our southern border this year--a
200-percent increase over last year. We need to work with Mexico to put
an end to this problem. We also need to work with Canada and Mexico to
help the Central American countries maintain the security of their
borders.
Without cooperation from neighboring countries, immigration reforms
adopted unilaterally by the United States are less likely to succeed.
Bilateral and multilateral agreements provide a framework for
cooperation and are more likely to result in secure borders and safe
and legal immigration.
The overwhelming majority of people crossing illegally into the
United States are from Mexico, Central America, and the rest of Latin
America. They come here seeking work and an opportunity to help their
families. The United States should enter into agreements with these
countries to help control the flow of their citizens to jobs here, and
encourage the reintegration of their citizens returning home. We must
restore the circular migration patterns that once existed between the
United States, Mexico, and other Central American countries.
We cannot continue to throw money at border enforcement as our
primary means for reducing illegal immigration. Nor can we continue to
legislate more and more enforcement measures on top of a broken system.
We need realistic immigration laws that provide legal means for
qualified immigrants to enter America, and strong enforcement of those
laws. By restoring control of our borders, we will also improve our
national security and strengthen our economy.
Three essential components of any effective proposal for reform are
a fair and generous temporary worker program, an earned legalization
program for undocumented workers, and reform of our immigrant visa
system. These measures will reduce the current illegality and chaos and
provide safe, legal, and orderly avenues for persons to enter the
United States. They will also free up resources to allow our border
agents to focus on terrorists, drug smugglers, and violent criminals.
We must also encourage the U.S. Government to partner with Mexico
to promote economic opportunity in Mexico and reduce the pressure for
its citizens to emigrate. The special relationship between our two
countries will be strengthened if we assist the Government of Mexico in
improving the lives and raising the standard of living of its people.
John McCain and I have included all of these proposals in our
bill--the ``Secure America Act.'' Our bill also contains important
provisions that we have included from Chairman Lugar's legislation--the
``North American Cooperative Security Act''--to address North American
cooperation. Effective enforcement of our immigration laws depends upon
the participation and commitment of neighboring governments.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
working with you to enact these responsible and long overdue reforms to
deal with these main challenges.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. We are
looking forward to working with you, and I appreciate your
description of your progress. I call now on your colleague,
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar, and I
would like to thank you for your long involvement in this
issue. Your legislation that requires and encourages
cooperation between our neighbors to the North and South
addresses vital aspects of any enforceable and workable
immigration reform and I thank you for all of your efforts in
that direction.
There is not a lot I could add to what Senator Kennedy
said, except to point out that this is an issue of national
security, it is an issue of humanitarian interest, it is an
issue that affects our economy, and literally in the Southwest
and now across the Nation, this is an issue affecting
everything, including health care costs and law enforcement
costs.
If you walk down the street in Phoenix today, Mr. Chairman,
and asked, ``what is the number one issue facing your State,''
it would not be Social Security; it would be immigration reform
because of the enormous impact, ranging from health care costs
for treatment of illegal immigrants to law enforcement costs.
Just 2 weeks ago, 79 people were found in a Phoenix alley
crammed into a commercial horse trailer. The heat was over 100
degrees. They had been there for several days. Of the 79, 11
were children, including a 4-month-old baby.
This has so many ramifications associated with it. I would
not want to take too much time of the committee to go through
them all. I think that Senator Kennedy and I and others who
have cosponsored, including Senators Brownback, Lieberman,
Graham, and Salazar, have come up with a balanced approach. We
are not saying it cannot be improved, but it has three key
aspects.
First and most important of all is obviously security.
There is a national security issue here. More and more people
are crossing our borders that the Director of the FBI says are
from, ``countries of interest.'' We know that. We have to
enforce our border. We will never win the war on terror unless
we enforce our border. Anybody who believes that Senator
Kennedy's and my proposal does not address that, first and
foremost, has not read the bill.
The second key component is matching employers with
employees coupled with strong interior enforcement. We believe
that is fairly easy to do. The bill requires the development
and implementation of a mandatory employment verification
system using tamper-resistant biometric machine-readable
identification. Employers will have concrete confirmation the
individual they hire is authorized to work or is not. As the
President has stated many times, it is important to match
willing workers with willing employers.
Then finally, Mr. Chairman, there are 10 to 11 million
people, as Senator Kennedy already stated, who are living in
the shadows of our life in America and our economy, falling
prey to anyone who wants to exploit them. They live in the
shadows. We have a national interest in identifying these
individuals, providing them with incentives to come out of the
shadows, to go through security background checks, pay back
taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak
English, and regularize their status. We have to do that.
Anybody that believes you are going to round them up and
send them back to Guatemala or wherever they came from,
obviously has not even a rudimentary understanding of the
issue.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I might, could I read you an
article--passages from an article that was in the Arizona
Republic: ``205 Migrants Die Hard, Lonely Deaths.'' The article
says: ``It is a lonely place to die out in the soft, sandy
washes. The desert floor with its volcanic rock can reach 160
degrees. Most people go down slowly. Blood starts to seep into
the lungs, exposed skin burns, and the sweat glands shut down.
Little hemorrhages, tiny leaks, start in the heart. When the
body temperature reaches 107, the brain cooks and the delirium
starts.
``Some migrants claw at the ground with their fingernails,
trying to hollow out a cooler spot to die. Others pull
themselves through the sand on their bellies like they are
swimmers or snakes. The madness sometimes prompts people to
slit their own throats or hang themselves from trees with their
belts.
``This past year the bodies of 205 undocumented immigrants
were found in Arizona. Official notations of their deaths are
sketchy, contained in hundreds of pages of government reports.
Beyond the official facts, there are sometimes little details,
glimpses of the people who died. Maria Hernandez Perez was
number 93. She was almost 2. She had thick brown hair and eyes
the color of chocolate. Chalea Valasquez Gonzalez, 16, carried
a Bible in her backpack. She was 107.''
Mr. Chairman, this is a human tragedy. Today someone will
die in the desert in Arizona. It is obvious that this is a
national security issue, it is an economic issue, and it is a
humanitarian issue. We need to act. I am very grateful that you
have taken such an active role on this issue. We need now for
us to come together on this issue and bring action to the floor
of the Senate.
I think we have waited long enough. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator From Arizona
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before your committee today. This is a timely and important
hearing you are chairing, and the reason is obvious: Our immigration
system is broken. Made up of laws that are unrealistic and often
unenforceable, reforming it is one of the most critical issues facing
America today.
Illegal immigration, in the numbers we are witnessing today,
represents a threat to our national security, to our economy, to our
health care system, and to state and local government budgets. It also
poses a humanitarian crisis that anyone with basic human compassion
must seek to address. These are the reasons why, Mr. Chairman, if you
walk down the streets of my home State of Arizona and ask people what
issue most concerns them today, they won't say Social Security, or the
economy, or even the war on terror, Mr. Chairman, they'll say it's
immigration.
Let me mention just a few statistics:
Last year more than 300 people died trying to cross our
southern border, and more than 200 of those deaths occurred in
Arizona's desert. This year those numbers are expected to
increase.
An estimated 3,000 people enter the United States illegally
from Mexico every day.
Last year 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by
Border Patrol, and more than half of those were in Arizona.
The stories of tragedy along the border add a compelling human
component to this issue:
Several weeks ago, 79 people were found in a Phoenix alley
crammed into a commercial horse trailer. The heat was over 100
degrees and they had been there for several days. Of the 79, 11
were children, including a 4-month-old baby.
At the beginning of the summer, when the temperature in the
desert rose unexpectedly, 12 people died crossing into Arizona
in one weekend.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but let me move on to what I believe
we need to do to fix this badly broken system. Senator Kennedy and I,
along with Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, and Salizar, and
Congressmen Kolbe, Flake, and Gutierrez, recently introduced the Secure
America and Orderly Immigration Act. This bill is bipartisan, it is
bicameral, and it will fix our immigration problems by coupling tough
enforcement at the border with badly needed revisions to our obsolete
immigration laws.
Enforcement, Mr. Chairman, is so key to what we are trying to
accomplish with this bill, that we lead with enforcement. The first two
titles of our bill deal solely with border security efforts.
Our border enforcement section requires the Department of Homeland
Security to develop and implement a National Strategy for Border
Security, to develop and implement a program that will provide federal
officials with continuous border surveillance by using unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), and that will better improve coordination among
Federal, State, local, and tribal border governments,
The international border security portion of this bill includes key
provisions authored by Chairman Lugar in S. 853, the North American
Cooperative Security Act, which I was pleased to join in cosponsoring.
These provisions construct a framework for the United States to work
with Mexico, Canada, and Central American countries to improve security
at our borders and to crack down on human smuggling, drug trafficking,
and gang activities.
Recognizing that the United States cannot solve this problem alone,
we also included directives for the administration to work with Mexico
and other sending countries to work together to reduce illegal
migration and establish economic incentives for temporary workers to
return home. It also acknowledges the specific need to work with the
Government of Mexico which must play a much greater role in securing
its own borders and helping to combat illegal immigration and
strengthen the security of our hemisphere. And I would like to commend
Mexico for recently announcing the addition of 51 new Border Patrol
agents who will be deployed to Mexico's southern border with Guatemala.
Another problem with our current system is that employers have
plausible deniability when it comes to hiring illegal immigrants. A
wink and a nod is all it takes. Recognizing this, our bill requires the
development and implementation of a mandatory employment verification
system using tamper-resistant, biometric, machine-readable
identification. Employers will have concrete confirmation that the
individual they hire is authorized to work--or is not. What they will
no longer have is an excuse to break the law.
Our bill also doubles the fines that employers face when they
employ undocumented immigrants, and it provides protections for
whistleblowers who notify authorities when employers or workers are
breaking the law. And our bill provides the Department of Labor with
strong authorities to go after businesses and recruiters who break the
rules.
But, Mr. Chairman, our bill does not just authorize tough new
enforcement procedures. It also provides funding to back it up. With
the fees and fines that will be collected under this bill, we expect
that well over $20 billion will fund enforcement activities at the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Labor, and the
Social Security Administration.
Let me be clear about one misconception about this legislation. It
is in no way an amnesty bill. We tried amnesty in this country in 1986,
and it didn't work. It won't work in 2005, either. We can't reward
lawbreakers, but we also have to deal with the reality that there are
between 10 and 11 million undocumented people living and working in
America today--10 to 11 million individuals who are unlikely to go home
tomorrow.
We couldn't round them all up and deport them even if we wanted to.
It would be impossible to identify and apprehend everyone here
illegally, and if we did, it would ground America's economy to a halt.
Instead, we have a national interest in identifying these individuals,
providing them with incentives to come out of the shadows go through
security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking
the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status. All this
can be accomplished in a manner that fosters the social, economic, and
security interest of the United States.
I recognize that several of my colleagues, present here today, have
proposed legislation that address various aspects of our broken
immigration system. Although we may approach this problem with
competing philosophies and with different solutions, our recognition of
the failures of the current system moves the debate forward, and I
commend them on their proposals.
We will never be able to please the political extremists on either
side of this issue. However, in the interest of the country as a whole,
we must pursue a carefully balanced compromise. I hope we can work
together to put rhetoric aside and enact meaningful comprehensive
immigration reform this year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator McCain,
for that compelling testimony. Likewise to you and Senator
Kennedy for news that a hearing will be held in the Judiciary
Committee. Obviously you will be heavily involved, and we will
be watchful and sympathetic.
I now call upon a distinguished witness today, our
colleague, Senator John Cornyn.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation
to appear before you today. Senator Nelson, good to be here
with you as well.
My home State of Texas shares 1,285 miles, or 65 percent,
of our Nation's common southern border with Mexico. This being
the case, I have spent a lot of time trying to understand the
issue of border security and immigration reform, as well as
working with our counterparts in Mexico and exploring ways that
our countries might work together in areas of mutual interest.
Therefore the topic of this hearing is of great interest to me
and I appreciate the fact that you are conducting these
hearings.
On a related note, I was pleased to join you as a cosponsor
in S. 853, the North American Cooperation and Security Act, a
bill that addresses the need for increased cooperation between
the United States, Mexico, and Canada, as we have already
heard. All countries must work together to provide increased
cooperation on border security, to improve efforts to combat
human trafficking and alien smuggling, and to intensify crime
prevention activities.
In March of this year, the United States, Mexico, and
Canada entered into the Security and Prosperity Partnership
Agreement that has already been alluded to as well, designed to
develop a common security strategy and promote economic growth,
including a commonsense immigration policy and greater
cooperation on energy issues to reduce dependence on overseas
energy.
According to a most recent announcement from the
partnership, border security remains a critical theme. I hope
the partnership continues to identify additional security
initiatives to protect our countries while facilitating
legitimate trade and travel.
In addition to cooperating on border security, less
developed countries should further develop strategies that will
bridge the development gap that motivates their citizens to
migrate. For example, Mexico's leaders have made clear that it
is in the best interest of their country to keep as many of
their citizens home as they can. Foreign Minister Durez has
said that: ``The Mexican Government has to be able to give
Mexicans the opportunity to generate wealth that today they
produce in other places.'' President Fox has stated: ``Every
person has the right to find in his own country the economic,
political, and social opportunities that are important to reach
a full and dignified life.'' I could not agree more with these
statements.
Other countries' need for their young, energetic risk-
takers and hard-working individuals to ultimately return home,
particularly with the capital, savings, and skills they
acquired while working in the United States, ought to be one of
our goals. These individuals must return to their countries of
origin, build lives, buy homes, and start businesses. Then
those small businessowners, those potential entrepreneurs, can
help strengthen the middle class in those countries.
Border cooperation should also be viewed within the
context, as we have already heard, of the broader sense, the
broader issue of immigration reform and the need for increased
border security and immigration reform. Recognizing the
interconnectedness of these issues, I have, in my capacity as
the chairman of the Immigration, Border Security, and
Citizenship Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, convened a
series of hearings this year examining all of these topics.
Frequently, we would have joint hearings with Senator Kyl's
Subcommittee on Terrorism at the same time.
These hearings have shown that our Nation's immigration and
border security systems are broken and this leaves our borders
unprotected, threatens our national security, and makes a
mockery of the rule of law. These hearings have revealed that
other countries are capable and willing to assist the United
States, not just in working toward circular migration, but
improving the immigration system as a whole.
National security demands a comprehensive solution to our
immigration system and I think that means both stronger
enforcement and reasonable reform of our immigration laws. We
must recognize that in the past we have simply not devoted the
funds, resources, and manpower to enforce our immigration laws
and protect our borders.
That must change because history demonstrates that reform
without enforcement is doomed to fail, and no discussion of
comprehensive immigration reform is possible without a clear
commitment to, and substantial and dramatic escalation of, our
efforts to enforce the law.
As we devote additional resources to enforcing immigration
laws, we must also be wise in how we use those resources and we
must evaluate what obligations should be borne by other
countries that may benefit from these reciprocal agreements.
Increased border cooperation should be a crucial part of any
comprehensive solution to our immigration laws and no serious
reform proposal will succeed without the commitment of Mexico
and other countries.
The reform bill that Senator Kyl and I will introduce
shortly will deal with enforcement and reform of our
immigration laws. It will also address the responsibility of
other countries in reducing illegal immigration, alien
smuggling, trafficking, and gang violence. I would note that
from the description we have heard from Senator McCain and
Senator Kennedy, we find more in common than differences, but
there are differences that we will need to address.
Of the more than 10 million people currently in our country
without legal status and of the hundreds of thousands who enter
every year undetected, some fraction of the population may
harbor evil impulses toward our country. Yet, it is a practical
impossibility to separate the well-meaning from the ill-
intentioned. We must focus our scarce resources on the highest
risks.
As an example, Border Patrol Commissioner Robert Bonner has
previously testified before the Immigration Subcommittee that
the Border Patrol is still dealing with a literal flood of
people on a daily basis, most of whom are attempting to enter
the country in order to work.
Law enforcement and border security officials should focus
their greatest energies on those who wish to do us harm, not
those who wish only to help themselves and their families
through work. We cannot have a population of more than 10
million within which terrorists and their supporters could
easily hide, and we cannot have that population afraid to
cooperate with our law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts.
With the cooperation of other countries, we can make the
best use of our enforcement resources to deter, identify, and
stop the aliens that wish to cause America harm or to take
advantage of economic immigrants. More importantly, through the
cooperation of other countries we can stop the cycle of work
and stay, which really represents a permanent exodus of some of
the most entrepreneurial, aggressive, hardworking citizens, and
return to a system of circular migration that occurs through
legal channels.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Cornyn, U.S. Senator From Texas
Mr Chairman, thank you for the invitation to testify at today's
hearing. My home State of Texas shares 1,285 miles--or 65 percent of
our country's common border--with Mexico. This being the case, I have
spent a significant amount of time studying border security and
immigation issues, as well as working with our counterparts in Mexico
in exploring ways which our countries might work together in areas of
mutual interest. Therefore, ``North American Cooperation on Border
Security'' is a topic of great interest to me.
On a related note, I was pleased to join you as a cosponsor of S.
853, the North American Cooperation Security Act--a bill that addresses
the need for increased cooperation between the United States, Mexico,
and Canada with regard to security, trade, and law enforcement, areas
that can always stand improvement.
All countries must work together to provide increased cooperation
on border security, to improve efforts to combat human trafficking and
alien smuggling, and to intensify crime prevention activities.
In March of this year, the United States, Mexico, and Canada
entered the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement designed to
develop a common security strategy and promote economic growth,
including a commonsense immigration policy and greater cooperation on
energy issues to reduce dependence on overseas energy. And, according
to the most recent announcement from this partnership, border security
remains a central theme.
I hope that this partnership continues to identify additional
security initiatives that protect our countries while facilitating
legitimate trade and travel.
In addition to cooperating on border security, less developed
countries should further develop strategies which will bridge the
development gap that motivates their citizens to migrate. For instance,
Mexico's leaders have made clear that it is in their best interests to
keep their citizens in their country.
Foreign Minister Derbez has said that ``[T]he Mexican government
has to be able to give Mexicans . . . the opportunity to generate the
wealth that today they produce in other places,'' and President Fox has
stated: ``Every person has the right to find in his own country the
economic, political, and social opportunities that allow him to reach a
full and dignified life.''
I could not agree more with these statements. Other countries need
for their young, energetic risk-takers and hard-working individuals to
ultimately return home, and particularly to return with the capital,
savings, and skills they acquired while working in the United States.
These individuals must return to their countries of origin, build
lives, buy homes, and start businesses. Then those small business
owners, those potential entrepreneurs, can help strengthen the middle
class.
Border cooperation should also be viewed within the context of the
broader issue of immigration reform and the need for increased border
security and immigration reform. Realizing the interconnectedness of
these issues, I have convened a series of hearings this year examining
all of these topics.
These hearings have shown that our Nation's immigration and border
security systems are badly broken, and this leaves our borders
unprotected, threatens our national security, and makes a mockery of
the rule of law.
The hearings have also revealed that other countries are capable
and willing to assist the United States, not just in working toward
circular migration, but in improving the immigration system as a whole.
National security demands a comprehensive solution to our
immigration system--and that means both stronger enforcement and
reasonable reform of our immigration laws. We must recognize that, in
the past, we simply have not devoted the funds, resources, and manpower
to enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders. That must
change--because history demonstrates that reform without enforcement is
doomed to fail. And no discussion of comprehensive immigration reform
is possible without a clear commitment to, and a substantial and
dramatic escalation of, our efforts to enforce the law.
As we devote additional resources to enforcing the immigration
laws, we must also be wise in how we use those resources and we must
evaluate what obligations should be borne by other countries.
Increased border cooperation should be a critical part of any
comprehensive solution of our immigration laws, and no serious reform
proposal will succeed without the commitment of Mexico and other
countries. The reform bill that Senator Kyl and I will introduce
shortly will deal with enforcement and reform of the immigration laws,
it will also address the responsibility other countries have in
reducing illegal immigration, alien smuggling and trafficking, and gang
violence.
Of the more than 10 million people currently in our country without
legal status, and of the hundreds of thousands who enter every year
undetected, some fraction of the population may harbor evil impulses
toward our country. Yet it is a practical impossibility to separate the
well-meaning from the ill-intentioned. We must focus our scarce
resources on the highest risks.
As an example, Border Patrol Commissioner Robert Bonner has
previously testified before the Immigration Subcommittee that ``. . .
the Border Patrol is still dealing with a literal flood of people on a
daily basis most of whom are attempting to enter this country in order
to work.''
Law enforcement and border security officials should focus their
greatest energies on those who wish to do us harm--not those who wish
only to help themselves and their families through work. We cannot have
a population of more than 10 million within which terrorists and their
supporters can easily hide. And we cannot have that population afraid
to cooperate with our law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts.
With the cooperation of other countries, we can make the best use
of our enforcement resources to deter, identify, and stop the aliens
that wish to cause harm to America or to take advantage of economic
migrants.
More importantly, through the cooperation of other countries, we
can stop the cycle of ``work and stay'' and return to a system of
circular migration that occurs through legal channels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Cornyn,
for your leadership. Your subcommittee hearings have been very,
very important on these issues, and I am pleased to note that
you are working with your other colleagues on Judiciary as you
fashion legislation. We look forward to working with you.
It is a pleasure to call on Representative Harris. We thank
you for coming today, and for your introduction of our bill in
the House.
STATEMENT OF HON. KATHERINE HARRIS,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Ms. Harris. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Esteemed
members of the committee, thanks for inviting me, particularly
for joining such a distinguished panel this morning, to discuss
the critical need for border security.
As you are well aware, the security of our borders is one
of the most pressing homeland security concerns. Whether we are
speaking of our northern and southern land borders, our coastal
borders, or even the interior borders at air points of entry,
much remains to be done even today to ensure that those who
would do us harm do not exploit the vulnerable points to
threaten our Nation or the American people.
We must ensure that every threat to our Nation, whether it
is terrorists, a shipment of narcotics, or human trafficking
networks that smuggle criminals and illegal immigrants, is
identified and stopped before crossing the borders. Mr.
Chairman, last month we even noted, as the report illuminated,
in Polacca, FL, over 100 women and children were at a labor
camp as illegal immigrants.
At the same time, we must balance this demand for security
against the need for the free flow of commerce and trade. We
want and need secure borders, but not at the heavy cost of
hindering goods and services and legal immigration for those
who contribute to the strength of our Nation's economy and to
the richness of our culture.
The challenge of that balancing act has been a priority for
me throughout my career in public service. With nearly 1,200
miles of coastal area in Florida, 14 deep-water seaports, 12
international airports, 17 free trade zones, Florida is a
critical link in the global supply chain that brings goods to,
and from, the United States. As a member of the Florida Senate,
the Florida Cabinet, as Secretary of State, and now as a Member
of the U.S. Representatives on committees such as Homeland
Security, Financial Services, and International Relations, I
have been deeply involved with the efforts to ensure that my
State maintains this vital flow of trade, commerce, and
migration while seeking new solutions to border security.
One lesson I have learned from the experience is that a
comprehensive border security solution focusing on both Mexican
and Canadian borders, as well as our sea borders, is an
absolutely essential component. Recently I introduced
legislation in the House that could provide the first stage of
that comprehensive solution, the North American Cooperative
Security Act, or NACSA, H.R. 2672. I am pleased to report that
I was joined by several Members of my House colleagues in
introducing this legislation, which closely mirrors your
legislation, Mr. Chairman, in the Senate.
NACSA seeks to enhance the common security and safety of
the United States, Canada, and Mexico by providing a shared
framework for the management, communication, and coordination
on border issues between all three North American governments.
At the same time, NACSA would help facilitate trade and
commerce between North American countries and help expedite
trade in low-risk goods.
How would this bill strengthen the security of our borders
while enhancing commerce between North American trading
partners? Through five basic avenues. First, NACSA would
provide a systematic framework for information-sharing on
border issues, including sharing up-to-date information on
criminal gangs and drug smugglers.
Second, NACSA would ensure aggressive and consistent
enforcement of the laws at borders, coordinating law
enforcement efforts of the three governments to target tariffs,
organized crime, and the illicit trafficking of weapons,
nuclear materials, drugs, and people. Furthermore, it would
enhance government's ability to deport those who are in the
country illegally, especially those with criminal backgrounds.
Third, NACSA would leverage the power of technology to
support border security efforts, including creating an
electronic database to track criminal gang activity and
fostering the efforts to develop biometric standards for
documents. With biometric technology, we can be certain that
people who are who they claim to be and we can reduce the
incidence of fraudulent documentation facilitating illegal
entries into our country. The goal is to ensure that high-risk
individuals who attempt to enter North America are identified
and stopped at the border.
Fourth, NACSA would strengthen trade relationships by
reducing wait times for freight and people, investing in
improved border infrastructure, determining the feasibility of
a common external tariff for all North America, and
establishing a cooperative energy policy to ensure reliable
energy supplies for the entire continent.
Finally, NACSA would fortify our security relationship with
our critical ally to the south by including Mexico in a number
of security programs currently in place throughout the rest of
North America, such as the Joint Inter-Agency Task Force and
North American Aerospace Defense Command. In addition, it would
strengthen communication and intelligence between the
governments and law enforcement in the United States and
Mexico, enhancing cooperation to target the criminal networks
and terrorists who would exploit vulnerable points in our
border for their own dangerous ends.
With NACSA, we will start by ensuring that our critical
land borders with Canada and Mexico are secured and that free
flow of trade, commerce, and people that supports the North
American economy is allowed to continue and thrive.
I look forward to working with you to ensure that we meet
our goal of balancing our needs for security with the support
of commerce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members.
[The prepared statement of Representative Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Katherine Harris, U.S. Representative From
Florida
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Biden, and esteemed members of the
committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today about
the critical need for border security.
As you are well aware, the security of our borders is one of our
most pressing homeland security concerns. Whether we are speaking of
the our northern and southern land borders, our coastal borders, or the
``interior borders'' at air points of entry, much remains to be done,
even today, to ensure that those who would do us harm do not exploit
these vulnerable points to threaten our Nation or the American people.
We must ensure that every threat to our Nation--whether it is a
terrorist, a shipment of narcotics, or a human trafficking network
smuggling criminals or illegal immigrants--is identified and stopped
before crossing those borders.
At the same time, we must balance this demand for security against
the need for a free flow of commerce and trade. We want and need secure
borders, but not at the heavy cost of hindering goods, services, and
legal immigrants who contribute to the strength of our Nation's economy
and to the richness of our culture.
The challenge of that balancing act has been a priority for me
throughout my career in public service. With nearly 1,800 miles of
coastline and 14 deep water seaports, Florida is a critical link in the
global supply chain that brings goods to and from the United States.
As a member of the Florida State Senate; as Secretary of State; and
now as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committees on
Homeland Security, Financial Services, and International Relations, I
have been deeply involved with efforts to ensure that my State
maintains this vital flow of trade, commerce, and migration while
seeking new solutions to ensure border security.
One lesson I have learned from this experience is that a
comprehensive border security solution--focusing on both the Mexican
and Canadian borders as well as our sea borders--is absolutely
essential.
Recently, I introduced legislation in the House that could provide
the first stage of that comprehensive solution--the North American
Cooperative Security Act, or NACSA (H.R. 2672).
I am pleased to report that I was joined by several of my House
colleagues in introducing this legislation, which closely mirrors
Chairman Lugar's legislation in the Senate (S. 853).
NACSA seeks to enhance the common security and safety of the United
States, Canada, and Mexico, by providing a shared framework for
management, communication, and coordination on border issues between
all three North American governments.
At the same time, NACSA would help to facilitate trade and commerce
between the North American countries, and help to expedite trade in
``low-risk'' goods.
How would this bill strengthen the security of our borders while
enhancing commerce between North American trading partners?
Through five basic avenues:
First, NACSA would provide a systematic framework for information-
sharing on border security issues, including sharing up-to-date
information on criminal gangs and drug smugglers.
Second, NACSA would ensure aggressive and consistent enforcement of
the law at the borders, coordinating law enforcement efforts of the
three governments to target terrorists, organized crime, and the
illicit trafficking of weapons, nuclear materials, drugs, and people.
Furthermore, it would enhance the government's ability to deport
those who are in the country illegally--especially those with criminal
backgrounds.
Third, NACSA would leverage the power of technology to support
border security efforts--including creating an electronic database to
track criminal gang activity and fostering the effort to develop
biometric standards for documents.
With biometric technology, we can be certain that people are who
they claim to be, and we can reduce the incidence of fraudulent
documentation facilitating illegal entries into our country. The goal
is to ensure that high-risk individuals who attempt to enter North
America are identified and stopped at the border.
Fourth, NACSA would strengthen trade relationships by reducing wait
times for freight and people; investing in improved border
infrastructure; determining the feasibility of a common external tariff
for all of North America; and establishing a cooperative energy policy
to ensure reliable energy supplies for the entire continent.
Finally, NACSA would fortify our security relationship with our
critical ally to the south by including Mexico in a number of security
programs currently in place throughout the rest of the North America,
such as the Joint Interagency Task Force and North American Aerospace
Defense Command.
In addition, it would strengthen communication and intelligence
between the governments and law enforcement agencies in the United
States and Mexico, enhancing cooperation to target the criminal
networks and terrorists who would exploit vulnerable points in our
border for their own dangerous ends.
With NACSA, we will start by ensuring that our critical land
borders with Canada and Mexico are secured, and that the flow of trade,
commerce, and people that supports the North American economy is
allowed to continue and thrive. I look forward to working with you to
ensure that we meet our goal of balancing our needs for security with
support for commerce.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that testimony and
for your work.
Ms. Harris. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. We look forward to working with your
collegues in the House as this proceeds.
Ms. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you for coming today.
It is a privilege now for the chair to call our second
panel to the witness table. This will include: The Honorable
Perrin Beatty, president and chief executive officer of the
Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and a former Foreign
Minister of Canada; the Honorable Jorge Castaneda, Global
Distinguished Professor of Politics and Latin American and
Caribbean Studies, New York University, and the former Foreign
Minister of Mexico.
Gentlemen, it is a privilege to have both of you here today
to work with us on these very important subjects that are a
part of our discussion. We thank you for coming. I will ask you
to testify in the order that I introduced you. Your statements
will be made part of the official record, and you need not ask
for that to occur. It will. Please proceed, either with the
statement or with a summary of it, and then we will have
questions by our members of both of you.
Mr. Beatty.
STATEMENT OF HON. PERRIN BEATTY, P.C., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS AND EXPORTERS, AND
FORMER FOREIGN MINISTER, OTTAWA, CANADA
Mr. Beatty. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman Lugar
and Senators. Thank you very much for your hospitality today.
I am the President and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and
Exporters, whose members produce about 75 percent of Canada's
manufactured goods and about 90 percent of our merchandise
exports. But my personal interest in these issues predates my
present responsibilities. Between 1979 and 2003 I served in a
number of Cabinet posts in the Canadian Government, including
as Foreign Minister, as Minister of National Defense, as
Solicitor General of Canada, and as Minister of National
Revenue, responsible for Canada Customs.
Senators, this hearing is extremely timely. Last week's
bombings in London underscored the lessons of New York and
Washington in 2001. Despite the human suffering and physical
damage caused by these cruel attacks, the real targets were not
the individuals or the infrastructure, but the values they
represented, of freedom, of diversity, of equality, of
tolerance. These values transcend national boundaries. When
they are attacked, every society that holds them dear is also
under assault.
We can debate about how best to counter the threat, but we
will succeed together or we will fail together. Just as our two
countries feel solidarity with the British people today,
Canadians instinctively felt your hurt when America was
attacked almost 4 years ago. Hundreds of flights were diverted
to Canada, where Americans were comforted and consoled and
welcomed into Canadian homes. In taking those flights, Canada
understood that one or more of them could also have been flying
bombs.
Three days later, I was there on Parliament Hill as over
100,000 Canadians converged for a memorial service. The support
was both massive and spontaneous; 100,000 Canadians expressing
their personal sorrow and their commitment to their American
neighbors.
Canada was among the first to put ground troops into
Afghanistan, hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban alongside United
States forces. We have been a lead nation in the International
Security Assistance Force and we will be there for the
foreseeable future with the Provincial Reconstruction Team and
other forces to deploy in Kandahar in August to replace U.S.
troops.
Osama bin Laden has publicly identified Canada as a target
for his followers to attack. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in some of
the lists Canada is the only country which has not been
attacked as yet.
The terrorist threat is not just your problem. It is very
much ours, too. And it is in Canada's interests to do all that
we can to ensure that our country is neither a target of
terrorism nor a staging ground for attacks on others.
Now, Canada's business community understands that it is not
a choice between our physical and our economic security. If
either is undermined, the terrorists win. Like our physical
security, the economic security of our two countries is
indivisible. In 2004 Canada-United States trade approached $680
billion, with over 1.8 billion dollars' worth of goods and
services crossing the border every day. That is a million
dollars of business a minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
365 days a year.
Two hundred million people cross the border each year and
Canada takes 23.5 percent of United States exports. In fact, in
2004 Canada was the largest export market for 37 U.S. States,
supporting over 5 million U.S. jobs, 112,000 in Indiana alone.
Now, not only is Canada a larger market for United States
goods than all 25 countries of the European Union combined, but
we also trade as much with one American company, Home Depot, as
we do with France. I might observe parenthetically, Mr.
Chairman, that we have also sent Washington a pretty good
baseball team.
Now, our security relationship is equally extensive. We are
longstanding partners in both the Permanent Joint Board of
Defense and NORAD. Indeed, a Canadian was in charge of NORAD on
9/11. We have 23 integrated border enforcement teams, the
Cross-Border Crime Forum, and the Shared Border Accord Process.
Since 9/11 we have signed two new umbrella initiatives, the
2001 Canada-U.S. Smart Border Declaration and the Trilateral
Security and Prosperity Partnership announced last March 23.
We now have joint teams in Halifax, Montreal, Vancouver,
Seattle, Tacoma, Newark to target in-transit containers before
they reach our shores, preparing the groundwork for cooperation
on the container security initiative. We have implemented the
Free and Secure Trade Program for preapproved importers,
carriers, and drivers to expedite low-risk shipments. FAST
operates at 19 high-volume crossings.
We share six joint facilities straddling the border. To
improve their security and efficiency, we are negotiating to
place both countries' customs and immigration teams on the same
side at various border crossings, starting with the Peace
Bridge and the Thousand Islands Bridge.
Canada and the United States share advanced passenger
information and passenger-name record information on high-risk
travelers. We cooperate on visa policy and have common policies
for 175 countries, differing on only 18 others.
Well, Senators, our borders are both more secure and better
managed than they were just a few years ago. However, serious
issues remain and let me briefly highlight three.
Since 9/11 we have seen a rapid increase in border
protection regulations and programs. We have at least 44
agencies with jurisdiction over the shared border, adding
complexity to a process that was intended to be simplified and
streamlined. While each initiative and program is well-founded,
the layering of security, compliance and delay costs adds
billions of dollars to overheads at a time when North American
manufacturers face dramatically growing offshore competition.
Since the SMART Border Declaration of 2001, estimated
processing times for shipments into the United States tripled
from 45 seconds to over 2 minutes and 15 seconds per truck by
the end of 2004. Border delays alone cost the Canadian and
United States economies an estimated 12.5 billion Canadian
dollars annually. Since many North American goods cross the
Canada-United States border several times before reaching
consumers, the real cost in lost jobs and income is
significantly higher.
Consider the automotive industry. While an offshore
shipment of 4,000 vehicles requires 24 hours advance notice and
a single security check before rolling off a ship and into
North American dealerships, U.S.- and Canadian-produced
vehicles cross the border an estimated 7 times during
production, with finished vehicles crossing 18 at a time. The
automotive industry in North America is so integrated that
producing 4,000 vehicles in North America may include over
1,500 customs transactions. These additional reporting,
compliance, and delay costs translate into an estimated 800
dollars Canadian per vehicle.
One prominent North American company recently celebrated
its one millionth FAST shipment without a single actionable
finding. However, the same company's inspections entering the
United States in the early part of 2005 have increased 50
percent over the same period in 2004.
A second concern is the pressing need for new
infrastructure. At the world's most important border point, we
rely on infrastructure built by our grandparents. The
Ambassador Bridge was completed in 1929 and the Detroit-Windsor
Tunnel the following year, when today's trade levels were
unimaginable and we had no fear of terrorism. Even before 9/11,
this vital crossing was choking on its own success, causing
delays, congestion, and pollution on both sides.
Since then, however, it has become a matter of national
security for both of our countries. If these critical border
crossings were damaged, with the possible added impact of
closing access to three of the Great Lakes from the Saint
Lawrence Seaway, the economic cost would be incalculable. Yet,
Mr. Chairman, according to current schedules, if all goes on
schedule with no delays, no new crossing is planned until 2013.
Do we believe that the terrorists are unaware of this
vulnerability? What other two nations would leave their
economies hostage in this way? Governments must act now, even
if special legislation is required.
My third concern is the possible impact of new secure ID
requirements. The border is about people and communities who
rely on each other, whether it is Canadian snowbirds seeking
Florida sunshine, Minnesotans attending hockey tournaments in
Canada with their kids, or nurses commuting to care for our
loved ones.
Like FAST, the Nexus highway program expedites preapproved
low-risk travelers. Some suggest using Nexus to implement the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, but Nexus, while
important by itself, will not solve the documentary
requirements. The background checks for a Nexus card make it
even harder to obtain than a passport. Whatever is designated
as an alternative to passports must not only be secure, but
also inexpensive and convenient to obtain and to use. Otherwise
the WHTI may damage border communities, trade, and travel,
creating a new barrier between people.
Senators, we have come a long way since 9/11 and our
governments plan to move further. But last week's bombings add
an extra urgency to our efforts. The terrorists win if they
divide us or if they weaken us. Our goal must be to strengthen
both our defenses and our economies, and to ensure that our
common border remains a meeting place for our two peoples and
never becomes a wall to keep us apart.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beatty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Perrin Beatty, President and CEO, Canadian
Manufacturers & Exporters, Former Foreign Minister, Ottawa, Canada
Thank you for the invitation to meet with you. I am the President
and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, whose members produce
about 75 percent of Canada's manufactured goods and about 90 percent of
its merchandise exports.
My personal interest in these issues predates my present
responsibilities. Between 1979 and 2003, I served in a number of
Cabinet posts, including as Foreign Minister, as Minister of National
Defence, as the Solicitor General of Canada, and as Minister of
National Revenue, responsible for Canada Customs.
This hearing is extremely timely. Last week's bombings in London
underscored the lessons of New York and Washington in 2001: Despite the
human suffering and physical damage caused by these cruel attacks, the
real targets were not the individuals or the infrastructure, but the
values they represented--of freedom, of diversity, of equality, of
tolerance. These values transcend national boundaries. When they are
attacked, every society that holds them dear is also under assault. We
can debate about how best to counter the threat, but we will succeed
together or we will fail together.
Just as our two countries feel solidarity with the British people
today, Canadians instinctively felt your hurt when America was attacked
almost 4 years ago. Hundreds of flights were diverted to Canada, where
Americans were comforted and consoled, and welcomed into Canadian
homes. In taking those flights Canada understood that one or more of
them could also have been flying bombs.
Three days later, I was there as over 100,000 Canadians converged
on Parliament Hill for a memorial service. The support was both massive
and spontaneous--100,000 Canadians expressing their personal sorrow and
their commitment to their American neighbours.
Canada was among the first to put ground troops into Afghanistan,
hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban alongside United States forces. We have
been a lead nation in the International Security Assistance Force and
we will be there for the foreseeable future with a Provincial
Reconstruction Team and other forces to deploy in Kandahar in August.
Osama bin Laden has publicly identified Canada as a target for his
followers to attack. The terrorist threat is not just your problem--it
is very much ours, too, and it is in Canada's interests to do all we
can to ensure our country is neither a target of terrorism nor a
staging ground for attacks against others.
Canada's business community understands that it is not a choice
between our physical and our economic security; if either is
undermined, the terrorists win.
Like our physical security, the economic security of our two
countries is indivisible. In 2004, Canada-United States trade
approached $680 billion, with over 1.8 billion dollars' worth of goods
and services crossing the border every day--that's a million dollars of
business a minute.
Two hundred million people cross the border each year and Canada
takes 23.5 percent of U.S. exports. In fact, in 2004 Canada was the
largest export market for 37 U.S. States, supporting over 5 million
U.S. jobs. Not only is Canada a larger market for U.S. goods than all
25 countries of the European Union combined, but we also trade as much
with one American company, Home Depot, as we do with France. (We've
also sent Washington a pretty good baseball team.)
Our security relationship is equally extensive:
Canada and the United States are longstanding partners in
both the Permanent Joint Board on Defence and NORAD. Indeed, a
Canadian was in charge at NORAD on 9/11.
Each year, top law enforcement and border agencies hold the
Cross-Border Crime Forum, and key border agencies led by CBP
and the Canada Border Services Agency meet regularly to share
information and coordinate border management.
Since 9/11, we have signed two new umbrella initiatives--the
2001 Canada-U.S. Smart Border Declaration and the trilateral
Security and Prosperity Partnership announced last March 23.
Our countries maintain joint teams to target in-transit
containers before they reach our shores. You have CBP
inspectors stationed in Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver, while
Canada has inspectors in Seattle-Tacoma and Newark, preparing
the groundwork for cooperation on the Container Security
Initiative.
We have implemented the Free and Secure Trade program for
preapproved importers, carriers, and drivers to expedite low-
risk shipments. FAST operates at 19 of high-volume crossings.
There are 23 integrated border enforcement teams of police,
customs and immigration agencies, and the U.S. Coast Guard to
monitor our border between crossings.
We share six joint facilities straddling the border and are
negotiating to place both countries' customs and immigration
teams on the same side at various border crossings, starting
with the Peace Bridge and the Thousand Islands Bridge.
Canada and the United States share Advance Passenger
Information and passenger name record information on high-risk
travelers. We also cooperate on visa policy, and have common
policies for 175 countries, differing on only 18 others.
Our borders are both more secure and better managed than they were
just a few years ago. However, serious issues remain. Let me briefly
highlight three.
Since 9/11 we have seen a rapid increase in border protection
regulations and programs. We have at least 44 agencies with
jurisdiction over the border, adding complexity to a process that was
intended to be simplified and streamlined.
While each initiative and program is well founded, the layering of
security, compliance, and delay costs adds billions of dollars of
overheads at a time when North American manufacturers face dramatically
growing offshore competition.
Since the Smart Border Declaration of 2001, estimated processing
times for shipments into the United States tripled from 45 seconds to
over 2 minutes and 15 seconds per truck by the end of 2004. Border
delays alone cost the Canadian and U.S. economies an estimated C$12.5
billion annually. Since many North American goods cross the Canada-
United States border several times before reaching consumers, the real
cost in lost jobs and income is significantly higher.
Consider the automotive industry. While an offshore shipment of
4,000 vehicles requires 24-hour advance notice and a single security
check before rolling off a ship and into North American dealerships,
U.S.- and Canadian-produced vehicles cross the border an estimated
seven times during production, with finished vehicles crossing 18 at a
time. The automotive industry in North America is so integrated that
producing 4,000 vehicles in North America may include over 1,500
customs transactions. These additional reporting, compliance, and delay
costs translate into an estimated C$800 per vehicle.
One prominent North American company recently celebrated its one-
millionth FAST shipment without a single actionable finding. However,
this same company's inspections entering the United States in the early
part of 2005 have increased 50 percent over the same period in 2004.
A second concern is the pressing need for new infrastructure. At
the world's most important border point, we rely on infrastructure
built by our grandparents. The Ambassador Bridge was completed in 1929,
and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel the following year, when today's trade
levels were unimaginable and we had no fear of terrorism.
Even before 9/11, this vital crossing was choking on its own
success, causing delays, congestion, and pollution on both sides. Since
then, however, it has become a matter of national security. If these
critical border crossings were damaged, with the possible added impact
of closing access from three of the Great Lakes to the St. Lawrence
Seaway, the economic cost would be incalculable. And yet, no new
crossing is planned until 2013.
Do we believe the terrorists are unaware of this vulnerability?
What other two nations would leave their economies hostage in this way?
Governments must act now, even if special legislation is required.
My third concern is the possible impact of new secure ID
requirements. The border is about people and communities who rely on
each other, whether it's Canadian snowbirds seeking Florida sunshine,
parents attending hockey tournaments with their kids, or nurses
commuting to care for our loved ones.
Like FAST, the NEXUS Highway program expedites preapproved, low-
risk travelers. Some suggest using NEXUS to implement the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, but NEXUS, while important, won't solve
the documentary requirements. The background checks for a NEXUS card
make it even harder to obtain than a passport. Whatever is designated
as an alternative to passports, it must be not only secure, but also
inexpensive and convenient to obtain and use. Otherwise, the WHTI may
damage border communities, trade, and travel, creating a new barrier
between people.
We have come a long way since 9/11, and our governments plan to
move further. But last week's bombings add an extra urgency to our
efforts. The terrorists win if they can divide us or weaken us. Our
goal must be to strengthen both our defences and our economies, and to
ensure that our common border remains a meeting place for our two
peoples, and never becomes a wall to keep us apart.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Beatty, for that
very informed testimony, and the details that are so important.
Mr. Beatty. Thank you.
The Chairman. It is really a pleasure to have the former
Foreign Minister of Mexico, Mr. Castaneda. I appreciated
visiting with you, sir, and we are delighted that you are here
with us on the committee today. Please proceed with your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JORGE CASTANEDA, GLOBAL DISTINGUISHED
PROFESSOR OF POLITICS AND LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STUDIES,
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, AND FORMER FOREIGN MINISTER, MEXICO CITY,
MEXICO
Mr. Castaneda. Thank you, Senator Lugar, for the
invitation. Thank you, Senator Nelson, Senator Dodd, for this
opportunity. I have delivered, in my written statement, some
general views on the Mexican stance on immigration and I would
like to just emphasize a few specific aspects in my spoken
comments.
Immigration and security issues in the United States-
Mexican relationship, Mr. Chairman, are as lastingly and
intensely interconnected today as Mexico and the United States
are. I am convinced that there cannot be a United States
immigration reform and/or an agreement with Mexico on this
issue if it does not address the three basic sides of the
immigration equation: One, people who are already here; two,
people who will keep coming; and three, perhaps most
importantly, the development of the sending regions in Mexico.
These three aspects must be addressed together and doing so
will imply significant changes in U.S. attitudes toward
immigration.
I am equally convinced that there can be no United States
immigration reform and agreement with Mexico and cooperation
with Mexico without addressing fundamental United States
security issues of the two countries and also with Canada. The
Task Force on North America, Building a New North American
Community, that was chaired recently by William Weld, Pedro
Aspe, and John Manley of Canada, is a good starting point for
this, as, of course, is the NACSA bill that you have introduced
and that Representative Harris has introduced in the House.
I am convinced also that there can be no security
cooperation beyond what already exists without some form of
immigration package. We cannot continue in Mexico to live with
what Senator McCain described recently: One Mexican dying every
day on the Arizona-Sonora border during the entire year. This
is something that cannot continue and no Mexican Government can
cooperate as fully with the United States and Canada on
security issues if these issues of immigration are not
addressed, if the situation of now nearly 6 million Mexicans in
the United States without papers is not addressed, and if the
situation of those Mexicans who will continue to come to the
United States for the next 10 or 15 years approximately are not
addressed.
Finally, I am convinced that there can be no attempt to
enhance security and achieve integral immigration reform in the
United States without Mexican cooperation and involvement. I
welcome Senator Kennedy's and McCain's comments on these issues
as well as the way they have addressed this matter in their
bill, in their reform of immigration. Without Mexican
cooperation on security issues, on temporary workers, and on
earned legalization or regularization, I do not think it
possible for this to go forward in a way that would really
address the interests of Mexico and of the United States.
Unilateral acts will not work. I think if there was
something that did not work in the 1986 IRCA immigration
reform, it was precisely that, that it was a unilateral
decision made by the United States in full exercise of its
sovereignty. That is not the issue. The issue is that without
cooperation the problems will continue to emerge.
But I am also convinced that there can be no Mexican
cooperation that is both effective and credible without
significant changes in Mexican attitudes toward immigration,
moving toward what we call shared responsibility. That includes
issues like so-called ``OTMs,'' other than Mexicans, that
includes the security on the border, and that includes the
situation of smugglers and gangs on Mexico's southern border. I
welcome the aspects of your bill, Senator Lugar, that address
the question of the border between Mexico and Central American
countries and how to enhance security and law enforcement on
the southern Mexican border and borders between the Central
American countries themselves.
What does all of this mean? In particular, what does
Mexican cooperation on OTMs, security, and finding ways to
share responsibility for regulating remanent flows once an
agreement has been reached? It means implementing noncoercitive
but tough policies, market-based and policy-based, of
incentives and elements of dissuasion, to ensure that in the
framework of an overall agreement Mexico significantly
contributes to reducing unauthorized future flows from the
United States, from Mexico to the United States, and other than
Mexicans through Mexico.
Nothing that is coercive will work, but nothing that is
insignificant will work either. We have to find the right
package, the right mix of incentives and dissuasive factors,
based on market mechanisms or based on policies in the sending
communities in Mexico whereby we will find a way to dissuade
and discourage people from leaving over and beyond the
increases in temporary worker visas and in permanent visas and
in earned legalization in the United States.
If any agreement or any reform simply postpones these
issues, it will not work. I think in Mexico today we are
finally aware and conscious of the need to move in this
direction.
This cannot be done, though, outside the framework of an
overall agreement. In the same way that the United States could
probably not address immigration issues with Mexico without
addressing the security aspects--the construction of a possible
security perimeter by the year 2010, as the task force I
already mentioned has requested--without addressing many of the
points that are in your bill, Senator, without many of the
points that have been mentioned in the March 22 Waco statement
by the three leaders of our three countries. Without going
into--if we do not also look at Mexican cooperation on these
issues, it will not be possible to move forward.
But no Mexican Government, no Mexican Government, can move
in this direction of shared responsibility outside of an
immigration reform and/or agreement that significantly
addresses the main issues, starting with the ones Senator
McCain touched upon in his eloquent testimony regarding the
deaths in the Arizona desert.
United States-Mexican cooperation then can work, but it has
to move in this package way. This then would be what we could
call today the new whole enchilada: Development, future flows
and existing stocks, security and immigration, United States-
Mexican cooperation and shared responsibility, Mexican
involvement and regulation of future unauthorized immigration
and involvement, and United States involvement in Mexican
development.
If we put all of these issues together in a package, which
I am sure we can find a proper translation for in proper
English for ``the whole enchilada,'' I think we can come up
with something that will work. The Kennedy-McCain and your
initiative, Senator Lugar, address many of these issues. Mr.
Fox's, President Fox's, administration has also addressed many
of these, and in talks with the Bush administration a great
deal of progress has been achieved over the past 5 years now.
Mexico has now gone 10 years without an economic collapse.
This is the longest period since the 1960s. In these 10 years
immigration has increased dramatically, both documented and
unauthorized. More people, from more places, to more
destinations and more occupations. Before 2015 there is no
reason to believe that there will be a significant drop in
global numbers, in total numbers of flows, without a proactive
policy to deter, to regulate, legalize, and humanize it.
The security threat, as underlined tragically and
inadmissibly last week by the events in London, to our three
countries has also increased significantly in the last few
years and will continue to increase. That is the challenge we
face, Senator.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Castaneda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jorge Castaneda, Global Distinguished
Professor of Politics and Latin American and Caribbean Studies, and
Former Foreign Minister, Mexico City, Mexico
In my written statement to the committee I would like to reiterate
many of the points made by Ambassador Andres Rozental in his written
statement to the U.S Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee
Border Security and Citizenship on June 30, 2005. The points made by
Ambassador Andres Rozental in that statement were faithful reflections
of many of the conclusions reached by the task force named 2001
Carnegie Endowment-ITAM Task Force on Immigration chaired by Thomas
McLarty, which were subsequently translated into policy during my term
as Mexico's Foreign Minister. I have little to add to what was already
eloquently expressed by that task force, by the Mexican Government
between 2000 and 2003, and by Ambassador Andres Rozental.
Since the beginning of the Fox administration in 2000, Mexico made
a major change to its view on the immigration relationship with the
United States. After many years of considering the flow of Mexicans
into the United States to work and live as an essentially American
issue, the Fox government decided to actively propose and work for a
bilateral immigration agreement with its northern neighbor. Under this
new approach, the Mexican Government adopted a five-point strategy in
its discussions with the new Bush administration. Although 9/11
abruptly put these discussions on hold, it is worthwhile summarizing
and recalling what the Mexican position was at the time because it
hasn't changed in substance since then.
First, Mexico believes that any new immigration reform that doesn't
take into account the millions of Mexicans that are already living and
working in the United States without documents won't work. The
existence of a permanent underclass of foreign individuals who are
outside the law has been one of the most serious issues in the
immigration debate. These people are basically residents of the United
States, don't have any of the rights or obligations that green-card
holders have. They live as part of U.S. society, but are excluded from
most of its benefits. Equally, they can't be held accountable for many
of the duties that they would normally owe as full fledged legal
residents, in spite of the fact that they pay taxes deducted by their
employers and are generally law-abiding members of the community.
However, they live in permanent fear of being discovered and deported
and this leads many of them to break even more laws than those related
to how they entered the country in the first place.
Second, an immigration reform has to deal with those workers that
have yet to enter the United States and become part of the labor
market. Most of these go because of a permanent demand in the United
States for jobs that are either unfilled by Americans or legal
residents, or that are more suited to non-U.S. workers. Recent
estimates put this category of migrants at around 400,000 per annum,
some of whom stay on in the country but some of whom also return to
Mexico. One of the major shifts in the immigration paradigm is that
this category today is no longer made up primarily of agricultural
workers without jobs at home, but increasingly comprises service
providers that are employed at least part of the time and who seek to
go to the United States mainly to make and save more money. For this
group, the ability to come and go is essential, yet ever-increasing
efforts to impede the circularity of their movement across borders has
resulted in their being forced to remain in the United States and join
the first category of resident undocumented aliens.
A third element of the strategy relates to a proposal to remove
Mexico and Canada from the overall immigration country quota system. As
neighbors and NAFTA partners, both countries have a unique relationship
with the United States. There are many visa categories that could be
added to the NAFTA visa that would allow for a greater number of people
to travel to the United States but that currently can't be used because
of the quota system. Increased effective visa opportunities would act
as a deterrent to illegality.
The fourth pillar of Mexican policy relates to border security. It
is abundantly clear that the illegality of migrant worker crossings has
spawned an extremely powerful and pervasive network of gangs,
smugglers, and other organized criminals who not only prey on Mexicans
trying to cross, but are also involved in additional activities outside
the law such as drug trafficking, arms dealing, etc. As we have seen
just in the last few months, the situation at the border with the
United States has reached crisis proportions. Unless and until both
governments bite the bullet and reach an understanding on an all-
encompassing joint border security initiative--with adequate funding
and infrastructure--the violence and criminal activity at the border
will remain unabated.
Finally, the fifth part of the strategy is the need for a major
developmental program to raise the standards of living and employment
opportunities for those Mexican citizens who live in the poorest part
of the country and come from areas that provide the lion's share of
migrants. The Fox administration has made some progress in this regard
with special programs designed to complement remittances with
infrastructure investment (the 3x1 program), raise educational
standards and design policies for these economically and socially
depressed regions. However, the efforts undertaken so far have not made
a sufficiently large impact on the growth equation. The United States
has an important role to play as well on this issue as can be seen from
the Partnership for Prosperity initiative, but it needs to be augmented
and widened in its application.
The strategy outlined above came in large measure from President
Fox's overriding foreign policy goal at the outset of his single 6-year
term to do two things: Improve the relationship with the United States
and remove as many irritants as possible, and fulfill a campaign
promise that this government would, as a priority, defend the interests
of those Mexicans living and working in the United States.
Unfortunately, the events of 9/11 put a temporary stop to the meetings
between Cabinet-level working groups that had been discussing and
negotiating various aspects of these proposals. To this day, their
bilateral nature remains a critical element which the Bush
administration has been reluctant to pursue, but which, from my point
of view, is essential if any successful reform of the immigration
relationship is to take place. This is an important point: Unilateral
measures relating to immigration which are adopted by the United States
without consultation and agreement with Mexico are doomed to fail in
the same way that past amnesties and immigration law reform neither
stemmed the flow of undocumented workers, nor alleviated the
mistreatment and abuse that many of them suffer while in the United
States.
Now that the executive and legislative branches in Washington have
expressed the intention of pursuing immigration reform, it is
especially important that Mexico be engaged in the process. This is for
two main reasons: If there is no cooperation from the source country on
either a guest worker program, or an earned regularization scheme, I
cannot see how the United States, on its own, will be able to deal with
the enormous operational complexities involved. Second, Mexico has to
be made to play its part in ensuring that whatever system is set up
becomes the single avenue for people wanting to go to the United States
to work. This means that as a part of the bargain, the Mexican
Government would have to undertake an obligation to ensure that orderly
and legal movement across the border becomes the norm, and that
measures are taken to dissuade people from going differently. Of
course, this presupposes having enough visas, whether temporary or
permanent, to give to Mexicans who have job offers in the United
States, who want to reunite with their families already there, or who
seek to legitimately move from one country to the other as tourists,
students, teachers, businessmen, etc.
I believe that if there were sufficient avenues for Mexicans to
move relatively freely between our two countries when able to prove
that they have legitimate reasons to do so, a large proportion of the
undocumented flows would cease. Obviously, it is unrealistic to expect
Mexico to accomplish what the United States itself--notwithstanding
billions of dollars and thousands of enforcement personnel--has been
unable to accomplish, i.e., the elimination of all undocumented
crossings. However, Mexican authorities will have to assume their
shared responsibility to make the system work and unless there are
bilateral agreements to frame that cooperation, it will continue to be
easy for the Mexican side to revert to its traditional rhetoric of
saying that this is a U.S. problem.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Castaneda. We
appreciate your testimony, as always. Your work with this
committee is much appreciated.
Let me mention that my colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator
Nelson, have long had deep interest in these issues. I am so
pleased that they are part of this hearing. Let me ask that we
have a 10-minute period of questions for each of us. I will
recognize my colleagues, first Senator Dodd and then Senator
Nelson, and then I will have questions as a roundup, and then
we will proceed to the next panel.
Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. Senator Nelson was here before I was.
Senator Nelson. He is senior to me.
The Chairman. Very well. Senator Dodd, you are nominated.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, U.S. SENATOR FROM
CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. Enough of this age stuff here.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Well, first of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman,
very much. I am going to ask unanimous consent that an opening
statement be included in the record.
The Chairman. It will be placed in the record in full.
Senator Dodd. It has been made already, the point has been
made, and I am sorry I was not here to hear the testimony of my
colleagues earlier. It is a delight to have our distinguished
friends and neighbors from Canada and Mexico with us and we
thank you both for being a part of this hearing. Jorge
Castaneda and I have known each other a long, long time and it
is a pleasure to have you back before this committee, Jorge,
again.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, since NAFTA and the controversy of
NAFTA, but I think we all agree today that the explosion of
trade between our countries as a result of NAFTA has been a
tremendous asset for all of us here. There is no doubt in my
mind about that whatsoever.
The reverse is not as great--the United States and its
major trading partners, Canada and Mexico, but it is just as
true that of the NAFTA countries that accounts for more than 80
percent of Canadian and Mexico's totals. So, obviously, there
is a great deal of interdependency here that is welcomed by all
of these countries.
Travel obviously has increased, as you all have pointed
out. The numbers are not terribly clear, but somewhere between
4 and 500 million crossings a year if you use the 7,000 miles
of common border, the more than 300 airports, ports, and other
points of entry are included. It is a staggering amount of
territory to cover, 7,000 miles and 300 harbors and ports, to
gain some control over all of this. Obviously, the trade issues
have exploded, obviously, the amount of travel that occurs.
So, it is an exciting time and one that obviously raises
serious issues. It was, I think, appropriate to point out that
the timeliness of this hearing, in light of what happened last
week in London. While we have 8 million or so undocumented
workers here, we all are painfully aware that it does not take
many. It can be as simple as one or two to cause the kind of
destruction and havoc we have seen in London and elsewhere
around the world.
So these conflicting issues of expanding trade and
opportunity--I want to underscore the point of Mr. Beatty as
well here, and by Jorge Castaneda. We have got to be so careful
as we move forward here that we do not end up giving terrorists
a greater victory than that which they have already achieved by
becoming so gripped by the fear that obviously these acts
convey that we end denying ourselves and our neighbors and
friends the opportunity to improve the quality of lives of
their people. There is a danger in all of this, in my view.
So let me, if I can, ask some of you--and I presume you are
familiar, enough familiar with some of the legislation that has
passed the Congress recently. This Real ID Act of 2005 is one
that I know you both must be familiar with. Are you both
familiar with this, the Real ID Act? Well, this established
identity card standards for the issuance of driver's licenses,
waived laws to facilitate the construction of a border fence
near San Diego, and required a pilot test of ground
surveillance.
I wonder if you might just give us your assessment in terms
of enhancing security, in terms of reducing the flow of illegal
immigrants to the United States, of the impact of the Real ID
Act?
Mr. Castaneda. Senator Dodd, I think the position of just
about all Mexicans from the government to the opposition to the
press, the business community, is very critical of the very
notion of real ID. On the contrary, in the Fox administration
when I was there and even subsequently what we have tried to do
is to find ways to obtain either driver's license or driver's
permits for Mexicans in the United States who do not have other
papers, because, regardless of the other papers that they have
or do not have, they should be able to drive, they should be
able to insure themselves and their cars, they should be able
to be on the highways in a situation that is legal, that is
law-abiding, and that can contribute to everybody's security.
Also, the notion of building more walls, which Real ID also
includes, is something that we all considered in Mexico to be
very negative. That is not the way we are going to solve these
terribly complex problems that you have addressed, that
Senators McCain, Kennedy, and Cornyn are addressing, and that
the Bush administration has pointed to from the very beginning.
So I think the overall reaction has been very negative and
I share that very negative and very critical view of Real ID.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Beatty.
Mr. Beatty. Senator Dodd, I think the primary focus is
obviously on the southern border in this particular instance.
But from a Canadian perspective we do have a very real interest
in knowing who is crossing the border going either way. We are
interested in ensuring that there is adequate identification
and that there is proper security for that.
The key is to collaborate in developing the standards and
to do so in a way which does not glut up the border. We were
having a problem even prior to 9/11 that our border was
becoming dysfunctional simply because of the volumes of trade
that were going across and increasing volumes of individuals
crossing and the fact that in the Canada-United States border
most of the key border crossings are at natural chokepoints
across bodies of water and as a consequence you cannot simply
slap on another lane.
If we were attempting to manage the border in the same way
as we did when I was Minister of National Revenue responsible
for Canada Customs, it would have seized up long ago. So we
have brought in new technologies. We are looking at new ways of
dealing with the issues there. But what is absolutely key is
that our countries move in unison with each other and that we
do so in a way which allows us to make the border much more
hardened against criminals and potential terrorists, but makes
it transparent to legitimate travelers and legitimate commerce.
I think it is possible to do that, but we do not do that
through ill-considered proposals.
Senator Dodd. And you think the Real ID is an ill-
considered proposal?
Mr. Beatty. I am concerned about some of the impacts of it.
Senator Dodd. Well, let me, because I think the tendency of
people listening to this from the audience in the United States
is to say, well, we have got to do this, this is the only way
we can protect ourselves. I do not think they are as aware of
what is happening in reverse. I was with some people the other
day, Mr. Chairman, who do a lot of business in Brazil. When you
arrive in Brazil today as a United States citizen, there are
lines where you go through at immigration for everyone and then
there is a separate line if you are from the United States,
where the criteria and the burdens are significantly higher. I
suspect this is in retaliation to some degree from these kinds
of requirements that we are imposing on people coming to this
country.
What are the impacts likely to be on the United States in
terms of our trade and commerce, tourism and the like? Are you
seeing some indications already that, in fact, we may suffer
economically as a result of other restrictions being placed on
U.S. citizens who seek to travel to other nations in this
hemisphere?
Mr. Beatty. Senator, the approach, certainly that we would
be taking in my association as it relates to the relationship
with the United States, would be not to look at retaliatory
measures. We do want to see symmetry, but we want to see
symmetry based on standards which make sense from the outset.
My primary preoccupation here today is the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, what the impacts will be as of
the 1st of January in 2008, do we risk the possibility of
simply glutting up our borders, and are we going to discourage
travel by ordinary citizens who will find that the identity
documents they have to acquire are simply too costly and
cumbersome for them to get?
Now, I think it is important for us to take the time to do
it right and for us to ensure that we have common standards. We
have an interest in knowing who is coming north. You have an
interest in knowing who is coming south. It makes sense for us
to work together in developing standards that will enable us to
do this, that will provide for secure ID documents, but which
will not cause the border to seize up and will not damage us
both commercially.
Again if I can turn the discussion to the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, one of the very real concerns
that Canadians would have is that it is quite common to have
North American international conferences. We host them
frequently in Ottowa, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. But a
low percentage of Americans today even have passports. The
issue is not getting into Canada today for the Americans; it is
getting back home under that proposal.
The impact potentially upon our ability as people to get to
know one another better could be disastrous unless we design it
right.
Senator Dodd. Well, that is the kind of point I am raising
here and it is exactly the point I wanted to make here, that
this is not only a burden on our neighbors to the north and
south of us. It is going to place an extraordinary burden on
U.S. citizens as well, and that is the point I am trying to
make.
Mr. Castaneda, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Castaneda. Yes, Senator. I think it also runs contrary
to other aspects of what we are trying to do and some of the
spirit, at least, of the Waco three-country communique. In
Mexico we have been trying now, the Fox administration and
others have been trying, for about 5 years now to get some
preclearance done in at least one pilot project in a Mexican
airport, perhaps Cancun, perhaps Los Gatos, something like
that, like what the United States has with Canada and what it
has with Ireland and the Bahamas, precisely in order to enhance
and improve and increase United States tourism to certain
Mexican destinations from airports in the United States that
are not international airports.
This initiative that requires for practical purposes
passports for Americans to come back into the United States
from Mexico and Canada, goes exactly in the opposite sense. It
is going to make it more difficult. So what do we want? Do we
want to make it easier or do we want to make it more difficult?
We want to enhance travel, security, fluidity and movement of
people and goods and services, or do we want to make it more
complicated?
I think that that initiative goes in the same direction as
Real ID, the wrong way.
Senator Dodd. Can I ask one additional question, Mr.
Chairman, just briefly?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Dodd. Let me jump to the standardization issue very
quickly. The feasibility of this is what I would like to hear
both of you briefly comment on, because a lot of people say it
sounds wonderful, but how do you really do this? The question I
think most people would want to ask is, respectfully, since
both of you are here ask about Mexico and Canada, what are
Mexico and Canada going to be able to do--and you addressed
this, both of you to some degree--to provide the kind of
security within your own borders that third parties are not
going to be able to enter your countries and come here?
That is the great fear we have here. So standardization is
appealing. How feasible is it, and what steps are both of your
countries likely to take to give us the assurance that you are
not going to have porous borders that raise threats to us?
Mr. Castaneda. I think, if I may, sir, I think that this is
the central issue on the security side of the equation, which
is why I mentioned there has to be a security side and there
has to be an immigration side. The security side can be
increasingly addressed. I think more and more people in Mexico
today understand, for example, that our southern border has to
be brought back under control. We have to bring it back under
control, but we have to do it clearly, actively, proactively.
We need money to do it. We need political will to do it. It has
to be done.
We are having enormous problems with the Salvadoran gangs,
the Mara Salvatruchas, in southern Mexico. We are having
enormous problems with prostitution, drugs, everything, on our
southern border. This is as much our problem as it is anybody
else's.
I think there is now the political will and decision in
Mexico to confront this issue squarely and clearly. I think it
would be better for Mexico to address this issue in cooperation
with Canada and with the United States than alone, in the same
way I think it would be better for the United States to address
the immigration issues that you have all raised together with
Mexico--perhaps Canada there is less directly involved--than to
do it alone. I think we have to move in that direction,
Senator.
Mr. Beatty. Senator Dodd, you have put your finger on what
is the central issue here. In my political career I had
responsibility for virtually, at one time or another, for
virtually each of the security and intelligence agencies for
which Canada is responsible. One of the things that I know is
that we have to look at protecting ourselves not by simply
focusing at a line along the 49th parallel, but rather at
looking at a series of concentric circles of sovereignty.
9/11, it was the border in part between Frankfort, Germany, and
the United States, as opposed to the border between Canada and
the United States, that was of concern.
To the extent to which we can push out the intelligence
that we have offshore before we know, before anyone even
arrives in North America, to the extent to which we know that
cargo is safe before it comes to North America, to the extent
to which we can collaborate in sharing police and security
intelligence to intercept threats within North America before
they hit the border, we will be far more secure.
But to simply focus our efforts on the border itself, and
certainly to do anything akin to militarizing the border or to
putting fences along, certainly along your northern border,
would be a retrograde step and would mean misallocating
resources and focusing on the wrong area.
The key for us when we are looking for the needle in the
haystack is to shrink the size of the haystack and to be able
to focus our efforts on the area of highest risk. We are doing
that by sharing intelligence, by putting teams internationally
offshore, by working together in managing our common border, by
looking for secure ID standards which will be compatible for
both countries. That is in my view the best way to proceed.
Senator Dodd. I thank you both.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Very helpful.
[The prepared statement Senator Dodd of follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, U.S. Senator From
Connecticut
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing
today. Especially in light of the tragic events last Thursday in
London, the issue of border security couldn't be more timely. Indeed,
ensuring the security of our borders is such a critical issue because
it speaks directly to both our national security and our economic
security. I would also like to commend you for assembling the expert
panel of witnesses before us today. They bring a great deal of
expertise to the issues we are here to discuss and I trust that their
input will help shed much light on the challenges and opportunities
before us.
Since the signing of NAFTA, trade in North America has boomed. The
United States now conducts one-third of its trade with Canada and
Mexico. The reverse statistics are even more astounding. Trade with
NAFTA countries accounts for more than 80 percent of Canada and
Mexico's totals. So we are obviously economically very interdependent.
This steep increase in trade has also brought increased travel
between our three nations. Our land borders will be crossed over 400
million times this year. While this increased activity of people
crossing our borders has brought the promise of trade and cultural
exchange, it has also increased the danger that unwanted visitors--be
they ordinary criminals or homicidal terrorists--could enter the United
States.
It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that once here, it is
highly likely that such unwanted visitors could disappear into the
proverbial woodworks. After all, there are currently over 8 million
undocumented aliens here in the United States. The overwhelming
majority of these people are honest, hardworking people looking for a
better life than they have in their home countries. And although they
might arrive or stay illegally, they are simply looking to share in the
American dream. But the sheer numbers force us to remember that it only
takes one person to commit an act of terror--and one person can be
easily lost in a pool so big.
That's one of the major reasons why comprehensive immigration
reform that gets these people on the books is so important. I commend
my two colleagues here today--Senators Kennedy and McCain--for their
dedication and hard work to address the issue of immigration reform.
There are other incidences where our national security and our
economic security overlap. An example of this is with the issue of
energy. As a recent Council on Foreign Relations report pointed out,
``In 2004, Canada and Mexico were the two largest exporters of oil to
the United States. Canada supplies the United States with roughly 90
percent of its imported natural gas and all of its imported
electricity.'' Obviously, therefore, any disruption of the flow of
energy across our borders would have both severe economic and severe
national security implications for America.
These points all make it clear that the increase in activity at our
borders has brought an unprecedented level of interdependence. This
interdependence means that the futures of our countries are no longer
independent--they are now shared for better or for worse.
That is why it is so important that as we move forward on North
American border security issues, we do so in tandem--trilaterally--
instead of having two bilateral approaches or simply acting alone.
Because the degree of success we achieve on securing our borders will
be directly proportional to the degree with which we are able to pool
our resources and cement in the minds of all the belief that our
security interests are shared.
That is why I am pleased that this past March, Presidents Bush and
Vincente Fox, as well as Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada,
announced their support of increased cooperation in the economic and
security spheres--specifically creating the Security and Prosperity
Partnership of North America (SPP). As part of the SPP, working groups
to address and quickly report back on security and economic issues for
our three nations were established. I hope that the concept of the SPP
sets a trend for how our three nations will deal in the future with
issues of mutual concern.
Mr. Chairman, again, I commend you for holding this very timely and
important hearing. I hope it will contribute to real progress for the
protection and prosperity of our three nations. And I look forward, at
the appropriate time, to asking questions of the excellent panel of
witnesses we have before us.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd.
Let me just mention, at least, the order of our
questioning. I recognize next, as I mentioned, Senator Nelson.
Then I will recognize the distinguished ranking member of the
committee, Senator Biden, for his opening statement and/or
questions, and then we will welcome Senator Obama, who has come
together with us.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You can see the interest of the committee on this subject.
Clearly, it seems to me that we are going to have to find a
solution to the large number of undocumented workers, 8 to 10
million estimated, in the country. You cannot round them all up
and ship them home. On the other hand, I am not in favor of
blanket amnesty. So there has got to be some solution that is
found and then build a consensus around it.
This is one of the thorniest problems that any
administration or Congress would take up. For us to do nothing
is setting policy by doing nothing, and that is not a solution.
I do not want to do anything that encourages more people to
come illegally. Yet we have the need to improve the enforcement
of our borders to facilitate those who want to come here
legally and to keep out those who would come here illegally. It
has already been stated now we have, of course, the need to
protect our borders to protect ourselves.
So with regard to that, I would like to ask, specifically
you, Mr. Castaneda--Es corecto?
Mr. Castaneda. Corecto, senor.
Senator Bill Nelson. OK. We have implemented in this
country advanced cargo manifest requirements for all modes of
transportation: Air, truck, rail, sea. Canada has begun to
institute similar requirements. Is Mexico planning to develop
and implement similar rules?
Mr. Castaneda. To the best of my understanding, Senator--
and I am no longer in government; I left the Fox administration
a couple of years ago--that is the situation. I know we are
sharing a great deal of information, our two countries, three
countries, are sharing a great deal of information, for example
on passenger lists on flights not only coming from Mexico to
the United States, obviously, but even on flights from Europe
to Mexico overflying the United States without landing in the
United States. You may recall an incident that occurred with
the KLM flight from Amsterdam to Mexico City a few weeks ago in
that aspect.
We are also sharing a lot of information regarding third
country visa applicants in third countries, where on certain
occasions--I did this under my administration--in Colombia, for
example, we would clear visa requests with the Canadian Embassy
and the United States Embassy in Bogota before granting visas
to people who wanted to come into Mexico.
I know we are working, though I know less about it, on the
cargo issues also. So I think there is an absolute willingness
and decision on the part of the Mexican Government--I think
this would be true of any Mexican Government--to cooperate
fully with the United States and with Canada on these issues.
The point I wanted to emphasize, though, Senator, and I
will do it again, is that it will be not only easier but much
more consensual in Mexico if this is done in the context of an
overall security and immigration package of agreements,
measures, reforms, et cetera. There are many things that we
should do, but there are many political realities also in your
country and in our country. In the same way that immigration is
a terribly sensitive issue in the United States--we all know
that--security cooperation, some of the aspects in Senator
Lugar's bill regarding military cooperation between Mexico and
the United States are very, very sensitive in Mexico.
It is not easy for any Mexican Government to move forward
on that. It can be done in a package. If it is done in a sort
of salami-type arrangement, slice by slice, I am not sure it is
going to work.
Senator Bill Nelson. One of the reasons I supported CAFTA
the last week that we were here before the break was that not
only the economic commerce, but the necessity that we see
democracies in some cases that are struggling in Latin America
continue to be strengthened by economic development. I think
clearly that is what CAFTA was going to do and it helps my
State as well.
We import in Florida a lot of goods coming out of the
Caribbean and out of Central America, indeed with Mexico as
well. We have just got to find a solution here to increase--we
are looking at less than 5 percent of the container cargo that
is coming into this country. Of course, that invites enormous
mischief by someone who would do us harm.
Supposedly, ports in the Caribbean that are state-of-the-
art ports. On the surface they look good for their security.
They are transshipment points for container cargo. But that is
not the truth. The truth underneath is that the security is not
nearly as good as it is made out to be. So we have clearly got
a concern as we develop legislation that you are planning to
do, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank my senior colleagues for the privilege of
going ahead. I have an opening statement, if I might enter that
in the record.
The Chairman. It will be placed in the record in full.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement Senator Nelson of follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator From Florida
Mr. Chairman, I am greatly interested in this issue and thank the
Senators and Congresswoman for coming to discuss these issues.
It is crucial that we implement a comprehensive homeland security
plan that includes both immigration reform and cooperation with our
neighbors to the north and south. This is tricky but must be done. We
cannot truly secure our borders without this cooperation.
One thing that is clear is that we must resolve the illegal
immigration problem we have so that we can focus our limited resources
on finding the people who wish to do harm to the United States. As you
all know this is an extremely complex problem. Helping to improve the
border security of southern Mexico and the Caribbean basin nations is
critical to strengthening our Nation. We cannot allow those nations to
continue to have porous borders in a time when people from all over the
world are using these countries as gateways to the United States.
In addition, however, we must focus on helping Latin American
countries improve economically so that the incentive and draw to come
to the United States illegally in order to work is reduced. People will
continue to come across our borders legally or illegally regardless of
the number of agents we put on the ground and the ease with which
people can get a visa. They will continue to come until the economic
incentive to do so is gone. Immigration reform and increased border
security coupled with intense cooperation between ourselves and Mexico
and Canada will certainly work toward enhancing our national security
and stemming the flow of illegal immigrants. However, as I stated it is
simple economics that as long as someone is willing to work for less
than his neighbor is, he will find work.
Therefore, we need to focus on not only discouraging immigrants
from risking their lives to come illegally but we need to ensure that
U.S. businesses are not hiring illegal immigrants--thus simply
encouraging the continued flow. And as I stated, we also need to do
what we can to help Mexico and surrounding nations improve their
economies so that their citizens will choose to stay at home.
I would like to invite any of the panelists to comment on how the
proposals address the underlying economic incentive structure currently
in place that encourages illegal immigration?
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Senator Biden.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., U.S. SENATOR FROM
DELAWARE
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me explain to
my colleagues, our colleagues, why I was late. There is a
matter relating to rail security that is of great concern to
me, to all of us, to my State, and to the region. I was at a
press conference laying out a bill. That is the reason I am
late.
But it leads me, and I will be very brief because I came
after my colleague from Illinois.
Fellows, you have figured it out. Mr. Ambassador, you were
one of the most sophisticated and best folks I have known when
you served here and now you are educating some of our students
and others at NYU. You all get it. There is a sense, rightly or
wrongly, on the part of an awful lot of Americans that both
Canada and Mexico, for different reasons, do not view the
threat of terror to the same degree and the same sense of
urgency as we do.
When speaking with a number of your parliamentarians, Mr.
Ambassador, they point out that they think we are somewhat
hysterical about terror, that we have overreacted. That does
not mean that this is the government's position. But the point
is there is a sense here in this country among those who think
about it that it is a little bit like what the drug problem was
20 years ago: It is America's problem; why should I worry about
America's problem?
I remember meeting with your predecessor governments back
as far as 25 years ago and they said: Hey, it is not our
problem; it is your problem. You have the consumers. If you did
not have the consumers, if you did not have the market, there
would not be the problem. It was the same mentality that a lot
of people think pertains to border security.
As a matter of fact, some cynics even suggest that it is a
hell of a lot better for you all to let them through than to
try to contain it, because you are more likely to be a target
if, in fact, you contain it. Not that you would knowingly do
anything like that, but there is a cynicism afoot.
Mr. Ambassador, you indicated that--and I think you are
right--excuse me, Foreign Minister. I made you an ambassador. I
demoted you.
Mr. Beatty. I have been demoted before, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. Well, you can call me Congressman Biden if
you would like. That is a bad joke, a bad joke. You can call me
Councilman Biden.
Mr. Minister, you, I think, are correct, there has to be a
construct in which we can get our arms around this. That is,
both security and immigration in the case of Mexico. In the
case of Canada, I think a lot more is being done.
I would like to ask you a straightforward question and you
get a ``Get Out of Jail Free'' card. You can say you do not
know. I know you know, but you can say you do not know and you
can say you do not have an opinion, and that is OK. Give me
your honest opinion of what you think the sense of urgency, to
the extent that it exists in each of your countries, not with
your government, among the populace at large, as to how high a
priority border security is?
I do not hear a whole lot of Canadians--and my deceased
wife's family is Canadian. I do not hear a whole lot of
Canadians worrying about traffic going across into Toronto from
the United States. They worry about drugs, they worry about
other things, but they are not worried about terror being
exported from Niagara Falls into Toronto. A lot of folks on the
other side, in upstate New York, worry about it coming the
other way, not from Canadians, but from notions that this is
not that big of a deal.
So can you give me, as honestly as you are prepared to, as
frankly as you are able to, what you think the attitude is in
your countries about the importance of border control as it
relates to weapons of mass destruction, individual terrorists,
or terrorist activities?
Mr. Beatty. Well, Senator, perhaps I can start on that. And
we certainly understand that you had other business to attend
to before coming here.
In my opening remarks I stressed the fact that we
Canadians, particularly the Canadian business community, does
not see security and terrorism as America's problem. We see it
as our problem as well. Osama bin Laden has issued a list of
countries which are potential targets that he wants his
followers to attack. Canada is the one country on the list that
has not been attacked as yet.
There is an inclination sometimes people have to say, well,
Canadians are good guys, nobody would want to attack us.
Australians are good guys, too. They discovered in Bali that
they were a target as well.
What London last week underscored is that no free society,
particularly one which is a neighbor of the United States,
which has troops in Afghanistan, which is collaborating on
security issues, no free society is potentially not a target.
It is important for us to ensure that we are neither a target
ourselves nor a staging point for attacks on our neighbors.
I live in Ottowa and my home is a few blocks from the
American Embassy, from the American residence. My office is
three blocks away from the American Embassy. If American
installations in Canada are soft targets, Canada is potentially
a target as well. Canadians are very much aware of this.
What London demonstrated again last week is it is the
values that free societies subscribe to, values of tolerance,
of freedom, of diversity, that make a country a target. What
was particularly odious in the case of London, as was the case
in New York as well, was that it was ordinary people who were
the targets.
We have learned a lesson from that in terms of the fact
that Canada is potentially at risk. The assurance that I can
give to you and to your constituents, to people in New York and
elsewhere, is that we see it not simply as doing the right
thing for the United States, but as being in Canada's interest
that we do everything that we can to ensure that people who
pose a threat either to you or to us never get into North
America in the first place; and second, if they are in North
America that they are found and that they are dealt with long
before they ever reach one of the borders, period.
Mr. Castaneda. Senator, I tend to agree with you in the
sense that I think overall public opinion in Mexico today does
not consider that Mexico is suffering from a true threat of
terrorism and consequently, in the analogy that you used, which
I think is very appropriate, this is your problem, as drugs
were your problem 20, 25 years ago.
I also think nonetheless that things are changing and that
there are many of us who from the very beginning, as with
drugs--and I remember our conversations and negotiations at the
beginning of the Fox term regarding the changes that, thanks to
all of you, were brought about in the former congressional
certification process, which was a real nightmare for Mexico
every year and which, thanks to your help, we finally got off
our back, so to speak.
I think that attitudes in Mexico have changed in relation
to drugs and I think that they are also changing in relation to
terrorism, that there is a sense in Mexico, particularly as
cooperation with the United States increases--and it is
increasing--and as cooperation with Canada is increasing--and
it is increasing--that the threats of terrorism to the United
States are threats that are also extensive to Mexico and to
Canada and that we have to view this from a North American
perspective.
That does not mean, Senator, of course, in the same way as
in the United States, that everyone in Mexico who subscribes to
these points of view, as myself, necessarily agrees with every
decision made by the United States administration, for example,
in the war on terrorism.
Senator Biden. I do not agree with it all.
Mr. Castaneda. I know full well, and I know Senator Dodd
does not either. I know that in Mexico there are many views on
this.
But I do agree with you completely on this fact that we
have to find a way in Mexico to understand that these are
common security threats. A threat to the United States, to
London, to Spain, the Atocha attacks in Madrid 2 years ago, all
of these terrorist attacks are attacks that can happen in
Mexico any day of the year, and for the same absurd reasons
that they happen elsewhere. There are no good reasons for
terrorist attacks and consequently they can happen anywhere at
any time.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Biden.
Please proceed, Senator Obama.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Obama. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The ranking member asked some important questions and I
think they encompass a broader concern. I think when I think
about immigration I think there are a number of elements to it,
some of which have been covered today. The politics of
immigration in this country are extraordinarily complex and I
think Senator Biden was touching on whether the politics in
your countries can generate the same amount of effort.
So let me turn to you, Mr. Castaneda, first and just ask
whether--from your testimony, I gather that you believe that
without comprehensive immigration reform it is going to be hard
to initiate anything piecemeal. Do you get a sense right now
that your country is prepared to make significant investments
if, for example, Senator Kennedy and McCain's bill moves
forward, that, in fact, you would see some concomitant
investments in terms of border security or other strategies on
the other side of the border at this stage?
I mean, is there enough sort of political momentum that
people would see that as a fair trade?
Mr. Castaneda. I do believe so, Senator Obama. I think that
precisely what the Fox administration has been able to do--and,
of course, it is winding down; we are only a year away from the
elections and a year and a half away from President Fox leaving
office. But I think what the Fox administration has been able
to do is precisely to explain to the Mexican people that if we
can get the sort of agreement or reform in the United States
that addresses all of these issues that I mention in my opening
remarks, regarding Mexicans already here, and in your home
State in particular, Mexicans who will continue to come because
that is what the demographics and the economics of our
relationship imply, if we can get many of the things that we
think are important, that we can put an end to the deaths in
the desert every single day, then Mexico is prepared to do its
share, prepared to put its money where its mouth is, but not
only its money.
It is not so much a question on our side of money. It is a
question of political will, of making the very tough decisions
on the southern border, the very tough decisions in the sending
community, the very tough decisions along the chokepoints on
the highways and air routes to the border, make the tough
decisions that will make an agreement sellable in the United
States and viable in the long run for the two countries.
I think that today in Mexico this is doable, and I must say
it is largely doable because President Fox has made an effort
to educate Mexican society about these issues.
Senator Obama. One of the continuing problems though, I
assume, is the fact that you have got huge economic disparities
between north of the border versus south of the border. I am
wondering whether, even with a significant change in
immigration laws here in the United States, let us say a guest
worker program that was allowing more circularity, as you
phrase it, between--across borders by Mexican workers, whether
just the economic pressures are so severe that it is very
difficult for an administration to take serious steps to curb
immigration south of the border or to make significant steps to
secure those borders if people are having a difficult time
making ends meet back home. I am wondering whether you
envision, just based on your read of the Mexican economy, the
ability to generate sufficient economic development on the
southern end of the border that those pressures would be
alleviated just by a 400-person guest worker program, for
example.
Mr. Castaneda. Alone, I do not think so, Senator. In other
words, we do have to get the Mexican economy growing at least
one-and-a-half times and preferably twice as fast as the U.S.
economy, so that over a 10- to 15-year period we can reduce the
incentive for people to have to leave, legally or unauthorized.
That certainly is the key point and I stressed that in my
opening remarks.
I do think, nonetheless, that there is a ceiling to the
total number of Mexicans who will leave every year. It is
around the 400,000 per year, maybe 450,000. It will remain at
that level the next 10 or so years and then will begin to
decline, strictly for demographic reasons, because we are
getting old. Strange for a country that was so young for so
many years, but population growth in Mexico has dropped so
dramatically in the last 30 years that Mexico is a country that
is beginning to age.
So I think there is a ceiling. If we can humanize,
legalize, and formalize that number, those 400 or so thousand,
and we can have specific proactive policies in the sending
communities, which are both developmental, but also set up a
system of incentives and dissuasive factors in those sending
communities--if you leave you lose this, if you stay you gain
this. That is for us to do. It may be necessary to have some
financing from abroad to do it. We have to do it.
I am convinced that we can reach some sort of a mix of
development, legalization, and policy in the sending
communities, which are well identified--we know where people
are coming from--that can put together a mix that would make
this viable, Senator, I do believe so.
Senator Obama. Just one last followup on this, and this is
more on the security side of the equation. One of the things,
obviously, that we would benefit from with a significant
immigration reform would be the ability to track who comes into
this country. But some of that would also be premised, I
assume, on the Mexican Government's ability to regulate and
track who is in Mexico coming here.
I am just wondering at this point how up to date is
Mexico's system of identity--cars, drivers. Here in the United
States, driver's licenses and Social Security numbers have
become, I think, the primary mechanism by which people identify
themselves and present identification. I am wondering whether
the system, particularly in rural areas, is sufficiently well
developed in Mexico that we would even know, let us say, that
if we set up a guest worker program who is in the country, who
is coming here, who is going back, those kinds of sort of
infrastructure issues. I do not know if that is something that
you are familiar with from where you are sitting at this point.
Mr. Castaneda. Well, I am certainly not an authority on it,
Senator. But I think in general terms our mechanisms in Mexico
are not sufficient. We do not have a national ID card. We do
not have a national driver's license. You do not either here,
but many other countries do. We have tax numbers, the
equivalent of the Social Security number, but so few people pay
taxes anyway that it is not terribly useful.
We have a real problem in having a map of the country. On
the other hand, local authorities and state authorities in
certain sending states are very close to the sending
communities, and they have been administering de facto
temporary worker programs, legal or unauthorized, for many
years, and they know very well what is going on.
I think the main challenge we face, Senator, in Mexico--and
we face it together from a North American security
perspective--is our southern border. Mexico has to regain
control of its southern border. We have to regain control of
our southern border. We have lost control of our southern
border, not last month; last many years. We have to regain it
for our own security, for our own purposes, but also to
contribute to North American security in the context of a broad
North American perspective on immigration, on trade, and on
development.
Senator Obama. Thank you.
Mr. Beatty, just very quickly. My sense is that north of
the border you have got a different set of problems and much
more security-oriented, less economic-oriented. Right now, I
guess--and this again touches on something that Ranking Member
Biden talked about--there is a perception, at least south of
the border, that Canada's immigration policies are
sufficiently--are generous, and that I think is a quality that
Americans admire--but that because there may be a less sense of
urgency on the part of authorities in Canada, that it is easier
for potential terrorists to enter through Canada and then make
their way down south into the United States.
I am wondering, do you think that fear is justified and
founded? If not, then where do you think that perception is
coming from?
Mr. Beatty. Well, thank you very much, Senator. It is an
important question. To answer you directly, no, I do not
believe that the fear is well founded. I believe it is real,
though, and it is something that we have to deal with in Canada
to help to make Americans aware of the measures that we are
taking to protect our own security and yours, and also to
demonstrate that we understand in Canada that 9/11 was a world-
changing event.
What 9/11 told us was that in none of the western
democracies were standards of security and immigration
adequate. All of our countries had to make changes. We have
done so in Canada. We have brought in new legislation and new
procedures.
One of the key elements--I know that one of the concerns
often that is expressed in the United States is about our
refugee determination system and the fact that our Charter of
Rights and Freedoms applies to all persons in Canada, not
simply all citizens. It means then that the process, the due
process that one receives, may take longer.
We do have the ability where somebody poses a threat to
security, even if he is claiming refugee status, to act and to
act now to make sure that he is under control. It is
interesting to note that prior to our signing a safe third
country agreement with the United States about a third of the
refugee claimants in Canada originated in the United States. So
if there was a security threat to the United States, these were
people already in the United States who were then jurisdiction-
shopping coming north.
Now, with a safe third party agreement with the United
States, we are able to say: The American standards for
determining refugee status are essentially the same as ours;
you must have your case adjudicated in the United States
instead of coming to Canada. This has significantly decreased
the flow.
The other point I guess I would make is, that we share
intelligence with each other. One of the good things about a
refugee determination system is that it encourages immigrants
in Canada to surface. What we do not have is a large
undocumented population of immigrants in Canada who we simply
do not know who or where they are.
If you know where the people are, who they are, in Canada
or your own country, you are able then to take a judgment,
whatever their legal status, as to whether or not they pose a
security threat to your country or to your neighbor. Our system
encourages people to surface if they are claiming refugee
status and then we do an assessment on them in terms of
security.
The only other point I would make is that I am a very
strong advocate of immigration and I do not want to leave any
misconception about this at all. People coming to Canada today
are no different from my family who came from Ireland back in
the 1820s. They come to Canada to look for a better life and
they help us to build our country. The organization that I
represent, that represents the manufacturing sector in Canada,
knows that we suffer from serious and growing skills problems
and that our population is aging, as my colleague was saying is
the case in Mexico, is the case in the United States as well.
Immigration will remain for us a vital economic development
tool which will enable us to strengthen our economy.
But our determination is unshakable that we want to know
who it is who is coming to Canada. We want to ensure that it is
people who share our values of belief in freedom and tolerance
and not people who would destroy it.
Senator Obama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Obama.
Gentlemen, let me try to extend the parameters of this
question in this way. There have been some advocates of what
has been called a North America security perimeter with
harmonized admissions and control policies, to make entry
standards for any of our three countries equally rigorous,
while improving security and facilitating commerce, travel, and
transit among our three countries.
This may seem like a bridge too far, given the more careful
pragmatic circumstances of the legislation we have been
discussing this morning. But at the same time, I would like
each of you to express whether this is a desirable concept,
this idea of a perimeter security in which we contribute to
each other's ability to make sure the perimeter works and at
the same time it facilitates transportation of goods and
services, drugs, cars, people, and so forth within the three
countries.
If that is a useful concept, over what period of time? How
long might this take to evolve, granted its desirability or
even efficacy? Or, in fact, do we have three different
countries, three different cultures, situations in which we
have to understand that we are working together and will have
to for any to be successful? You have made that point, and I
think correctly.
But what about the perimeter security idea? Do you have a
thought about that, Mr. Beatty?
Mr. Beatty. Yes, Senator. I have been, since 9/11, an
advocate of the perimeter approach to security for North
America. It simply make sense for us to push out from our
shores the first line of defense. Certainly if we are looking
at how we can best protect the United States from Canada, there
are a handful of entry points into Canada from abroad, airports
and ports. They are not land entries except from the United
States.
It makes infinitely more sense for us to know who is coming
into North America through those funnels, which are
considerably more constrained, than it is for us to try to deal
with the 200 million border crossings between Canada and the
United States each year. So that collaboration in a perimeter
approach to security is something I advocate.
Our government has been more reticent about the ``p'' word,
as it is referred to in Ottawa, I think for political or
sovereignty reasons. I was part of the government that brought
in the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. I do not
believe that either the FTA or NAFTA have impinged upon the
sovereignty of our three countries. I think it has strengthened
our three countries.
I think our security collaboration to ensure that we remain
free from terrorism strengthens all three countries and will
allow us to have more open borders between--among our
countries. This is vital for commercial reasons. I mentioned
earlier in my remarks the million dollars a minute that our two
countries do in business with each other. But it is vital, as
well, that we know each other.
I spend 2 weeks every year as a part-time constituent of
Senator Nelson's. Many of you perhaps spend time in Canada as
well. It is the fact--I have family living--my sister lives in
North Carolina and is a U.S. citizen now. It is these ties
between people that strengthen us as a continent, and I do not
want to see us putting walls up in North America that drive our
peoples apart.
If we can collaborate on external threats to North America,
we can have internal borders that are more open to legitimate
commerce and legitimate travelers and continue to have our
peoples know one another.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Castaneda.
Mr. Castaneda. Senator, I tend to agree with this view of a
North American perimeter. As a matter of fact, I brought it up
with my former colleague and former Deputy Foreign Minister,
John Manley, just after 9/11. The task force on building a
North American community on the future of North America,
chaired, as I said, by William Weld, Pedro Aspe, and John
Manley, have suggested a perimeter ready by 2010.
I think it is the sort of idea that we should work together
toward--because as my colleague was saying, there are fewer
entry points between Canada and the rest of the world and
between Mexico and the rest of the world than between Canada
and the United States and between Mexico and the United States.
So it is easier, a little bit like the Europeans have done, it
is easier to control at the entrance to North America than
between countries in North America.
It is obvious also that in order to facilitate transit of
people, goods, and services among our three countries, we are
going to have to regulate more strictly, and enforce more
strictly, that transit outside of our three countries. The
report even mentions a common external tariff to eliminate
rules of origin provisions. That is moving it to a strictly
economic area, but there is a certain logic to that also.
I think we can do this, but I would emphasize, Senator,
again it will not fly in Mexico without immigration. That is
why we need the whole enchilada, Senator.
The Chairman. Well, I think you made a very important point
about the package situation. Immigration has to be an important
part of that package. I appreciate the advocacy by both of you
of the perimeter idea. It is one reason I raised the question,
so you could once again be forthcoming with your responses,
which are important because almost all of our debate, in a way,
has been about the internal border predicament, although you
have touched, Mr. Castaneda, upon the problems that Mexico has
with its southern border, and in my opening comments I touched
upon those too.
As we have thought of other-than-Mexicans, the OTM
personnel we have talked about, their ability to come through
Mexico, if that is their choice, and then into our country here
is certainly facilitated by the lack of having a strong
perimeter for all of us.
Likewise you have stressed, Mr. Beatty, that there are only
so many entry points for those who are outside of our
hemisphere to come in. In Canada you can control those, but it
would be helpful perhaps to know you had American friends,
Mexican friends, working with you on that.
Let me go on to something that perhaps is even more
controversial. In Senate Bill S. 53, which I introduced, I call
for a sustainable energy economy for North America. At an
earlier hearing about a year ago--and this was after a
conference that several members of the House and Senate enjoyed
in Mexico--I was emboldened by Mexican friends to surface at a
hearing such as this one, the thought that with Pemex there
were possibilities for modernization of facilities, for
substantial investment that would enhance the productivity and
the amount of oil flowing out of Mexico. This would be of great
interest to the United States and perhaps to Canada in terms of
energy security, given the world in which we live. In order to
enhance this, American investment might be appropriate, and in
a substantial amount.
Mexican friends mentioned $10 billion, for example, perhaps
as a starter, but at least a substantial investment, that would
be beneficial in terms of the income and the gross national
product of Mexico and jobs there, as well as energy security
here.
Although this rated almost no attention whatsoever in the
press in the United States, it did rate a lot of attention in
Mexico, understandably, and for reasons that I understand and
that you understand: The sense of sovereignty, the sense of
national identity with Pemex. With the entire history of that
extraction industry, which I think is well known, there is the
problem of how you move on to a different situation.
Some American investment may or may not be appropriate, and
maybe doubling of production is desirable but not important
enough to get over the hurdle. That is not the only dilemma as
we talk, however, about energy security for our hemisphere. But
I acknowledge that that is one dilemma we have already crossed,
at least in the committee in one hearing.
I would like either of you to comment on the feasibility of
some type of energy sustainability plan in a world in which all
three of our countries find increasing dangers with reliance
upon the Middle East in perpetuity. What about other sources,
in a very competitive world when many others are looking for
hydrocarbons?
Do you have a thought about this, Mr. Beatty, first of all?
Mr. Beatty. Yes, Senator. Canada is the most important
foreign supplier of energy to the United States and we expect
will continue to be so in the future. Secretary Snow was in the
tar sands in Alberta, I believe this past weekend, with Ralph
Goodale, our Minister of Finance. We have reserves in the tar
sands the size of Saudi Arabia, so it is a vital energy reserve
both for you and for us. I would see energy collaboration on
hydrocarbons increasing in the future.
We are also part of a unified electrical grid. When we had
the blackout in North America, both you and we were affected by
that a few summers ago.
I would like to see our collaboration, certainly in the
area of oil, gas, clearly in the area of electricity, but also
looking in the area of new technologies, investment in new
technologies which are less carbon-intensive. I think one of
the discussions of the G-8 dealt with the issue of global
warming and what might be a successor to the Kyoto Accord. I
believe at the end of the day the solution for us is to be
found through uses of new technologies, technologies that do
not exist today, and that require investments by our countries
on a major scale to make these breakthroughs. It is a win-win.
It's a win for industry and picking up new technologies that
may be more cost effective and efficient, particularly in a
country like Canada, where heating and transportation costs are
vital for us, and it is a win-win in terms of allowing North
America to become more independently energy secure than it is
today. So that that sort of collaboration among us I would like
to see, both in the case of hydrocarbons and in the case of new
technologies.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Castaneda.
Mr. Castaneda. Senator, I would like to just briefly say
what I think is possible and desirable and what is not. First,
what is not, at least not possible. I do not think that in the
short term changing the constitutional status of Pemex is a
viable proposition, regardless of its desirability.
That said, I think three or four things are possible. I
think it is possible for Mexico to double oil exports within a
5- to 10-year period, most of which inevitably will go to the
United States. We have the oil. It can be gotten out of the
ground and it can be exported. If we are now the first supplier
of oil to the United States at around 17 to 18 percent of U.S.
imports, doubling that I think would go--would greatly enhance
U.S. energy security.
I think it is possible to reform Pemex internally to make
it more efficient, more productive, more cost effective. I
think that can be done.
Third, I think the most important thing that can be done is
to use those increased revenues, earmarking them very clearly
for Mexican development, for those three or four aspects that
are basic: Security, education, infrastructure, and combatting
poverty. I think those three things can be done without
changing the constitutional status.
This costs money. It costs between $12 and $15 billion a
year for about 5 years. That is big money. As I think a
predecessor of yours used to say, a billion here, a billion
there, you are talking real money soon. But I also think that
that money is available because the stakes are so high. We can
find imaginative ways of financing this expansion of Mexican
oil exports without changing the constitutional status of
Pemex.
If we try and insist on Pemex, we are not going to get
anywhere. That is what former President Zedilla tried to do,
could not do it. President Fox tried, could not do it. I think
we should stop trying and work with what we have.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much for that testimony.
Let me just say anecdotally, during this last recess, I had
the privilege of going to Terre Haute, IN, in my home State,
and dedicating an E-85 gasoline tank. It sits beside regular
gasoline tanks, but the difference is, it uses 85 percent
ethanol, 15 percent petroleum. It is not the only such tank in
the country, but the only such tank in Indiana. I encouraged
people, as a matter of fact, to build more of them, and
automobile companies to have the flexible-fuel valves so that
they can take advantage of this.
I would guess that probably all three of our countries, as
you have suggested, Mr. Beatty, will be working on biomass as
well as corn base for our ethanol, and on hybrid technology and
other ways in which we somehow will meet these problems, which
are likely to be very important to our economies. Mr. Castaneda
has talked about the need in Mexico for a rate of growth that
is very substantial, but is unlikely to occur in this world
without adequate energy resources. This is why I inject this
into what otherwise is seen as a perimeter or immigration
debate, as we try to think of the wholeness or fullness of our
continent.
Senator Dodd, do you have a further comment?
Senator Dodd. Mr. Chairman, I was not planning to, but your
questions are so excellent and the conversation so good it has
provoked a couple of thoughts that I would just like to inject
if I could.
First of all, I think the perimeter idea, it picks up on
Mr. Beatty's comment that it is wiser to shrink the haystack
than to find the needle. I think that is what is at the heart
of the proposal, the one that we ought to really pursue very
aggressive in my view.
I wanted to also point out, we had some wonderful
interparliamentary meetings, most recently with Mexico. I have
participated, I think, in almost every one of them over the
last 25 years. It is the longest interparliamentary sessions
the United States has, second only to Canada's
interparliamentary meetings with the United States, which I
have participated in a number of them over the years, not as
many as I have with Mexico.
A couple of points at this last meeting. Just to take issue
a bit, Jorge, with--I cannot argue with the idea that you have
got to deal with these issues in a totality if you are going to
have some success. The political realities I think--and we
discussed this at our meeting in Newport, RI, at the
interparliamentary meeting--is the confidence-building measures
that are necessary. I just do not have a lot of faith that we
are likely to take on large, large legislative proposals in
either of our countries here in a comprehensive way.
Ideally, it is the way to do it. It makes all the sense in
the world. But as a practical matter it is just very difficult
to anticipate Congress adopting large comprehensive proposals.
What was suggested, and something we need to do more frequently
here, and that is we have these wonderful--and this
interparliamentary meeting with Mexico, by the way, was one of
the best I have attended in the 24 years. It was very engaging.
But we need to have more ongoing contact with each other.
We do this once a year. Occasionally there is some meetings
that go back and forth. But we do not have the level of
participation that we should have between our respective
legislative bodies, nowhere near the level of contact that
occurs at the executive branch level in our nations, because I
think the more realistic approach is probably to begin with
some confidence-building measures, and that if, in fact, Mexico
could see that we were serious about these efforts then I think
you can get commensurate responses from a Mexican Legislature,
and you start to build on that.
I think that is probably a more realistic approach to what
we are talking about here today than the anticipate of some
large bills that would deal with all aspects of these issues
being adopted by either the Mexican Legislature, the Canadian
Parliament, or the United States Congress. But we need to
develop some better way of engaging in this ongoing dialog than
we are doing.
I think that idea was pretty much endorsed--Silvio
Hernandez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in Mexico, has been tremendously productive and
constructive in these ideas. Jim Colby and John Cornyn, who was
here earlier today, chaired the meeting, Mr. Chairman, and I
think all of us endorsed this idea of trying to build on some
confidence measures.
Second, I want to endorse as well the comments by the
chairman dealing with the energy issue here. My opening
comments, which I have included in the record, point out this
tremendous opportunity which exists here for us to really
develop far less dependency on more precarious places around
the globe for our energy resources, not to mention the kind of
resource capacity that energy exploration and development can
produce.
We have just got to get over the notion--and again, this
was a very productive meeting I had, not in a formal meeting,
but one of these better meetings that sometimes occurs late in
the evening when members of these interparliamentary groups sit
around. Mr. Chairman, I was stunned, in meeting with my Mexican
colleagues, how the issue of sovereignty and Pemex is just not
on the table. I mean, it is just a total nonstarter, as it
should be and I understand that.
But the idea of substantial foreign investment, of joint
venturing, is very welcomed. I think if we can get over the
notion that we want to have ownership, 51 percent ownership, of
Pemex and start really talking about serious joint ventures--my
reaction was after a long evening talking with members who cut
across the entire political spectrum in Mexico was a very
welcomed notion of significant joint venturing with Pemex on
these issues to improve the efficiencies, further develop
exploration of these resources.
So I think it is an issue we really need to pursue more
aggressively, and obviously, Canada included as well in this.
Last, I was struck with the whole notion about investment.
While we certainly understand the difficulties that are
occurring in the European Union today with the adoption of the
various constitutions, but something that the European Union
did I think we ought to try and develop to some degree if we
can. Again, this is controversial, but I do not see how we do
any of the things we are talking about without doing this.
What the European Union did so successfully in my view was
to make significant investments in their less developed
membership earlier on. Mr. Beatty mentioned Ireland. I have
cousins of mine--my family when they traveled from Ireland
about the same time your family did, half of them went to
Canada and half of them came here. So I have my cousins in
Canada who but for where the ships happened to go those days
would have ended up here or we would have ended up there.
Mr. Beatty. Do you recall how they voted, Senator?
Senator Dodd. Yes, we know very much how they voted. I will
share that after the meeting.
But the point being is the investments that were made in
Ireland by the European Union, the investments that were made
in Portugal and Greece, in Spain for instance. Today the
tremendous growth that has occurred in these countries as a
result of intelligent investments by the European Union in
their member states that were not necessarily prepared to
compete on an equal footing a number of years ago.
I think the idea of investing in infrastructure in North
America makes all the sense in the world, and it is, obviously,
in our joint self-interest to be able to talk about doing that.
Again, the resources coming from the coventuring on energy
could not only be used, obviously, to improve the standard of
living for people in Mexico or here or elsewhere, but also to
be invested in how you improve the infrastructure, the physical
infrastructures that are necessary to do exactly the kinds of
things we are talking about here.
So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for raising these issues.
They are very thought-provoking and ones that we really need to
pursue. But you should know as well that at our
interparliamentary meetings, to the extent these have any value
at all, there is serious discussion. We need to develop a
framework on how we can implement some of these ideas.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd is well known to both of you and has offered
leadership on this committee for a generation on these issues.
We really appreciate your coming together today and conversing
with us in this hearing.
Let me excuse you now, and we will call upon our next
panel.
Mr. Beatty. Thank you, Senators.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
The chair now calls Mr. David Aguilar, the Chief of the
Office of Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, the
Department of Homeland Security.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Mr. Aguilar, we welcome you to the committee.
The Chair is advised that Mr. Pardo-Maurer, the Assistant
Secretary for Hemisphere Affairs, Department of Defense, will
not be able to be with us. So we are delighted to have your
testimony.
Let me just mention for the convenience of all members that
I am advised that we will begin a rollcall vote on the Senate
floor at noon. We have a comfortable amount of time, but I just
want to mention in the framework of the hearing that we will be
concluding some time around noon or shortly thereafter.
Meanwhile, we would like to hear your testimony, sir. Your
entire statement will be made a part of the record. You may
proceed any way you wish, and then Senators will raise
questions of you. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAVID V. AGUILAR, CHIEF OF THE OFFICE OF BORDER
PATROL, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning. As for
me being here alone, we are accustomed to working out in the
middle of the desert alone.
The Chairman. I understand.
Mr. Aguilar. So I feel very comfortable this morning here.
The Chairman. Excellent.
Mr. Aguilar. I want to thank you for having us here. It is
certainly an honor and an opportunity to appear before you
today to testify about North American cooperation on border
security and to discuss the challenges, achievements, and some
of the successes of border security along our Nation's borders.
As you know, I am David Aguilar, the Chief of the U.S.
Border Patrol. I would like to begin this morning by giving you
a brief overview and basically a situation report on the status
of our borders with Mexico and Canada. To begin with, Mr.
Chairman, what we have is we are a part of the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection. The CBP is responsible for the security of
our Nation along the Canadian, the southern border with Mexico,
and of course our coastal waterways.
The important part here is that the U.S. Border Patrol is
the entity that works between the ports of entry in very vast,
very remote, and very desolate areas of our countries. The
11,000 officers that we have are deployed along our Nation's
southwest border with Mexico, approximately 9,000 of them.
Another thousand officers or so are up on the northern border.
[Chart.]
What we have up here, Senator, is basically a depiction of
what we refer to as our threat levels along our Nation's
southern border with Mexico. These red arrows depict basically
where our heaviest trafficked areas are into the United States
from Mexico. Those red arrows account for about 61 percent of
the 1.1 million apprehensions that we made last year along our
Nation's borders with Mexico and Canada. The yellow arrows
represent about 17 percent and about 22 percent into Texas out
there.
The number of narcotics apprehended within those areas last
year were about 1.3 million pounds of narcotics apprehended
along our Nation's borders with Mexico and Canada.
Now, having said that, the current year to date we are on
about a 1-percent increase as compared to last year in the area
of illegal alien detentions this year. Fortunately, we are
about 8 percent down in the area of narcotics as to what we saw
last year.
Along with the detentions that we have made, last year we
made detentions of about 78,000 other than Mexicans detained
along our Nation's borders. Currently we are seeing about a
131-percent increase in the area of OTMs coming into our
country. So far this year we have detained approximately
119,000 other than Mexicans coming across our Nation's border
with Mexico.
I spoke about some of the challenges. Some of the
challenges that we face is within that 1.1 million detentions
that we made we are also apprehending a large number of
criminal aliens coming into this country from Mexico and from
Canada. From September of last year to basically at the point
that we speak now, we have detained 104,000 criminally
convicted aliens illegally entering our country across our
borders.
We have been able to detect these illegal entrants,
criminal election entrants, by the use of some of the
technology that has been deployed throughout the United States
Border Patrol stations along our Nation's borders. One hundred
four thousand criminal aliens that would have gone undetected
previously without the addition of the technology that we now
have in place.
Some of the most trafficked areas along our Nation's
southwest border with Mexico are Arizona and New Mexico, as
depicted by these arrows out here. Last year, in the area of
the Tucson sector there was approximately 589,000 arrests of
illegal entries into Tucson sector. As we speak today, we are
seeing a little bit of a decrease in the fact that we have
implemented the Arizona Border Control Initiative in the State
of Arizona. Since the beginning of the Arizona Border Control
Initiative we have seen approximately a 30-percent reduction in
the number of detentions that are occurring in the Tucson
sector of the United States Border Patrol.
There are several initiatives that we have instituted
throughout our Nation's borders with Mexico and Canada. The
IBETS program, for example, along our Nation's Canadian
borders, Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, of which there
are 15 regions across the Canadian border with the United
States. We have 23 individual units operating along the
Canadian border.
We have a similar program on the southern border, the
Mexican Liaison Units, that operate in close coordination with
our Mexican counterparts and law enforcement agencies out
there.
We have a tremendous amount of operational information that
is shared between the law enforcement agencies both on the
Canadian border and on the southern border. We have several
other initiatives that we have implemented. If you would like,
when we have that opportunity for questions, is the Interior
Repatriation Program, where we are removing some of the aliens
that we apprehend on the Arizona border into the interior of
Mexico. Expedited removal has now been instituted in Laredo and
Tucson sectors and some of our other sectors along our Nation's
border with Mexico to expedite the removal of other than
Mexicans away from the border in an expeditious manner.
Currently the U.S. Border Patrol apprehends about 3,000
aliens per day, illegal entrant aliens per day, along our
Nation's borders. The challenges are that we have a dynamic
border, it is a very complex region of our Nation, there is a
tremendous amount of vastness, remoteness, and environmental
concerns out there.
One of the dynamics that we have seen is that we have moved
our operations from what we used to call urban environmental
operations, where we used to deploy in the cities along our
Nation's borders both north and south, and the flow has now
changed into very rural areas of operation. That brings with it
certain environmental concerns that we have to overcome. While
we must be good stewards of our lands, we must control those
illegal flows between the ports of entry into the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol
are tasked with a complex, sensitive, and difficult job which
has historically presented some tremendous challenges. Our men
and women take on these challenges with vigilance, dedication,
drive, desire, and a recognition of how important our job is to
the security of our country, especially during these times.
There is a recognition among our people of the significance
of the job that they do, that which our country asks them to
do. That job is nothing less than protecting our Nation's
borders at a time in our history when the need to protect our
borders has never been greater.
At every opportunity that I speak to our officers, we speak
to protecting America's borders, protecting America, and
protecting our American way of life.
Senator, at this point I will take any questions that you
might have of me. But before that, I think I would be remiss if
I did not thank you and the other members of this committee for
the strong support for all the men and women of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, including the Border Patrol. The
500 new agents that you funded in the 2005 war supplemental is
just one example of your continuing support and commitment to
border security. We are grateful to you for that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Aguilar, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, Customs
and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC
Chairman Lugar, Ranking Member Biden, and distinguished committee
members, I am pleased to be here today, in my capacity as Chief of the
Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Office of the U.S. Border Patrol,
and on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Acting
Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security, to testify about
North American Cooperation on Border Security and the many efforts of
the Governments of Canada and Mexico to work with us toward the common
security and economic well-being of North America.
As you know, on March 23 in Waco, TX, President Bush, along with
Canadian Prime Minister Martin and Mexican President Fox, unveiled the
Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America (SPP), a
blueprint for a safer and more prosperous continent. Through the SPP
our leaders agreed on an ambitious security and prosperity agenda that
will keep our borders closed to terrorists and open to trade. The SPP
is based on the premise that security and prosperity are mutually
supporting and reinforcing, and recognizes that our three nations are
bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong
democratic institutions. The three leaders instructed each nation to
establish ministerial-level working groups and asked us to identify
meaningful goals and deliverables within 90 days. The President asked
Secretaries Chertoff and Gutierrez to lead our efforts on the security
and prosperity ``pillars'' respectively.
The purpose of the Security Agenda is to establish a common
approach to security in order to protect North America from external
threats, prevent and respond to threats within our countries, and to
further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate low-
risk traffic across our common borders.
Nearly 2 weeks ago in Ottawa, Secretaries Chertoff and Gutierrez
articulated our detailed plans to develop and implement the SPP.
Together with their counterparts from Canada and Mexico, the
Secretaries set out the path to further our common security and
economic goals in an evolving and strengthened North American
relationship.
The SPP energizes other aspects of our cooperative bilateral
relationships and sets the vision for trilateralizing the work ahead.
The issues of immigration and trade disputes will be dealt with outside
the SPP through congressional action and existing treaties and
agreements.
The Department was honored to participate in a recent session of
the U.S.-Mexico Inter-Parliamentary Group to discuss the SPP and we
recognize the importance of legislative support in each of our three
countries to the success of this North American partnership.
background to the security pillar of the spp
Shortly after 9/11, the administration reviewed what we were doing
together with Canada and Mexico to create ``smart borders'' for the
21st century. We quickly set about the business of engaging in the
Ridge-Manley Accords with Canada and the 22-point Border Partnership
Plan with Mexico. These agreements articulated a vision of a modern
border that speeds the legitimate flow of people and goods, secures
common infrastructure, and filters threats to our safety and
prosperity.
As a result of this work, we have advanced our border agenda with
Canada and Mexico in a number of respects such as improved collection
of passenger and customs data, enhanced law enforcement cooperation,
coordinated vulnerability assessments on critical infrastructure, and
worked to coordinate visa policy for travel to North America.
Notwithstanding the significant progress with our neighbors, we
recognize there is more to do. The SPP aims to launch us to a new level
of cooperation and commitment.
spp highlights
To further North American security goals, the United States,
Canada, and Mexico have reached commitments to implement common border
security and bioprotection strategies; enhance critical infrastructure
protection, and implement a common approach to emergency response;
implement improvements in aviation and maritime security, combat
transnational threats, and enhance intelligence partnerships; and
implement a border facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve
the legitimate flow of people and cargo at our shared borders.
Comparable standards and compatible regimes developed under the SPP
will result in collective improvements and enhancements that promote
U.S. security objectives. The following are illustrations of the work
that has been accomplished and other efforts underway.
Shared Watchlists and Integrated Traveler Screening Procedures
The United States, Canada, and Mexico have agreed to strengthen
information sharing related to terrorists and criminals. Effective
information exchange among North American countries is essential to
strengthening our capability to prevent acts of terror within and
outside North America. Additionally, the United States and Canada will
negotiate a visa lookout sharing agreement, to be finalized within 18
months.
The United States, Canada, and Mexico have also agreed to establish
compatible screening standards for land, sea, and air travel, to
identify high-risk travelers and cargo before they depart for North
America. Further, recommendations will be made on the enhanced use of
biometrics in screening travelers destined to North America.
The United States and Canadian governments have agreed to exchange
officers between their respective facilities, the National Targeting
Center in the United States and the National Risk Assessment Centre in
Canada, to help improve coordination and enhance information-sharing.
On an ongoing basis, the SPP will enable all three countries to
address and resolve gaps in cross-border information-sharing.
Ultimately, our objective is for all travelers arriving in North
America to experience a comparable level of screening.
Maritime and Aviation Security
Our countries will also be working toward comparable standards for
baggage and passenger screening, implementing no-fly programs
throughout North America, and developing new protocols for air cargo
inspection. Likewise, we will also be working to develop compatible
maritime regulatory regimes and to strengthen information-sharing and
coordinated operations in the maritime domain.
Preparedness and Incident Management Systems Integration
The United States, Canada, and Mexico have agreed to transform
North American preparedness for response to large-scale incidents by
establishing protocols for incident management that impact border
operations, within 12 months. The protocols will address maritime
incidents, cross-border public health emergencies, and cross-border law
enforcement response.
The SPP countries have also committed to develop an interoperable
communications system within 12 months, and to participate in
preparedness exercises that will strenuously test these protocols. In
addition, the three countries will participate in a preparedness
exercise in anticipation of the 2010 Vancouver/Whistler Winter
Olympics.
Science & Technology
United States and Canadian authorities have completed a
comprehensive Coordinated Risk Assessment to identify and prioritize
major collaborative science and technology initiatives and are expected
to complete their final report late this summer. Harnessing the science
and engineering resources of our countries helps create the innovative
technology capabilities required to enhance the safety and security of
both nations.
Port Security
Our three countries promoted the newly adopted World Customs
Organization's Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global
Trade, which for the first time in history establishes common standards
for secure trade at all major international ports. We will work
collaboratively to encourage implementation through capacity-building
and technical assistance to other countries.
The United States and Canadian officials conducted three port
security exercises to evaluate joint response capability to terrorist
attacks in the Great Lakes area. Moreover, the U.S. Coast Guard and
Transport Canada completed 94 joint initial verification exams of
vessels in the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes, to ensure
compliance with international security regulations.
Beginning with the 2005 boating season, the United States and
Canada have implemented a NEXUS-Marine pilot program in Windsor-Detroit
for low-risk seasonal boaters to participate in a preenrollment
inspection program.
North American Trusted Traveler Program
All three countries have agreed to create a single, integrated
program for North American trusted travelers by January 1, 2008.
Individuals applying for trusted traveler status would be able to apply
for the program and pay relevant fees in one transaction. Enrolled
participants would have access to all established trusted travel lanes
at land crossings, airports, and in marine programs. A single North
American Trusted Traveler Program embodies the intent of the SPP to
establish optimum security goals while accelerating legitimate cross-
border trade and travel. The United States will also be working
cooperatively to identify Western Hemisphere travel document standards
required under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004.
Border Enforcement
The United States and Mexico will form joint intelligence-sharing
task forces along the United States-Mexico border to target criminal
gang and trafficking organizations and reduce violence along the
border.
The United States and Canada will coordinate maritime enforcement
programs for the huge volume of boat traffic in our shared waterways.
With the Government of Mexico, we will begin to establish a
standardized Alien Smuggler Prosecutions Program, which expands upon
previous efforts to identify and prosecute violent human smugglers.
Facilitated Flow of Legitimate Cargo and Travel Across Land Borders
The United States, Canada, and Mexico have agreed to review our
transportation and border facility needs, in partnership with
stakeholders, and develop a priority plan for future port-of-entry-
related infrastructure investments.
All three countries are considering programs to substantially
reduce transit times and border congestion by partnering with public
and private sector stakeholders to establish ``low-risk'' ports of
entry for the exclusive use of those enrolled in our trusted trade and
traveler programs. For example, over the next 2 years, the United
States will determine the feasibility of converting an existing port of
entry in Texas to the exclusive use of low-risk cargo and passengers,
as well as building a new low-risk port of entry at Otay Mesa, CA.
The United States, Mexico, and Canada are actively working to
implement the first internationally endorsed import-export framework
for radioactive materials that could be used to build a ``dirty bomb.''
These controls will be in force within 18 months. The enhanced import-
export controls, which are consistent with newly established
international guidelines, are essential for preventing the fraud or
diversion of these materials, widely used in medicine, research, and
industry. Controls include notification on cross-border transfers and
evaluation of whether the recipient is authorized to possess the
materials to ensure that these materials are used for peaceful purposes
only.
The United States and Canada, along with local stakeholders, are
working to reduce the transit times by 25 percent at the Detroit-
Windsor gateway, within 6 months, and all three countries are exploring
ways to expand this innovative 25 Percent Challenge to other North
American land border crossings within the next 18 months.
By December of this year, the United States and Canada governments
expect to establish a preclearance pilot program at the Peace Bridge,
and within 6 months both countries will finalize a plan to expand the
Vancouver NEXUS-Air pilot program to other United States air
preclearance sites in Canada and examine the feasibility of expanding
the eligibility for NEXUS-Air to include Mexican nationals.
Along the United States-Mexico border, within the next 12 months,
the United States will be adding SENTRI lanes in Calexico, CA; Nogales,
AR; and El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville, TX.
other bilateral cooperation
While the SPP leverages and expands upon the strong relationships
already in place between our countries to further our common security
goals and achieve transformational improvements, it is important to
highlight cooperative work that assists us in maintaining secure and
effective borders.
Integrated Border Enforcement Teams
Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBET) are multiagency field
level groups of law enforcement officials dedicated to securing the
integrity of the Canada/United States border while respecting the laws
and jurisdictions of each nation. IBETs operate as intelligence-driven
enforcement teams comprising federal, state/provincial and local law
enforcement personnel. The multidisciplinary teams operate in an
integrated land, air, and marine environment along or near the
Canadian/United States border while respecting the jurisdiction of each
nation. Presently there are 15 IBET regions with 23 teams.
The mission of IBET is to enhance border integrity and security at
our shared border by identifying, investigating, and interdicting
persons and organizations that pose a threat to national security or
are engaged in other organized criminal activity. IBETs incorporate a
mobile response capability.
Membership of the IBET consists of five core agencies with key law
enforcement responsibilities at the border. The core agencies
representing Canada are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP),
Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). For the United States, the
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) make up the core
agencies. Other federal agencies from each government have been invited
to join the IBET initiative.
Prior to September 11, 2001, the IBETs were informal in nature.
With the Ridge-Manley Accords of December 2001, Canada and the United
States committed to the expansion of the IBET initiative to ensure the
comprehensive and permanent coordination of law enforcement and
antiterrorism information-sharing and establish joint teams to analyze
and disseminate intelligence and produce threat and intelligence
assessments. Since that time, United States and Canadian governments
provided funding specifically to address national security and other
criminality occurring across and along our common border. The Canadian
Government provided the RCMP $25 million annually for the next 5 years
to lead the IBET initiative in Canada.
NEXUS and FAST Low-Risk Enrollment Programs
CBP and Canada's Border Services Agency jointly administer NEXUS
and FAST programs at all major crossings between the United States and
Canada. These low-risk, vetted enrollment programs are an impressive
example of cross-border cooperation to meet our common objectives of
ensuring security and promoting commercial vitality. Enrollment in both
programs is voluntary.
NEXUS participants are entitled access to dedicated commuter lanes
(DCL) at 11 border crossings. As of June, nearly 80,000 participants
are enrolled in NEXUS. On the Northern Border, 57.3 percent of the
total passenger traffic \1\ crosses at NEXUS-equipped Ports of Entry
(POE). With completion of the planned expansion to 6 new locations \2\,
an additional 13.9 percent traffic volume will be supported at DCL-
equipped POEs, for a total of 71.2 percent of the total traffic volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annualized Northern Border passenger traffic estimated from
August 2004 to August 2005 is 65,624,998 based on 6 months historical
crossing data.
\2\ NEXUS expansion ports include Houlton, ME, Calais, ME,
Alexandria Bay, NY, Sault Ste Marie, MI, International Falls, MN, and
Pembina, ND.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program is a harmonized highway
commercial process for preapproved, low-risk importers, shippers, and
drivers. FAST began in December 2002 in Detroit, MI, and has since
enrolled over 55,000 commercial drivers. FAST processing is located at
12 major crossings, including 4 locations with dedicated FAST lanes.
Joint Targeting Initiative (JTI)
In early 2002, CBP and Canadian customs officials established the
Joint Targeting Initiative (JTI) to ensure the security of cargo
movements across the United States-Canada border. Under the JTI, each
country's specialists jointly target high-risk containers at the first
point of arrival in North America. Currently, JTI is effective at the
ports of Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver, Seattle, and Newark, enabling
officers from both countries to conduct risk assessments of intermodal
marine containers arriving at these locations.
We are now moving forward to coordinate our container targeting
efforts at overseas ports. Working collaboratively to prevent threats
to North America, Canadian and DHS officials will conduct risk
assessments on cargo loaded at foreign ports.
Arizona Border Control Initiative Phase II
Although significant gains were made in the first year of the
Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI), which was conducted March 16,
2004, to September 30, 2004, illegal cross-border traffic and smuggling
organizations continue to operate along the Arizona/Sonora border.
These criminal organizations use available Mexican and United States
infrastructure (routes of egress, staging areas, and transportation
hubs), such as Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, and Phoenix and Tucson, AR.
Decades-old smuggling networks connect Sonora and Arizona. In areas
where infrastructure did not previously exist, smugglers have
established the necessary means to support their criminal enterprises.
Smugglers also exploit the high levels of legitimate commercial cross-
border traffic in southern Arizona in an effort to blend in with the
legal flow of traffic.
The Arizona Border Control Initiative Phase II began operations on
March 25, 2005, representing a massive Federal law enforcement effort
to gain greater operational control of the Arizona border. Phase II
builds upon the results of last year's ABCI and directly supports DHS'
priority antiterrorism mission--preventing terrorists and terrorist
weapons from entering the United States--by reducing the flow of
illegal aliens and disrupting smuggling operations.
Under ABC Initiative Phase II (ABCI Phase II), DHS is significantly
increasing personnel, doubling aerial support, increasing the use of
``smart border'' technologies, and continuing to strengthen
partnerships with State, tribal, and local law enforcement. The
increased aviation operations and personnel supports DHS' priority
mission of antiterrorism, detection, arrest, prosecution, and
deterrence of all cross-border illicit trafficking along the Arizona
border.
In addition, ICE's Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) will
continue to build upon operational efficiencies for alien removals in
Arizona. ICE's Phoenix field office leads the Nation in removals of
illegal aliens. In the fiscal year 2004, more than 40,000 illegal
aliens were detained and removed through administrative and judicial
proceedings; nearly half were criminal aliens.
Expansion of Expedited Removal
The United States continues to experience a rising influx of other
than Mexican nationals (OTMs) illegally entering the country.
Apprehensions are running at a rate of 175 percent for FY05 over FY04's
record number of OTM apprehensions on the southwest border, and 131
percent over the record national FY04 OTM apprehension figure of
75,371. The exponential growth in the apprehension of OTM illegal
entrant aliens, and, in most cases their subsequent release, is a major
impediment to the removal process. Currently, Border Patrol places most
of these apprehensions in removal proceedings before an Immigration
Judge. To help streamline the removal process, DHS expanded the use of
Expedited Removal proceedings (ER) for OTMs, initially in the Tucson
and Laredo sectors. ER proceedings, when contrasted with traditional
removal proceedings, shorten the duration of time spent in detention
facilities and the practical elimination of time spent getting ready
for, and appearing before, immigration courts and judges.
Both the Laredo and Tucson Sectors are currently utilizing ER to
streamline the removal process. The deterrence effect of the ER process
on OTM illegal entry may clearly be seen when comparing these two
sectors with sectors without this removal process. The reducing impact
of ER on OTM apprehension rates, as compared to other sectors is clear.
This is especially dramatic with Brazilian OTMs. In both the Laredo and
Tucson Sectors, the lower rates of apprehension for OTMs contrast with
those of neighboring sectors that have not been using ER.
Building upon its success in Tucson and Laredo Sectors since
September 2004, DHS expects ER and the associated mandatory detention
pending removal to their country of nationality will become a
significant tool to deter future illegal crossing between the ports of
entry, particularly for other than Mexican (OTM) nationals who transit
through Mexico.
Secretary Chertoff has approved expanding the use of ER to
additional Border Patrol sectors upon satisfactory completion of
training and within the parameters of available detention space. ER is
now used in the Rio Grande Valley (formerly McAllen) as well as in
certain circumstances Yuma, El Centro, and San Diego sectors (those
aliens who have illegally reentered the United States while subject to
a prior Order of Exclusion, Removal, or Deportation while still meeting
all other criteria for ER). Challenges to full and successful
implementation include the availability of detention space and
transportation for aliens placed in ER proceedings.
CBP has learned valuable lessons from the expansion of ER to Tucson
and Laredo Sectors. First, when contrasted with traditional removal
proceedings, ER proceedings dramatically shorten the duration of time
spent in detention facilities. Second, the ER process is reducing OTM
apprehension rates in Tucson and Laredo, and we anticipate a similar
effect as it is expanded to McAllen.
other than mexican (otm) apprehensions
In the committee letter of invitation to testify, you expressed
particular interest in OTM nationals who cross our southern land
border. As I previously noted, the surge of OTM nationals illegally
entering the United States has increased dramatically. At the current
rate, we calculate OTM apprehensions will annualize at 148,000.
Currently, the Border Patrol places most OTMs whom they apprehend
in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. All OTMs subject to
mandatory detention are detained pending completion of removal
proceedings. Examples of aliens who are subject to mandatory detention
include aggravated felons and Special Interest Aliens (SIAs). OTMs not
subject to mandatory detention may be released on their own
recognizance or a bond.
It is important to clarify that the Department defines the term SIA
as those aliens with potential ties to terrorism. We monitor
intelligence related to this SIA population, watching carefully the
dynamics and changes in travel patterns.
This unprecedented influx of OTMs is a source of friction for the
DHS removal process, straining further our detention capabilities and
legal program. It has associated effects on the Department of Justice,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Office of the Federal
Detention Trustee.
The Department recognizes the need to disrupt the increasing flow
of OTMs. There is no single approach and we must work in partnership
with other Government agencies. Expedited removal, the Arizona Border
Control Initiative Phase II, and information-sharing, are among the
tools necessary to confront this challenge and break the cycle of OTM
passages to our country.
Smuggling and human trafficking are some of the root causes for the
upswing in OTM movements through Mexico and into the United States. We
continue our work with Mexico to address these problems.
Additionally, we know that visa policy coordination between the
United States and Mexico is part of the answer. Converging visa regimes
is critical to a shared vision of a continental security strategy that
prevents high-risk travelers from entering our countries, The SPP
provides renewed energy for us to take appropriate steps to prevent
smugglers from exploiting visa free travel privileges to transport
victims to North America. For example, there are currently over a dozen
countries whose nationals are permitted to travel visa free to Mexico
that would be required to obtain a visa to come to the United States.
Yet there is more to a serious discussion about visa policy
coordination than lifting or imposing a visa on particular countries.
We must effectively share relevant information and standardize
screening procedures to ensure comparable visa decisions. If the United
States has information that a particular visa applicant is using an
alias or in possession of a fraudulent travel document, we want Canada
and Mexico to apply this same information to its visa decisions. No
country in North America should issue a visa to a traveler known to be
a threat to our common security. Sharing appropriate information and
refining screening techniques to prevent visa applicants from
concealing their true identities is a key ingredient to keeping the
continent secure from high-risk travelers.
Among the SPP commitments, within 9 months we will complete
benchmarks related to procedures and policies for visitor visa
processing, including security screening, visa validity, and length of
stay.
conclusion
In sum, Mr. Chairman, DHS recognizes the enormity of the problems
that we face to protect America against those who seek to harm us and
undermine our democratic way of life. The challenge is all the more
daunting were we to work alone. Therefore, we are working actively and
energetically with our neighbors to improve our ability to detect
external and internal threats.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the committee. I
would be happy to take any questions you may have at this time.
The Chairman. Well, Chief, you do have our support and I
appreciate very much those thoughts that you have just
expressed.
Let me ask first of all, because you have commented, there
has been some decrease in narcotics apprehensions and
importations, at least this particular year. One of the
concentrations of our legislative effort is to recognize the
problems that come across the southern border, Mexico, from
Guatemala, Belize. First of all, to what extent has the
antidrug assistance that the United States has given to
Guatemala or Belize, in your judgment, made a difference? Are
we effective in this? Does it affect your work in any way as
you perceive it?
Mr. Aguilar. At any point that we can push our borders out
and provide assistance to other countries, of course, it is
very helpful to us. One of the things that we have seen is
pretty much a constant across our Nation's southern border with
Mexico. I believe there has been a report, and I have not seen
it, I have just been briefed on it, that DEA has now accounted
for over 92 percent of all the narcotics coming into the United
States are coming across our Nation's border with Mexico,
transiting through Mexico----
The Chairman. 92 percent?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir; that is my understanding, yes.
So at any point that we can provide assistance to some of
these other countries, it is, of course, in our interest. But
the fact of the matter is that narcotics trafficking continues
at a very high rate. At this point in time, like I said, we are
down by about 8 or 9 percent compared to last year, but we must
bear in mind that last year we did apprehend over 1.3 million
pounds of narcotics coming across our borders.
The Chairman. So that reduction is from a very high figure,
unfortunately.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What comment could you make as to the Mexican
counternarcotics efforts? And in answering that question, to
what extent would there be, potentially, some acceptance of
technical assistance from the United States? The previous
witnesses have pointed out many times that these issues are
selected, I think Mr. Castaneda said, sort of salami-style, as
opposed to a more composite package, and that they are less
acceptable.
In a package of legislation, what are the prospects for
strengthening Mexican antinarcotics efforts, as I say, perhaps
even with technical assistance from the United States?
Mr. Aguilar. One of the things that I have seen--and by the
way, Senator, I have spent the last 27 years of my life in the
Border Patrol. I have to tell you that from the perspective of
improvement, if you will, there has been a tremendous amount of
improvement in the area of liaison and working coordination
with Mexican law enforcement agencies. That is something that
has been very beneficial, I think, to our Nation and to Mexico
also.
Having said that, the increase in targeting of criminal
organizations in very recent past--we have seen Mexico, with
Operation Safe Mexico, concentrating on criminal organizations
operating in places such as Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, Renosa,
Mexicali, and some of these other areas that have been heavily
trafficked by narcotics organizations.
In speaking to some of the higher echelon law enforcement
representatives, they have asked for our assistance when these
operations are ongoing, and we have been successful in
coordinating our efforts to ensure that, to the degree
possible, we take on a binational effort on impacting on these
criminal organizations.
As far as technical assistance goes, I think it would be
beneficial. As to how much they would, Mexico would ask for or
would identify as a need, I would leave it up to them. But I
certainly think that we could, as a Nation, offer up to Mexico
a lot of technical expertise in those areas.
The Chairman. So we would make that offer and then, in the
spirit of cooperation, they would make decisions as a sovereign
country of their acceptance? As you say, there has been a
beefing-up, as you have observed over the last 27 years, of
Mexican efforts in this area?
Mr. Aguilar. That is a definite yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is an encouraging fact all by itself.
How about Guatemala and Belize? What kind of antinarcotics
efforts are they making? And in the same spirit, are there
technical aspects that we might be able to offer that would be
of help there, because that appears to be another part of this
equation?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. Guatemala, for example, has in the
past worked with the United States Government in asking for our
support. We have deployed--specifically to the Border Patrol,
we have deployed some of our special teams to assist in
teaching, training, and working with some of the foreign
governments out there specifically in the areas of narcotics
interdiction.
Our BORTAC unit, Border Patrol Tactical Unit, deploys
foreign at the request of some of these foreign nations for the
purposes of specifically targeting the criminal organizations
involved in narcotics trafficking. Guatemala, for example, in
the past has been a recipient of that technical expertise. We
continue to offer it up and we would continue to look forward
to providing that kind of help; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, on the very important chart that you
have presented to the committee, as you pointed out, the three
red lines approaching New Mexico and Arizona are routes of 61
percent of those you have apprehended. I presume those are
approximate routes; they are not roadways. Are they, more
precisely, these corridors that people employ?
Mr. Aguilar. You bring up a very good point, Senator. Those
are depictive and only approximate points. What the criminal
organizations utilize, though, is what we refer to within the
Border Patrol as infrastructure leading up to our border,
highways coming in from Mexico or South-Central America.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Aguilar. And then what we refer to as decision points,
decision points in Mexico as to where they are going the hit
our border and stage as a jump-off point into the United
States.
Unfortunately, one of the areas that they look for are some
of our metropolitan or urbanized areas, places such as: El
Paso; Tijuana; Nogales, Arizona; Nogales, Sonora; and things of
that nature. Then, of course, what they look for secondarily is
staging areas on the immediate north side of the border for
staging purposes and then the points of egress into--ingress
into the United States to get to their final destinations out
here.
That is one of the reasons that the Border Patrol deploys,
of course, right on the line with what we call an enforcement
zone along the border, and we also deploy in what we refer to
as defense in depth, where we utilize our checkpoints, we work
at the transportation hubs, in order to address the means of
ingress into the United States and to take away that
infrastructure that the criminal organizations utilize to
facilitate the movement of illegal aliens, narcotics, and
anything else of contraband.
The Chairman. In your 27 years of experience, and that of
some of your colleagues, you have been able fairly well to
chart, as you say, the infrastructure, that is roadways, that
persons might utilize, plus, as you have suggested,
pragmatically the approach to urban areas and this in-depth
strategy where persons go from there to find various
objectives.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. By this time we have a fairly good idea of
where these objectives are in the hinterland of the United
States, so that you then graph, I suspect, the most probable
courses, understanding that people will deviate. I mention this
simply because, although it is common sense to you, other
Americans taking a look at this type of thing need to know that
a lot of experience has gone into your charting, where you can
anticipate encounters and interceptions of people successfully.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Let me just ask a specific question, because
in a conference that I attended in Mexico earlier this year,
testimony was given by some very gifted people at the
University of El Paso, TX, about the fact that even in the
midst of all of the controversy that we are discussing today,
there were well over 1,000 persons, as I recall, and maybe
upward of 1,500, students, who live in Mexico, who regularly
come to the University of El Paso in Texas, crossing the river
every day and returning home every night.
I think many of us were struck by the fact that in this
area of El Paso, there are pragmatic ways for life to go on,
for people who are not only very friendly and productive with
each other, but at the same time in this case students who are
studying in this great university and enriching the background
of diversity there.
First of all, how does this work? How are you able to get a
thousand or more students from their homes every morning off
to, not to work, but to study, and back again at night, in the
midst of all the turmoil that you are describing, these
interceptions of drug dealers and illegal immigrants and what
have you?
Mr. Aguilar. Well, fortunately, Senator, the group of
students that I believe you are referring to are students that
basically cross through our ports of entry.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Our very busy ports of entry, and they utilize
the visas available for them to come.
The Chairman. So they have visas and they can identify
themselves each morning and what have you?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. They come across the ports of entry,
yes. Now, that was not always the case. In El Paso
specifically, there was years when in the past where students
would literally come across between the ports of entry to come
to school out here. That is how uncontrolled the border was.
The Chairman. I see.
Mr. Aguilar. But El Paso is one of the urban areas that we
have now brought under control by the proper application of
technology, personnel, and infrastructure to basically utilize
those resources to bring that quality of life that we are
looking to bring to all of these urban areas. That, in fact, is
one of the objectives of our national strategy, and that is to
improve the quality of life of our border communities, thereby
reinvigorating the economies of those communities and make a
better life, not only for the people on the United States side,
but also for the persons on the Mexican side, because one of
the things that is seldom spoken about is that when these
criminal organizations entrench themselves on the south side of
the border or on the Canadian side, on the north side, if you
will, is that they degrade the quality of life because of the
means that they use to facilitate their smuggling into the
United States of aliens and narcotics.
So that there is a social impact on both sides of our
borders. So when we deploy and we bring a level of operational
control to the borders, that improves the quality of life on
both sides of the border.
The Chairman. I appreciate that testimony because I
receive, from time to time, letters from Americans who live in
Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, who know of my interest in this
subject, and who bring up more than anecdotal material as to
how the enhancement of the quality of life on the border on
both sides has been helped by the work that you are doing.
This is usually an untold story. For example, in El Paso,
leaving aside the mention of the students, the amount of
commerce involved, the employment, the productivity, the GNP of
the El Paso area, is greatly enhanced by the sophistication of
the border services that you are offering and that perhaps in
various ways Mexican officials are offering.
I mention that because that is very important. We have
talked about this generally today, about how the prosperity in
both Mexico and the United States could be enhanced if we are
able to work our way through all the minutia and to the heart
of the problem of gangs or criminals or those who are deviant.
But it is a tough thing to do.
You are on the line literally in trying to make that
happen. So the question that we all keep looking at, whether we
are legislators or even more importantly administrators, as you
are, is in terms of contact with human beings day by day. How
do we enhance this? That is why I appreciate very much your
experience, and the wisdom you bring to our hearing.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. At this point, I will conclude the hearing
with thanks to all the witnesses. We have had a rich menu of
our own legislative leaders, as well as former Foreign
Ministers of Mexico and Canada, and now your expert testimony.
We appreciate all of this. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Statement Submitted for the Record
Statement of the North American Business Committee of the Council of
the Americas
The North American Business Committee (NABC), a standing committee
of the Council of the Americas which has been dedicated for 40 years to
promoting democracy, open markets, and the rule of law throughout the
Western Hemisphere, appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony for
the record on North American border cooperation.
Even as the recent London bombings are a painful reminder of the
challenges we face in the fight against those who would harm us, our
shared borders with Mexico and Canada continue to be vulnerable points
of entry into the United States and a potential threat to our national
security. Each day, U.S. borders are under enormous pressure. Lack of
personnel, equipment, and internal and cross-border coordination
contributes to long delays and keeps the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada
borders porous (likewise, the U.S. border with the Caribbean Basin).
While appreciating the enormity of the task as well as taking note
of concrete progress that has clearly been made by all three
governments and their stated commitments for further actions, focused
attention to border issues by the United States, Canada, and Mexico
must continue and, indeed, intensify. Greater coordination of the
customs process, additional investment in technology and equipment, and
development of a new model of joint ventures with the private sector to
encourage the development of border infrastructure would all help
support the volume of goods and services that cross internal North
American borders. Better coordination of cross-border law enforcement
and intelligence sharing would help address concerns about illegal
activities. Streamlining coordination of the maze of U.S. federal,
state, and local agencies with jurisdiction of specific aspects of
border activities must be prioritized; for example, the current
Presidential Permit process whereby each government agency has veto
authority over individual border projects simply does not work.
Additionally, establishing preclearance procedures and moving border
inspection stations away from the borders themselves would reduce
congestion while allowing law enforcement authorities to focus on
sealing the border against the flow of illegal narcotics, terrorist
activities, and people trafficking.
Such steps are necessary, because in order for North America to
compete fully and effectively with emerging nations in Asia as they
reach economic maturity in 15-20 years or less, North America must
eventually become a virtual borderless economy for goods and services
produced therein. This vision may not be practical today, given
Mexico's level of development relative to the United States and Canada,
but it is a goal worthy of working toward, with purpose, over time.
Additionally, much of the pressure on the border is a result of
migration flows--both legal and illegal--from Mexico to the United
States. Reducing people flows and regularizing those that remain will
reduce pressure on the border, directly assisting efforts to make the
border work better. Undoubtedly, illegal immigration stems from a
perceived lack of economic opportunity in Mexico and other countries,
but the unmanageable flow of persons now estimated at 400,000 per year
entering and proceeding to live and work in the United States
undetected, poses a significant potential threat to North American
security. After all, if undocumented workers can get into the United
States and live undetected, it must be assumed that those highly
motivated to harm the United States can also get into the country
undetected and remain.
A better way must be found to allow needed workers into the United
States, and to treat them fairly and with dignity, while keeping U.S.
borders secure and discouraging nonlegal entrants. One way would be via
implementation of a temporary worker program, understanding that it
would be extraordinarily difficult to issue enough visas to meet the
demand and would therefore not completely cut off illegal immigration
from Mexico. Still, such a program would equally benefit Mexican
nationals seeking a better life in the United States and the industries
that need to hire them for hard-to-fill jobs. Under such a plan, both
Mexican workers and their U.S. employers would be held accountable for
taxes and compliance with the law; penalties would be strictly
enforced. This would also allow national security agencies to keep
better track of who is entering and exiting the United States and allow
law enforcement agents to focus on preventing criminal activities.
It must be stressed that this arrangement would not grant U.S.
citizenship, but would nonetheless eliminate most negative aspects of
being an illegal immigrant living in the shadows of a formal economy,
reduce cultural stigmas, and increase regional security. And unlike an
amnesty program, this proposal would reduce incentives of staying in
the United States illegally, because it would allow people to return
home to Mexico without fear of being apprehended at the border, and it
would also ensure that, as legal residents, workers would be entitled
to the benefits of participating in the legal economy, including the
rights and protections afforded all workers in the United States and
Canada. To make this labor mobility plan viable, Mexico must commit to
stronger, more proactive protections of its own borders: it should
actively work with U.S. authorities to seal the U.S.-Mexico border to
illegal activities, while working in addition to seal its own southern
borders with Belize and Guatemala, a significant entry point of third-
country migrants heading to the United States. Ultimately, the
establishment of a North American security perimeter is the most
desirable outcome.