[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WALLS AND WAIVERS: EXPEDITED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHERN BORDER WALL
AND COLLATERAL IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
=======================================================================
JOINT OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
joint with the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Monday, April 28, 2008, in Brownsville, Texas
__________
Serial No. 110-68
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-959 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Tom Cole, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
George Miller, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Sali, Idaho
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lois Capps, California Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Carolina
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Louie Gohmert, Texas
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Bill Sali, Idaho
Lois Capps, California Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Jay Inslee, Washington Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Mark Udall, Colorado Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Samoa Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Bill Sali, Idaho
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Monday, April 28, 2008........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 3
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 12
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 11
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Tancredo, Hon. Thomas G., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Colorado...................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Foster, Hon. Chad, Mayor, City of Eagle Pass, Texas.......... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Garcia, Juliet V., Ph.D., President, University of Texas at
Brownsville, and Southmost College......................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Jenks, Rosemary, Director of Government Relations, NumbersUSA 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
McClung, John, President and CEO, Texas Produce Association.. 84
Prepared statement of.................................... 86
Merritt, Kenneth L., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Retired) 87
Prepared statement of.................................... 89
Neuhaus Schaan, Joan, Executive Director, Houston-Harris
County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council......... 68
Prepared statement of.................................... 70
Norris, Ned, Jr., Chairman, Tohono O'odham Nation............ 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Pena, The Most Rev. Raymundo J., Bishop of the Diocese of
Brownsville................................................ 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Perez, Betty, Local Private Landowner........................ 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Peterson, Laura, Senior Policy Advisor, Taxpayers for Common
Sense...................................................... 91
Prepared statement of.................................... 93
Schultz, Rick, National Borderland Coordinator, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Taylor, George Zachary, National Association of Former Border
Patrol Officers............................................ 97
Prepared statement of.................................... 98
Vitiello, Ronald D., Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley
Sector, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol, U.S. Department of Homeland Security............... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Additional materials supplied:
Herron, John S.C., Director of Conservation Programs, The
Nature Conservancy of Texas, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 116
Purohit, Sandra, Government Relations, Defenders of Wildlife,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 117
List of documents submitted for the record................... 129
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ``WALLS AND WAIVERS: EXPEDITED CONSTRUCTION
OF THE SOUTHERN BORDER WALL AND COLLATERAL IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES AND
THE ENVIRONMENT.''
----------
Monday, April 28, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands,
joint with the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Brownsville, Texas
----------
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Lecture Hall, Science, Engineering and Technology Building
(SET-B), University of Texas--Brownsville, Brownsville, Texas,
Hon. Raul Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee on National
Parks] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bordallo, Faleomavaega,
Ortiz, and Tancredo.
Also Present: Representatives Napolitano, Reyes, and
Hunter.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. The meeting will come to order. If people
will have their seats. I will appreciate that so we can begin
this hearing. Let me at the outset thank everybody for their
attendance, thank our distinguished panels, of which we'll have
three today. And I will begin with an opening statement. But
before I do that, because of the number of panels and the
constricted time in terms of some of my colleagues on the panel
who need to be sure they make their travel arrangements, we're
going to ask that all the panelists try to keep to a five-
minute oral presentation. Your full statements will be
incorporated into the record, and any extraneous material you
wish to include, the record will remain open for 10 days for
that material.
And as much as I hate to say this, given the fact that
we're all Members of Congress and time restrictions are of
little effect on us, we will also insist that we keep our
opening comments to five minutes and our questioning of the
witnesses to five minutes so that all of us have an opportunity
to hear the responses of our witnesses.
Let me begin by saying that this is a joint hearing of the
Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and
Public Lands, and the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and
Oceans, and that this hearing come to order. I will ask that
all the members present at the outset and those members that
are not part of these Subcommittees or the Natural Resources
Committee be permitted to sit on the dais. Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
As I already thanked the witnesses, let me say that the
issue before the Subcommittee today is a significant one, and
the insight offered by our witnesses will be enormously
helpful. Let me also thank all my colleagues for being here
today. I would point out that on the dais we have a full
Committee Chairman, five Subcommittee Chairs, a full Committee
Ranking Member, and two former contenders for the Republican
Presidential nomination. And----
Mr. Hunter. We've got a quorum.
Mr. Grijalva. In particular, let me say a special word of
thanks to Congressman Solomon Ortiz for hosting this meeting
and for the courtesy and generosity of him and his staff to
those of us that are not from the community and are here for
this hearing.
The title of today's hearing is ``Walls and Waivers:
Expedited Construction of the Southern Border Wall and the
Collateral Impacts on Communities and the Environment.'' It
certainly is a mouthful. But it is a mouthful because the issue
we are discussing today is enormously complex and it involves
immigration policy, security policy, economics, culture,
history, budget policy, natural resource protection, and much
more. And it is that level of complexity that makes the current
policy, and the waivers being used, so deeply disappointing.
To examine the history and the culture of the Southwest, to
examine its fragile and unique ecosystem, to examine the
economic and the social factors influencing immigration, and to
examine the pressing need for our national security, and then
to decide the only policy solution is a 700-mile fence and a
wall is simply a failure of leadership.
The wall is not a solution. In my mind it's a surrender.
This wall is an admission of defeat by this Administration and
the Congress in the face of an important public policy
challenge. Likewise, to examine the myriad of laws which
protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the
people's right to know and to participate in the policy process
and then to decide that the only solution is to waive those
laws completely is an abdication of our responsibility.
Some might argue that the simple solutions are often the
best, and, generally, I would agree. But our current approach
to this issue is not simple, it's simplistic. And, therefore,
it is a disservice to the American people, who require, at this
urgent time in our history, more than symbolic initiatives.
Today's hearing will focus not only on the negative
collateral impact of the fragile southwestern environment but
also the people and the economy in this area. However, because
of the haste and the lack of foresight that has categorized
this process so far, we will only scratch the surface of the
real harms the proposed wall will cause.
It is my hope that today's discussion might be another step
toward a more thoughtful, more comprehensive, and more
effective approach to balancing our many, many competing goals
along the border, which properly include the security and
safety of our borderlands.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the Chairwoman of our
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans for any opening
comments she may have. Ms. Bordallo.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Good morning. This joint hearing of the Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members of Congress in attendance
here be allowed to join the Members of the Subcommittees on the dais.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Let me begin by thanking the witnesses who will be testifying
today. The issue before the Subcommittees today is a significant one
and the insights offered by our witnesses will be enormously helpful.
Let me also thank my colleagues for being here today. I would point
out that on the dais we have a Full Committee Chairman, five
Subcommittee Chairs, a full Committee Ranking Member and two former
contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination.
In particular, let me say a special word of thanks to Congressman
Solomon Ortiz for hosting this meeting here in his Congressional
District.
The title of today's hearing is: Walls and Waivers, Expedited
Construction of the Southern Border Wall and Collateral Impacts to
Communities and the Environment. That title is certainly a mouthful but
that is because the issue we are discussing today is enormously
complex--it involves immigration policy, security policy, economics,
culture, history, budget policy, natural resource protection and more.
And it is that level of complexity that makes the current policy--
and the waivers being used to pursue it--so deeply disappointing. To
examine the history and culture of the Southwest, to examine its
fragile and unique ecosystems, to examine the economic and social
factors influencing immigration and to examine the pressing need for
our national security, and to then decide that the only policy solution
is a 700 mile long wall is simply a failure of leadership.
This wall is not a solution--it is surrender. This wall is an
admission of defeat by this Administration and the Congress in the face
of an important public policy challenge.
Likewise, to examine the myriad laws which protect the air we
breathe, the water we drink, and the people's right to know and to
participate in the policy process, and to then decide the only solution
is to waive those laws completely, is simply an abdication of our
responsibility.
Some might argue that simple solutions are often the best, and I
would agree. But our current approach to this issue is not simple, it
is simplistic--and therefore it is a disservice to the American people.
Today's hearing will focus not only on the negative, collateral
impacts on the fragile southwestern environment, but also on the people
and economy of this area. However, because of the haste and lack of
foresight that has characterized this process so far, we will only
scratch the surface of the real harms the proposed wall will cause.
It is my hope that today's discussion might be another step toward
a more thoughtful, more comprehensive, and more effective approach to
balancing our many competing goals along our borders.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva. I
am pleased to join you this morning in co-chairing this
important oversight field hearing on matters which generate
sharply divergent opinions among Members of Congress and within
the American public. I would also like to thank the president
of the University of Texas at Brownsville, Dr. Juliet Garcia,
and her staff for their gracious hospitality and assistance in
hosting and coordinating this joint field hearing. I also want
to thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and our colleague, Congressman
Solomon Ortiz, for their leadership on this issue. And I
commend our other colleagues for their sincere interest in this
matter and for their participation in today's hearing.
Few people would challenge the position that the Federal
government has a fundamental responsibility to secure our
nation's borders. However, the methods by which our borders are
secured and the manner by which the Federal government
implements this strategy are also fundamental to the public's
acceptance and the government's success in meeting this
responsibility. Our free and open system of representative
government is built upon the tenets of public participation,
robust debate, transparency, and public accountability in
decision making.
Granted, abiding by these tenets often can mean delays,
extra costs, and, at times, legal challenges. Nonetheless, I
believe that the only way our government can succeed and endure
is if the people themselves feel vested in the important
decisions that must affect their daily lives.
Public involvement in government decision making is just as
important on the Island of Guam, which I represent in the U.S.
Congress, as it is here along the southern border of Texas. At
present the Department of Defense is preparing to relocate
8,000 Marines and their families from their current base on
Okinawa to Guam. This move would cost $14 billion. Constituents
in my district desperately want to be kept informed of this
major project that will affect their lives, yet their
legitimate desire to be heard is no different than that of the
people in the communities here in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona
and California that will be affected by construction of a
southern border wall.
We need to understand the practical implications of what it
will mean to our communities and our environment to live on a
daily basis with a border wall, to the extent that this hearing
serves as a forum for people finally to be heard by their
government, and I am honored to provide that opportunity and I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and I do ask for unanimous consent to enter into the
record a statement and additional materials submitted by The
Honorable Eddie Lucio, Jr., a Senator in the Texas State
Senate.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[NOTE: The statement submitted for the record by Senator
Lucio has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now turn to the Ranking Member, a
member of the full Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman
from Colorado, Mr. Tancredo, for comments.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sincerely
appreciate your holding this hearing for our Subcommittee today
because border security, or lack thereof, is an issue that has
far-reaching environmental impacts, and I am pleased that we
are finally taking time to address it. The impact of mass
illegal immigration on national security, on economic security,
on cultural cohesiveness and the rule of law have tended to
characterize the debate up to this point. On the other hand,
environmental degradation, the safety of our national parks and
natural resources, and the preservation of the wilderness areas
rarely have been considered despite the fact that roughly 43
percent of the border with Mexico is Federal land.
In the 1990s we used fencing to secure the high-volume
corridor in San Diego and El Paso, but we left the vast tracts
of border vulnerable. The resulting shift in illegal alien
activity in areas without fencing is now threatening to destroy
Federal wildlife refuges and the treasured national monuments.
Make no mistake, this damage continues today and will only
worsen if we do not act to protect these areas with fencing and
infrastructure.
Illegal aliens and smugglers have created hundreds of new
trails and roads while crossing borderlands, and in doing so
destroyed saguaro cactus and other sensitive vegetation that
can take decades to recover, including habitat for endangered
species. These roads and trails disturb wildlife, cause soil
erosion and compaction, along with the hundreds of vehicles
abandoned by smugglers which are found on Federal lands each
year and are not only expensive to remove, but towing them from
remote areas can result in additional damage.
Tons of trash and human waste are left behind each year,
affecting wildlife, vegetation and water quality. I'm sure most
of us on this panel, many of us in this room, have seen sites
where after a period of time literally sometimes thousands of
people have gathered and left tons of trash only to despoil the
land and provide a danger to the wildlife in the area and to
the cattle that are being raised in the area.
The risk of fires is increased from migrants' traffic as
well. Illegal aliens start warming fires and cooking fires and
then leave them unattended, and extinguishing those fires has
added a degree of danger--as if that task needs to be even more
hazardous. Just last week a fire started in the Coronado
National Forest. Because of the established dangers and well-
known routes for illegal immigration and drug-running through
this area, a law enforcement presence was required to protect
the firefighters. This is a common practice out there and an
all-too-common activity.
The ecological impacts of uncontrolled illegal immigration
on the national forests and parks along our southwest border
are no secret. The GAO recently documented some of the
challenges faced by Federal agencies tasked with managing our
land. As a member of the Natural Resources Committee I helped
commission the June 2000 report entitled ``Border Security:
Agencies Need To Better Coordinate Their Inner Strategies and
Operations on Federal Land.'' The GAO found that illegal border
activity, especially alien border crossings and drug smuggling
on Federal lands and private lands in the Southwest have risen
sharply since the mid-1990s, creating previously unforeseen
problems for land management agencies, posing new dangers to
law enforcement officers, visitors, employees, and the
environment.
I note with dismay that despite the broad public interest
and 75 percent support for additional border fencing, the 2009
budget for the cost of the Border Patrol contains no new
funding for border fences and barriers beyond the the Secure
Border Initiative's dubious commitment to technological
solutions. Only 168 miles of the 370 miles of planned
construction of fencing has been completed through March of
2008, along with the 135 miles of the planned 300 miles of
vehicle barriers. In 2008 we will have 370 miles of border
fencing on a 1,950-mile Southwest border.
I hope we can continue to work together to expand our
border security through fencing and infrastructure that has
proven its effectiveness. Our Federal lands deserve this
protection. Ultimately, both wilderness and property owners are
only as secure as our weakest link. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And before Mr. Hunter speaks and--
he asked for the privilege and we're happy to accommodate that.
In my introductions I failed to include the committees that my
colleagues chair. Obviously Congressman Reyes, Chairman of the
full Select Committee on Intelligence; Ms. Grace Napolitano,
who is with us today, from Natural Resources, our committee.
She's the Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power. Mr.
Ortiz, Armed Services Readiness and Military Construction
Subcommittee Chair. And our good friend from American Samoa,
Mr. Faleomavaega, who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Asia,
the Pacific, and the Global Environment under Foreign Affairs.
And we're proud to have them with us today. And with that, let
me turn to our colleague Mr. Hunter for any comments he may
have. Sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hunter. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
inviting me to the hearing and letting me participate even
though I'm not a member. And I want to--it's kind of neat to
have such great colleagues here at this table along with you
and Mr. Tancredo; my great colleague from the Armed Services
Committee, Silvestre Reyes, who I regard as probably the
greatest Border Patrol chief in history and a great Chairman of
the Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives; Mr.
Faleomavaega, my good friend; and Grace Napolitano, my
colleague from California; and, of course, Ms. Bordallo, who
represents Guam so ably; and Solomon Ortiz, who has given so
much to the Armed Services Committee in issues of security. So
it's good to be with you.
And, you know, one reason I asked to be here is because I
wrote the border fence law of 1986--or of 2006. It was signed I
believe October 26 of 2006 by the President. And originally I
wrote it to mandate almost 854 miles of double border fence
across the smuggling corridors of the Southwest. And the reason
I did that was simple. First, the fence was necessary. And I
found that in my home district in San Diego--and I've got a
couple of pictures up there in front that show the San Diego--
the smugglers' corridor between San Diego to Tijuana that
existed before we built that fence, and then a picture after we
built the fence. And that's a double fence with a high-speed
road running between it.
And when we built that fence, we did it because the border
was absolutely out of control. We had 300 drug trucks a month
roaring across the border loaded with cocaine and marijuana for
America's kids. We had massive smuggling of illegal aliens. We
had massive crime. In fact, we had criminal gangs that roamed
the border and went back and forth robbing and raping and
murdering, an average of 10 to 11 murders a year in that deadly
border area where nobody would go down from either side of the
border as the night went down because of the gangs.
And it was so bad that we finally had to put a plainclothes
police unit in who dressed like illegal aliens and waited for
the border gangs to attack them so that they could protect the
people who were coming across from being murdered or hurt.
When we built the double fence, we stopped all the drive-
through drug smuggling cold. We stopped those 300 drug trucks a
month. We put the border gangs out of business--and many of
them were armed with automatic weapons--because they lost their
ability to move back and forth and that's how they found their
security. If they were pursued from the north by law
enforcement, they would step south across the border. If they
were pursued from the south by the Mexican law enforcement
groups, they would step north across the border.
When we put up the double border fence, we took away their
mobility and that put them out of business. The drive-through
drug smuggling went down to zero. The murders on our sector of
the border went down to zero. The smuggling of people and
narcotics was reduced from over 202,000 arrests before we put
the border fence in to less than 9,000. That's a reduction of
more than 90 percent.
And when we built the fence in Yuma over the last couple of
years, we've seen a reduction there from an astounding figure
of 138,000 arrests to down to less than 4,000. That's a
decrease of more than 95 percent.
So the first point I would make simply, Mr. Chairman, is we
needed the fence. And, in fact, my great friend Silvestre Reyes
was one guy who came before our committee as the Border Patrol
chief and testified in favor of the fence when we were having
such a tough time getting it through in the 1990s.
Now, the fence is necessary, and I think the statistics
show very clearly that the fence works. And it's necessary for
a couple of reasons beyond those we saw in San Diego. Since 9/
11 we have to be worried about knowing who comes into this
country and what they bring with them when they come in.
Now, we caught over 58,000 folks coming across from Mexico
last year who were not citizens of Mexico. We caught over 800
people from Communist China. We caught 14 people from Iran, and
we caught three people from North Korea. That means anybody in
the world who has a television set knows that the way to get
into the United States is no longer through the airports. You
get to Mexico--if you have a few bucks you can do that--and you
come across that border into the United States. We have to know
who is coming into this country and what they're bringing with
them.
Now, the question comes up about the waivers. You know, I
wrote the waiver language also that was inserted in the REAL ID
Act. And I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, why I did that. The
last piece of fence that we tried to build in San Diego was
Smugglers Gulch. That's a 4-mile stretch where cocaine and
people continued to be smuggled after we built the rest of the
double border fence. And we started to get sued by
environmentalists.
We had one action by the environmentalists that required a
year of study to see if the gnatcatcher would fly over. The
gnatcatcher is a little bird. It lives on both sides of the
border. But we had to delay the fence for one year to see if
the gnatcatcher would fly over the 10-foot high fence. After we
determined that, yes, indeed, the little critters could get
airborne for 10 feet, we then had a series of stalling actions
by the California Coastal Commission, by Fish and Wildlife and
other regulatory agencies, and by groups suing. And it took us
12 years; 12 years to get that 4 miles of fence started at
Smugglers Gulch. At that rate it would take us 2 or 300 years
to get the Southwest border fence built.
And that, Mr. Chairman, is the reason why I wrote the
waiver language that allows the Homeland Security Secretary,
Mr. Chertoff, to make those waivers. Now, he's had--despite the
fact that he has waived--he's invoked and triggered the
waivers, he has had lots of mitigating actions that have been
initiated for fish and wildlife. He's had hundreds of town
meetings with people along the border, with groups, with office
holders. I think he's done the right thing.
And, finally, I would say this. I think that every family
in America who has been touched by the tragedy of illegal drugs
has a stake in getting this border fence built and built very
quickly. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And let me extend the privilege to
my colleagues. Let me begin with the Chairman, Mr. Reyes, for
any comments you might want to add as an opening statement,
sir.
Mr. Reyes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a full
statement for the record.
Mr. Grijalva. No objection.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Reyes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Chairwoman Bordallo
and my great friend Congressman Ortiz and also Dr. Garcia, good
to see you again. Good to be back here. Across the way we have
the sector chief, Chief Vitiello. Thanks for your work and
please thank all the Border Patrol agents for the work that
they do to keep us safe. I know how hard they work. I know how
dangerous that job can be. And I know the circumstances in
which you find yourself here before this hearing. So thank you
for being here and thank you again for your leadership.
Mr. Vitiello. Thank you.
Mr. Reyes. And to my very good friend and someone that I
first met right here in Brownsville, Congressman Hunter, who
was my Chairman on the Armed Services Committee, and who is
correct, I did testify before one of the committees when I was
chief in El Paso about the unique circumstances and why fencing
was necessary out in Congressman Hunter's district at the time
in California.
I've always said that it's important that we consider the
tools that are necessary with which to keep our agents safe,
with which to make their job much more effective. But fencing
should be utilized where it makes sense. I've always been asked
how much fencing do we need on the southern border. Because
everybody always talks about the southern border and forgets
that we have a border on the north as well. And I've always
said probably 10 percent of the border needs to--we need to
consider the potential for fencing.
I certainly don't think that we need 700 miles of border. I
think it's ludicrous to even contemplate 2,000 miles of border.
We're having many issues with the areas where we have installed
border west of El Paso where the fence is so high and so heavy
that it's now splitting apart and, literally, an individual can
come through that fencing.
It's a separate issue when we talk about vehicles. It makes
sense to put a system in that prevents vehicles from running
through, trucks loaded with narcotics and other things.
I also believe very strongly that we're better off by
working with the Mexican government and working toward a
solution where we both co-manage the border. It makes--to me it
makes better sense. I always prioritize. I was a chief here for
nine years and three-and-a-half years in El Paso before
retiring, and I've always believed that it's important to
prioritize working with your counterparts across the border. I
know that the chief, and really all chiefs along the nine
sectors with Mexico, believe that that's also an essential
priority that is important.
Right now we're working on what we are calling the Merida
initiative. It's a window of opportunity to work with Mexico to
help them with training and with equipment and also
intelligence communications equipment so that they can work
with our Border Patrol. And we're also looking at having them
reinstate their own Border Patrol, which they had in place up
until the early '60s.
So there are ways that we can work toward a better-managed
border. But certainly 700 miles of border or 2,000 miles of
fence to me is not the solution. We need to understand that
there is a unique relationship between Mexico and the United
States. We have the best law enforcement officers in the world
wearing that green uniform, and they're the most capable.
The chief here and chiefs along the border should be
consulted by DHS and by Congress about what works and what
doesn't. If we were to do that, we wouldn't have to spend $50
billion on 700 miles of border. We wouldn't have to spend money
that we're going to go back and reinvest in maintenance because
it's too high, too heavy, and splitting apart under its own
weight.
And the last thing I want to say is that communities like
the one that we're in here--we just came from talking to the
director of the Audubon, and he had some people there from
Seattle who told us that they're able to see the area and they
are able to enjoy a habitat that is better than even Central
America. These are the things we're going to give up if we
succumb to the fear that we need 700 or 2,000 miles of border.
We need common sense is what we need. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Silvestre Reyes, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Good morning. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Raul Grijalva
and Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo for convening this important hearing.
I also want to thank my good friend and colleague who represents the
city of Brownsville, Congressman Solomon Ortiz.
Thank you for the opportunity to join you. Today's hearing is
extremely important to those of us who represent border communities,
and the issues we will discuss are especially important to the
residents of these communities who will suffer the consequences of
political games played by a Republican-led Congress.
Before coming to Congress, I served for 26 1/2 years as a Border
Patrol agent, thirteen of which as a Sector Chief, first in McAllen,
Texas and later in El Paso. On a daily basis, I was forced to deal with
the realities of border enforcement and illegal immigration. Our
mission was to protect America's 6,000 miles of international land
border and 2,000 miles of coastal waterways and to detect and prevent
people from entering the United States illegally.
During the course of my career, I patrolled the rough terrain of
the United States-Mexico border region, supervised thousands of hard-
working, dedicated Border Patrol agents, and did everything within my
power to strengthen our borders and reduce illegal immigration. It was
a responsibility that my Border Patrol colleagues and I took very
seriously.
Nobody understands America's borders or has a greater interest in
securing our nation's borders than those of us who live and work along
them every day. That is why since coming to Congress, I have lobbied my
colleagues for greater resources for border security, including
additional Border Patrol agents, equipment, and technology.
As a Border Patrol chief, I supported strategic placement of
fencing along the border to assist with operational control. However, I
do not support fencing along the entire border or even 370 miles for
that matter. I voted against the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was a
perfect example of political forces masquerading as security measures
during Republican control of Congress.
I have always been a vocal advocate for local community concerns
which must be taken into account before the Department of Homeland
Security begins construction on new border fencing. On a number of
occasions, I arranged Congressional briefings to ensure other Members
of Congress received the proper information regarding the fence.
Recently, however, the concerns of the border have been overlooked and
often disregarded.
When border communities raised legitimate concerns about an issue
of great local importance a few months ago, Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Chertoff remarked that border communities ought to
``grow up.'' This ``grow up'' comment was a disappointing message which
suggests a lack of understanding of the dynamic nature of border
communities. Most recently, the Secretary's blatant disregard of
community concerns was once again demonstrated by his use of a waiver
authority to set aside more than 30 laws in order to construct the
barrier.
I recently joined 13 of my colleagues in submitting an amicus brief
asking the Supreme Court to hear an appeal filed by the Sierra Club and
the Defenders of the Wildlife. I firmly believe that the waiver
authority was intended to be used as last resort. Instead, the
Department has taken the easy way out and shirked its responsibility to
faithfully execute the laws of the land.
With that, thank you again for allowing me to participate today. I
look forward to hearing from the other Members of the panel and our
witnesses.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let me now
turn to my colleague on the Natural Resources Committee,
Congresswoman Grace Napolitano from California, for any
comments she may have. Madam Chair.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will submit some
comments for the record. But, first of all, let me say I'm glad
to be home. I was born and raised and attended Brownsville High
School and in '54 graduated and I am partially a part of the
Texas Southmost College as recognition mentor. So it's good to
be home.
I do associate myself with the remarks of Congressman Reyes
in regards to the words about the necessity of a fence and the
protection of the men and women who work on our Border Patrol.
And I've known this for many years--since I was in the
California State House and conducted a three-year study on
immigration--that we have a failed policy in immigration. So
you will consider--you will--may as well get used to the fact
that nothing is going to change until immigration policy is
taken care of, because then we would be able to hold that flow.
We should be going after people who pay these individuals under
the table and are not honest with them.
The deportations, unless they're formal, we don't have
enough jails to put people in, Federal jails. And it's
unfortunate that we have the fence being considered in the
south but not on the Canadian border. But where does the
concern--the terrorists that supposedly came through the
Canadian border and not through the Mexican border. And,
unfortunately, we seem to take a very dim view of people that
look like me and the rest of us up here, brown skin.
I am concerned because it is very hypocritical to say that
we do not want that cheap labor that keeps our economy going in
the U.S. And, unfortunately, we don't want to render services,
we don't want to be able to take care of them, they should go
home if they get sick. Unfortunately, our laws are not made to
help those that help our economy and that help us in the United
States.
So not only is the fence ludicrous--and I agree, we need to
stop that ability for people to come across, especially when
they're smugglers, when they're rapists, when they're people
who break our laws. Those are the ones we do not want in the
United States. But people who come and help our economy, pay
their taxes, send their kids to school, and are law abiding, I
have no problem with them continuing to be a part of the U.S.
economy, which is what makes this country so great.
Mr. Chair, we ought to be open and transparent, have honest
dialogue. And while I was reading some of these submissions,
that some of the dialogue was only written, was not made
public, was not open, was not transparent, I think that's
wrong. I want to see that hopefully this committee will ask for
copies of those submissions by the general public.
And we need to be able to, as Congressman Reyes did, work
with our Mexican government to address some of these issues and
be a little more perceptive of what really needs to be done in
the border where the people who are suffering will be able to
have input in the process. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me, if I may, to the people in
the audience, I understand as much as anybody else the
importance of this issue and the level of emotion, concern and
frustration that this issue brings to many of us. I would ask
you if you could refrain--you should refrain from the applause
or comments from the audience. The decorum of this hearing--
it's an important hearing and I would hope that you will join
with me in respecting that decorum, respecting the panelists.
And as much as you agree or disagree with a comment that's made
here, I would hope that you would refrain from expressing that
publicly. Thank you.
Let me now turn to my colleague also from the Natural
Resources Committee, Mr. Faleomavaega, for any comments, the
gentleman from American Samoa. Sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would
like to submit for the record my opening statement, and I also
want to commend you and our Madam Chair Bordallo for calling
this joint hearing. I would be remiss if I would not also
express my deepest appreciation to our colleague, Congressman
Solomon Ortiz, whose district this is and for which hospitality
and courtesy has been extended to us, I deeply appreciate; and
Dr. Garcia, who's president of this great university, for all
the goodness in allowing us to hold this hearing in this
facility.
Mr. Chairman, also I want to note a special sense of
appreciation of my colleagues Congressman Hunter and
Congressman Tancredo. They will not be with us next Congress,
of course, assuming that we get reelected, which we don't know.
But I do want to commend them. Philosophically, we have very,
very different ideas--I acknowledge these--in terms of what
direction our country should go. But, nevertheless, I have the
highest respect for them and they will be sorely missed and--
serving as members of this great institution in the House of
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record with
the members' consent the 37 Federal laws that Secretary
Chertoff as of April 1 of this year has waived to allow him to
conduct this border fencing construction project. We have an
unwritten rule, Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure that all of our
colleagues tend to agree--at least I certainly agree--that we
should always respect the sentiments and the views of the
member whose district he or she represents.
And we're here specifically to find out what the leaders
and the citizens of this great city of Brownsville and within
the district of the representation that Congressman Ortiz
offers. I really think that our colleagues should pay close
attention on the sense of the community. And I think we do have
some very, very critical issues in the fact that we've got this
2,000-mile borderline between Mexico and the United States.
I, for one, as I'm sure my colleagues agree, that what
Congressman Hunter has shared with us about the serious
problems between California and Mexico with the drug
trafficking and all the things that go on there, there should
be some sense of--you know, of border fencing, if that's the
purpose. But when it comes to the fact that this border fencing
thing seems to have little cracks in between, that there seems
to be some exceptions, that this is really not a fence for a
2,000-mile stretch, but little potholes that I would call it--
why exceptions?
And I really--it's my intention, Mr. Chairman, in the
course of this hearing that I want to look at closely also on
the treaty relationship existing between Mexico and the United
States on the borders. And if I'm reading this right about
Secretary Chertoff given the right to waive even the borders
existing under the treaty relationship between Mexico and the
United States, we have some very serious problems here. And it
will definitely be my intent to share this concern with the
Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to pursue this
as to whether or not we're honoring our treaty relationship
with Mexico when it comes to considering the borderline itself.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I do want to commend you and
Madam Chairman Bordallo for calling this hearing. I welcome our
witnesses and look forward to hearing from them. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Last, but certainly not least, let
me turn to my colleague in whose district we are having the
privilege of holding this hearing. Mr. Ortiz, any comments? And
thank you for your hospitality.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I open my
statement I would like to have unanimous consent to enter into
the record statements from our local community for the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection, sir.
[NOTE: A list of documents retained in the Committee's
official files can be found on the last page of this hearing.]
Mr. Ortiz. And I'd like to thank all the members who are
here with us today. Chairman Hunter, of course, was my Chairman
for many years on the House Armed Services Committee. Tancredo
and I serve on the Natural Resources Committee. And I'd like to
thank Chairman Bordallo and Chairman Grijalva for blocking this
time so that we could be here in Brownsville. Chairman Reyes
and I have known each other for many years when he was the
Border Patrol sector chief and I was sheriff in Corpus Christi.
Mr. Faleomavaega and Grace--you know, I think that Brownsville
is blessed to have two congressmen, Grace and I, to represent
this area.
But let me say that every day in Congress we hold committee
hearings and subcommittee hearings on different issues, topics
and pieces of legislation. Today this hearing is addressing
something that will directly impact the culture and the
livelihood of our South Texas communities, the proposed
building of the wall along the border.
The goal here is to give the public a voice and an avenue
to discuss their concerns over the border wall and how this is
going to impact our sensitive environmental lands. I am
encouraged by all those in attendance today, which shows how
important this issue is and the vast number of people who will
be affected if this wall is built.
You know, securing our nations borders is one of Congress's
main priorities. We need to address illegal immigration, drug
trafficking, and the violence that happens on our communities,
both on the border and everywhere else in the United States of
America. This problem, however, would not be solved by
constructing a wall that tears through our public and
historical lands, forces our citizens to surrender their
property, and reverses all the work and investment that
Congress and the local community have done to protect the
natural environment.
Now, take, for instance, the very property we're meeting on
right now. Right behind this building we have the historic Ft.
Brown. It served as an integral battleground of the Mexican-
American War, and troops stationed there fought in the last
Civil War battle. The proposed border wall would put Ft. Brown
on the Mexican side. Would we put a wall to divide the
battlefield at Gettysburg?
The Sabal Palm Audubon Center here in Brownsville, home to
rare birds and endangered wildlife, may also end up on the
Mexican side of a planned wall. It is also disturbing that the
government is fooling citizens by not giving them a fair market
value on the lands it intends to seize. Yet our communities are
not even being given the opportunity to truly voice their
concerns.
The people along the American borders are the most impacted
by border security policy. We all support border security, but
simply ask for smart policies. The funding for the wall and the
process used to begin its construction is not--in my opinion
and the opinion of many people, is not a smart policy.
By now we have all heard about the Department of Homeland
Security's decision to waive 36 laws that protect our health,
environment and quality of life with the stroke of a pen. These
36 laws, some of them were enacted back in 1918, and some of
them eight, 10 years ago. If they're able to waive these 36
laws, what is next, that you won't be able to buy a diesel
truck because it's too expensive to buy the gasoline? What is
the next law that they're going to waive?
And I know that my Chairman controls the time very close to
his heart, so my time is about to run out. I want to thank the
panelists for joining us this morning. President Garcia, thank
you for allowing us on this beautiful university, and I hope
that it will remain intact. Thank you so much. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
I'd like to thank all of my good friends and colleagues, especially
Chairwoman Bordallo and Chairman Grijalva, for organizing and attending
this hearing and taking time out of their busy schedules to visit South
Texas.
Every day in Congress, we hold committee and subcommittee hearings
on different issues, topics, and pieces of legislations.
Today, this hearing is addressing something that will directly
impact the unique culture and livelihood of our South Texas
communities--the proposed building of a wall along the border.
The goal here is to give the public a voice and an avenue to
discuss their concerns over the border wall and how it will impact our
sensitive environmental lands.
I am encouraged by all those in attendance today, which shows how
important this issue is and the vast number of people who will be
affected if this wall is built.
Securing our nation's borders is one of Congress' main priorities.
We need to address illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and the
violence that happens on our communities--both on the border and
everywhere else in America.
These problems, however, will be not be solved by constructing a
wall that tears through our public and historical lands, forces our
citizens to surrender their property, and reverses all the work and
investment the Congress and local community have done to protect the
natural environment.
Take for instance the very property we are meeting on right now.
Right behind this building we have the Historic Fort Brown. It
served as an integral battleground of the Mexican-American war and
troops stationed there fought in the last Civil War battle.
The proposed border wall will put Fort Brown on the Mexican side.
Would we put up a wall to divide the battlefield at Gettysburg?
The Sabal Palm Audubon Center here in Brownsville, home to rare
birds and endangered wildlife, may also end up on the Mexican side of a
planned wall.
It is also disturbing that the government is bullying citizens by
not even giving them a fair market value on the lands it intends to
seize.
Yet, our communities aren't even being given the opportunity to
truly voice these concerns.
The people along America's borders are the most impacted by border
security policies. We all support border security, but simply ask for
smart policies.
The funding for the wall, and the process used to begin its
construction, is not smart policy.
By now, we have all heard about the Department of Homeland
Security's decision to waive 36 laws that protect our health,
environment, and quality of life with the stroke of a pen.
The National Environmental Policy Act. The Clean Air Act. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Farmland Protection Policy
Act. Are these laws, some that have been on the books since 1900, not
important enough to consider when we talk about building a border wall?
In 2005, the Republican-controlled Congress granted DHS this power
by including it into a bill that provided funding for our brave troops
in Iraq/Afghanistan and relief to those suffering in the wake of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Is that what our federal government is reduced to? Slipping in
provisions granting them overreaching authority into legislation that
is aimed to support our troops abroad and our citizens suffering from
natural disasters?
This isn't the way the founders of our Constitution envisioned our
government to be.
There are many opinions on the issue of the border wall, and I
sincerely believe Congress abdicated some of its responsibilities by
giving DHS this blanket waiver authority.
We live in a country ruled by checks and balances, and this
decision by DHS will set a dangerous precedent.
I know DHS wants to construct the wall by the end of the year, but
we should be more concerned with being good stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars and doing it right not fast.
In neighboring Hidalgo County, DHS is working with the local
officials to put together a plan that will fortify the deficient levees
and fulfill the wall requirements.
The long-overdo refortification of our region's levees would
prevent the potentially disastrous damage a flood in the Rio Grande
Valley could do.
This is the type of coordination that needs to be ongoing with all
groups, including those that are concerned about the environment.
I therefore fully support Chairman Grijalva's Borderlands bill,
which remedies this problem and gives DHS the flexibility to decide
what approach is best for border security and allow for land managers,
local officials and communities to be a part of the border security
discussion.
Again, I thank the Committee, my colleagues and all the witnesses
for coming to South Texas to discuss this important issue.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz. And let me welcome the
panel finally. I was trying to avoid us all doing that, but,
oh, well. Let me ask you--let me at the outset let you know
that--all the panelists know that we'll be swearing in the
witnesses today. So pursuant to Clause 2 of House Rule 11, I
ask that the witnesses on this panel please stand and raise
your right hand and be sworn in. Please repeat after me.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Grijalva. Let the record indicate that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. You are now under oath and we can
begin with the opening statements. Let me welcome all of you
and begin the panel discussion with Mr. Rick Schultz, National
Borderland Coordinator, Department of Interior. Welcome, sir.
Your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RICK SCHULTZ, NATIONAL BORDERLAND COORDINATOR,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Schultz. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman and
honorable members of the Subcommittees, I am Rick Schultz, the
National Borderland Coordinator for the Department of the
Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the
department's view on the construction of border security
infrastructure along our nation's Southwest border.
Mr. Grijalva. If I may, Mr. Schultz, if you want to bring
the microphone closer to yourself. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Schultz. How does this sound?
Mr. Grijalva. Much better.
Mr. Schultz. DOI and its agencies take very seriously the
responsibilities to administer the uniquely beautiful and
environmentally sensitive lands along the Southwest border.
Recognizing their ecological and cultural value, we strive to
maintain their character on behalf of the American people.
Unfortunately, the safety of our visitors and employees on
DOI lands has been compromised by drug trafficking and illegal
immigration. These unsafe conditions were markedly illustrated
within DOI by the tragic death in 2002 of Mr. Kris Eggle, a
National Park Service Ranger. In addition, natural and cultural
resources have been adversely affected by the illegal
activities. These impacts include destruction of wildlife
habitats and the dumping of trash and vehicles along the
border.
Due in part to our experiences, we recognize the need for
our nation to enhance its border security. In this regard we
acknowledge the border security issues facing the Department of
Homeland Security, and believe they fulfill a critical mission
for the nation.
We have made it a priority to work closely with DHS as they
seek to construct 670 miles of border fence by December of
2008. In particular, we have strived to assist DHS in
minimizing impacts on wildlife, ecosystems, and cultural
resources.
Building border infrastructure, an undertaking with
numerous players and many moving parts, would present
significant challenges even under normal conditions. These
challenges are heightened given the short time frame mandated
by law for completing border fencing.
We have regular and open dialogue with DHS at several
levels and have found them to be sensitive to DOI's mission.
Where avoidance or minimization of impacts upon environmental
and cultural resources was not possible, DHS has significantly
mitigated these impacts.
Still, there have been some challenges related to DHS's
extremely compressed time frame and the complexity of the
issues. These factors have challenged our field managers as
they strive to fulfill their missions and uphold their
statutory responsibilities. We very much appreciate their hard
work, their concerns and their dedication as they address these
difficult border security issues.
When Secretary Chertoff recently invoked REAL ID Act
waivers of certain environmental and DOI-administered statutes,
he reaffirmed DHS's commitment to environmental stewardship.
This commitment included mitigation funding up to $50 million
for threatened and endangered species to offset impacts
associated with pedestrian and vehicle fences. DHS also
identified the need for wetland and cultural resource
mitigation.
As requested, my written testimony contains several
examples that illustrate our efforts. These include cooperative
efforts to remove the invasive salt cedar on DOI lands and
Cocopah tribal lands for security purposes. They include DHS
mitigation funding for several endangered species, including
the Sonoran pronghorn, and they include the remediation of
inadvertently damaged cultural resource sites. Collectively
these projects reflect the DHS and DOI commitment to minimize
the impact of border infrastructure on these natural and
cultural resources.
Without diminishing the value of the above efforts, the
construction of border security infrastructure on DOI land
results in a mixed bag of environmental benefits and adverse
environmental effects. Although some of our ecological
communities may recover, due to the infrastructure, the
footprint of the fence and the associated access roads result
in other adverse impacts. These impacts include inhibiting the
movement of certain wildlife species, some of which are
threatened or endangered species.
Within national wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, our
governing statutes prohibit us from permitting the construction
of certain border security infrastructure. When we informed DHS
of these facts, they ultimately chose to exercise their waiver
under the REAL ID Act.
Now, in an ideal world, the need would not exist to
construct border fences to enhance our nation's security. In
reality, however, Congress has directed DHS to construct this
border security infrastructure. Our challenge has been
achieving the above while maintaining the integrity of these
ecologically and culturally sensitive lands. Although more
needs to be done, we believe we're on the right track in
developing open dialogue, tangible mitigation alternatives, and
a strong relationship with our colleagues within DHS.
And this concludes my remarks. And thank you, Mr. Chairman
and Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to express our views.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz follows:]
Statement of Rick Schultz, National Borderland Coordinator,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chairwoman, and Members of the Subcommittees, I
am Rick Schultz, National Borderland Coordinator, Department of the
Interior (DOI).
I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Interior Department's
view on the construction of border security infrastructure along our
Nation's southwest border. As manager of one in every five acres of the
United States, the DOI's land managing agencies, the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, take very seriously our
responsibility to administer uniquely beautiful and environmentally
sensitive lands along the southwest border. Recognizing the significant
ecological and cultural values of extensive lands managed by Interior
near this border, we strive to maintain their character and fulfill our
mission to protect and preserve these assets on behalf of the American
people.
The safety of both visitors and employees on DOI lands has been
significantly compromised by drug trafficking and the illegal, cross-
border flow of people. These unsafe conditions were markedly
illustrated by the tragic deaths of Mr. Kris Eggle, a National Park
Service Ranger, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in 2002 and of
Luis Aguilar, a senior U.S. Border Patrol agent, earlier this year at
the BLM's Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in California. Many of
the natural and cultural resources under our responsibility have also
been adversely affected by the illegal activities. These impacts
include but are not limited to destruction of wildlife habitats;
trampling of vegetation and increased soil erosion; and the deposition
of human trash and vehicles along the border, including within
wilderness areas.
We recognize the need for our Nation to enhance its border
security. In this regard, we acknowledge the border security issues
facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS fulfills a
critical mission for the Nation.
Several years ago, DOI, USDA, and DHS recognized the need to
coordinate management of border security with the management of DOI and
USDA managed lands near the border. Consequently, a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between DHS, the Department of Agriculture, and DOI
was entered into in 2006. This MOU, which is focused on land management
and law enforcement related issues, has served to set the tone for
ongoing dialogue and a positive relationship between DHS and DOI.
Consultation with DHS
Due to our significant interests in the southwest border, Interior
has made it a priority to work closely with DHS as DHS seeks to
construct 670 miles of border fence by December 2008. In particular,
Interior has strived to assist DHS in minimizing impacts on wildlife,
ecosystems, and cultural resources. Building border infrastructure, an
undertaking with numerous players and many moving parts, would present
significant challenges even under normal conditions. These challenges
are heightened given the short timeframe mandated by law for completing
border fencing. Despite these circumstances, DHS has included Interior
in discussions focused on constructing border security infrastructure
in a manner that minimizes its impact upon environmental and cultural
resources.
Consultation between DHS and DOI on border environmental and
cultural resource issues occurs both at the national and field levels.
We have regular and open dialogue with DHS concerning a variety of
issues. Recently, DOI established the position of National Borderland
Coordinator, the position I currently occupy. My primary
responsibilities are to work with DHS to address environmental and
cultural resource issues that otherwise could not be resolved at the
field level. My presence and involvement in border security activities
have been well-received within DHS. This connection has helped
strengthen the working relationship between our respective agencies.
I have found both leadership and staff in DHS headquarters to be
sensitive to DOI's mission, responsibilities, and related concerns.
Where avoidance or minimization of impact upon environmental and
cultural resources was not possible, DHS has demonstrated its
commitment to mitigating these impacts. Several examples within this
testimony illustrate this commitment.
Still, there have been some challenges related to DHS's extremely
compressed time frame, their use of several contractors and
subcontractors, and the complexity of issues. These factors have
challenged our managers as they strive to fulfill their missions and
uphold their statutory responsibilities. In many cases, including the
construction of the border fence within the Lower Rio Grande Valley,
the infrastructure was modified to accommodate DOI concerns.
We appreciate the hard work and dedication of our field managers as
they have strived to address border security issues affecting their
units. Our managers operate in often risky circumstances along the
border. They share the Nation's desire for a secure and safe border. At
the same time, they are dedicated to fulfilling this Department's
mission and upholding our statutory and regulatory responsibilities.
Working with DHS remains a priority, one that continues following
Secretary Michael Chertoff's decision to invoke Real ID Act waivers of
certain environmental, DOI-administered, and other statutes in April of
2008. DHS remains committed to working with DOI to address complex
border issues, including environmental issues. We see the continuing
need for a long and productive relationship between our respective
agencies that extends far beyond the construction of border security
infrastructure.
When DHS Secretary Chertoff invoked two Real ID Act waivers for the
expedited construction of border security infrastructure, he reaffirmed
DHS's commitment to environmental stewardship. This commitment, as it
applies to DOI-administered lands and programs, included mitigation
funding up to $50 million for threatened and endangered species.
Projects to be funded are conservation measures previously identified
by Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) field biologists in cooperation
with others. DHS also identified the need for wetland and cultural
resource mitigation. In addition to these funding provisions, Secretary
Chertoff has also reaffirmed DHS's commitment to solicit and respond to
the needs of State, local, and tribal governments, other agencies of
the federal government, and local residents. Overall, these measures
represent a very positive commitment by DHS in recognizing its
environmental stewardship responsibilities for endangered species,
wetlands, and cultural resources.
Securing our Nation's border is our collective challenge. How do we
best enhance our Nation's border security while maintaining the
integrity of these ecologically and culturally sensitive lands?
Although we have yet to fully address all of these issues, we believe
we are on the right track in developing open dialogue, tangible
mitigation alternatives, and a strong relationship with our colleagues
within DHS.
DOI Experiences
As you requested, I would like to provide several examples that
illustrate our collective efforts at the border.
Example 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC System.
The Service is currently working with DHS on ways to streamline and
enhance the endangered species consultation process. As part of this
effort, the Information Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system is
being developed, with some funding provided by DHS. This online system
will result in timely input and faster decisions associated with
threatened and endangered species. In addition, the preparation of
biological assessments and associated biological opinions for future
border security activities will be streamlined.
Example 2. Sonoran Pronghorn Mitigation. As mitigation
for construction of a hybrid pedestrian fence on the Barry M. Goldwater
Range and for a vehicle fence on Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge, the Service and DHS reached agreement in 2006 on conservation
measures for the Sonoran pronghorn that inhabits the area. More
specifically, $811,980 will be provided to the Service for development
of three wells, three forage enhancement plots, and associated water
supplies. DOI is currently working with DHS on the potential impacts to
the pronghorn in other areas. For example, we are currently in
discussions with DHS regarding the significant adverse effects that
towers proposed on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge would
have on the Sonoran pronghorn. We have provided DHS with options for
relocating these towers to an area that would minimize their effects,
but still address border security concerns.
Example 3. San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area.
The Real ID Act waiver of certain Federal environmental laws and select
DOI-administered statutes in October 2007 allowed construction of a
pedestrian fence on this Bureau of Land Management (BLM) unit to move
forward on schedule. The Secretary invoked his waiver authority to
ensure the expeditious construction of the fencing in light of a
lawsuit filed by the Defenders of Wildlife alleging the inadequacy of
the National Environmental Policy Act review of this project. Despite
the waiver and as a result of close coordination with DOI, a historic
corral and one prehistoric Native American village and burial site
located within the footprint of the fence construction activities were
not disturbed during construction because DHS developed and implemented
a data recovery plan that was completed at a cost of over $800,000.
Currently, the BLM, which is responsible for administering the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in this area, is
properly caring for the remains from the disturbed grave sites. We
believe this experience highlights the benefits of effective field
level coordination between DHS and DOI for projects of this nature.
Example 4. Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. In
2007, DHS proposed to construct 0.8 miles of pedestrian fence across
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. Its footprint,
including the access road, was located outside the Roosevelt
Reservation and comprised approximately 5.8 acres. Since the
construction of the fence would be inconsistent with the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Service and DHS reached
agreement to execute a land exchange for the property in question.
Currently, potential lands for this exchange have been identified and
appraisals of these properties are in process. The benefit to the
Service was an agreement with DHS to replace adversely affected acreage
with land of equal monetary value and possibly higher quality habitat.
Example 5. Remediation of Cultural Resource Sites. A
cultural resource site located near Columbus, New Mexico, was
inadvertently damaged by a National Guard unit working on behalf of DHS
in the fall of 2006. DHS reached an agreement with the BLM under which
DHS committed to paying the full cost of restoring this site. Funds
amounting to approximately $250,000 from DHS have been made available
for this remediation.
Inadvertent damage to a second cultural resource site was also
discovered in southeastern Arizona on BLM lands. Work is
proceeding in cooperation with DHS to fully remediate this site
as well.
Example 6. Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge. The
Service has been working very closely with DHS to minimize impacts to
threatened and endangered species from the proposed pedestrian fence on
the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge. Several field meetings
were held and, initially, fence design and locations were modified to
either avoid or minimize impacts particularly as they related to the
wildlife corridor. Where avoidance or minimization was not achieved,
the Service proposed the acquisition of an additional 1,700 acres of
land to offset the impacts of the proposed pedestrian fence. The cost
of these lands is estimated at $7 million which DHS has committed to
providing as part of the $50 million set aside for threatened and
endangered species mitigation projects.
Example 7. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. The
southeastern portion of this unit of the National Park Service (NPS)
was identified for pedestrian fence near the Lukeville, Arizona, Port
of Entry. Of particular concern to NPS was the impact of this proposed
fence and its access road on ecological communities located on Monument
Hill. From the DHS security perspective, control of illegal entry
within this area using pedestrian fence was very important. After
extended negotiations at the field level, DHS was permitted to
construct the fence in exchange for mitigation. To offset the
environmental impacts of this infrastructure, DHS committed to funding
conservation measures amounting to $964,000 (as part of their
commitment to fund up to $50 million for threatened and endangered
species). These conservation measures were largely determined by
Service biologists in consultation with the NPS and DHS engineers.
Example 8. Lower Colorado River Limitrophe. High numbers
of rapes, robberies, and assaults on immigrants and border patrol
agents were occurring on BLM and Bureau of Reclamation-managed lands
located in the Lower Colorado River Limitrophe in Arizona (on the
border by Baja, California, Mexico). Heavy vegetation provided cover to
drug traffickers and other criminals. In April 2007, BLM led a
cooperative effort to begin expeditious removal of invasive salt cedar
that was providing cover for this criminal activity. The multi-agency
team, including the BLM, Reclamation, DHS, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the State of Arizona, Yuma County, and the Cocopah Tribe, are
continuing this effort to treat the remaining 1,895 acres of DOI-
managed lands, 3,020 acres of Cocopah tribal land, and 337 acres of
private land.
Impacts upon National Wildlife Refuges and Federal Treaty Obligations
As indicated above, the construction of border security
infrastructure on public lands, national parks, national wildlife
refuges, and tribal lands results in a mixed bag of environmental
benefits and adverse environmental effects. On one hand, valuable
wildlife habitats and ecological communities may benefit from the
infrastructure by reducing illegal, cross-border immigration. On the
other hand, the construction of pedestrian barriers also inhibits the
movement of large mammals, some of which are threatened or endangered
species. To a certain degree, DOI-recommended modifications to fence
designs or fence locations have minimized the adverse effects of the
fence on these species. In other cases, offsetting mitigation measures
are required to reduce the overall impact of the border security
infrastructure.
Within national wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, our
governing statutes prohibit us from permitting the construction of
certain border security infrastructure as proposed by DHS. In light of
this, we informed DHS of these facts as they were preparing to
construct infrastructure on these lands. Ultimately, DHS chose to
exercise its authority under the Real ID Act to waive these and other
statutes associated with the administration of DOI lands.
During our discussions, DHS was made aware of our responsibilities
for migratory bird species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Although additional work needs to be completed in this area, several
best management practices developed in cooperation with DHS for
threatened and endangered species also apply to migratory birds. At a
minimum, use of these best management practices will reduce the impact
of the border infrastructure on these species.
Closing Comments
In an ideal world and under differing circumstances, the need would
not exist to construct border fences and related infrastructure to
enhance our Nation's security or reduce the influx of drug trafficking.
In reality, however, Congress has directed DHS to construct border
security infrastructure. A project of this scope cannot be accomplished
without affecting both environmental and cultural resources. The
challenges for DOI and DHS are complex. On the negative side, we have
some adverse environmental impacts. On the positive side, border
infrastructure, including pedestrian and vehicle fences, is expected to
increase our visitor and employee safety, reduce drug trafficking,
reduce the deposition of human trash, and in some cases lessen adverse
environmental effects to wildlife habitats and related ecological
communities. We also appreciate DHS's commitment to provide funding for
mitigation activities, and pledge to use those funds to implement
critical measures that will help minimize possible adverse impacts to
natural and cultural resources.
In closing, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Ms.
Chairwoman, for the opportunity to express our views. As stated above,
both DHS and DOI have faced some complex challenges in balancing our
Nation's security with maintaining the quality of our environment. We
do not expect these challenges to diminish, which means that our close
working relationships will continue to be crucial to our effectiveness
far into the future.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me now turn to Chief
Ronald Vitiello, Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector,
Office of Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border
Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security. Thank
you, sir, for being here, Chief, and we appreciate and look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RONALD D. VITIELLO, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, RIO GRANDE
VALLEY SECTOR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL, CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PATROL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Vitiello. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, Chairman
Grijalva and distinguished members. My name is Ronald Vitiello.
I'm the Chief Patrol Agent of the Border Patrol's Rio Grande
Valley Sector. I am honored to appear on behalf of the U.S.
Border Patrol to discuss our duties, responsibilities,
operations, and national strategy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for
protecting more than 4,000 miles of border with Canada, 1,900
miles of border with Mexico, and about 2,600 miles of coastal
border to include the island of Puerto Rico.
The U.S. Border Patrol is the sole entity responsible for
securing our nation's borders between the official ports of
entry and bases its operations on the national Border Patrol
strategy. To that end our objectives are to apprehend
terrorists and terrorist weapons illegally entering the United
States; to deter entries through improved enforcement; detect,
apprehend and deter smugglers of humans, drugs and other
contraband; and to improve the quality of life of border
communities by reducing crime and the economic vitality--and
enhancing economic vitality in these areas.
The Border Patrol uses a combination of efforts in
achieving our goals. The Border Patrol depends on a defense in
depth posture utilizing agents in the field, interior
immigration checkpoints, and coordinating enforcement
operations, as well as partnerships with other Federal, tribal
and state law enforcement agencies.
During Fiscal Year 2007 alone, the Border Patrol
apprehended nearly 877,000 persons attempting to enter the
United States illegally, including human smugglers, drug
traffickers and illegal aliens, and seized over 1.8 million
pounds of marijuana and more than 14,000 pounds of cocaine. As
of April 20th, 2008, this Fiscal Year 2008, the Border Patrol
has arrested 422,000 illegal aliens, seized 952,847 pounds of
marijuana and over 6,600 pounds of cocaine. In this area of
responsibility, my area, the Rio Grande Valley Sector, in 2008
we have apprehended just over 42,000 illegal aliens and seized
189,377 pounds of marijuana and 3,461 pounds of cocaine.
Securing our nation's diverse border terrain is an
important and complex task that cannot be resolved by a single
solution alone. To secure each unique mile of border requires a
balance of personnel, technology and tactical infrastructure
that is tailored to each specific environment. The installation
of fencing has proved to be an effective tool to slow, redirect
and deter illegal entries, especially in certain areas where
personnel and technology alone cannot sufficiently secure the
border.
It is important to note that the flow of illegal traffic
not only jeopardizes our ability to secure our borders, but it
has also caused severe and profound impacts to the environment.
For example, illegal roads divert the normal flow of water and
rob native plant cover of the moisture it depends on to
survive. Illegal entrants also leave trash and high
concentrations of human waste, which impact wildlife,
vegetation and water quality. Numerous wildfires caused by
campfires of illegal entrants have caused a significant threat
to human safety and the lands along the border, as well as
impacts--increased impacts to soil, vegetation, cultural sites
and other sensitive resources.
We believe the efforts to stem illegal border--cross border
activity in certain areas of high traffic will result in an
improvement to the environment and increase the public's
ability to enjoy it as a resource.
In addition to our commitment to responsible environmental
stewardship, CBP continues to solicit and respond to the needs
of state, local and tribal governments, other agencies of the
Federal government, and local residents.
CBP has gone to great lengths to obtain public input
throughout our planning efforts regarding the construction of
fence along the Southwest border. As a result of these outreach
efforts, there were many instances where we were able to make
modifications to our original plans to accommodate landowner/
community concerns while still meeting our operational needs.
One of the best examples of our cooperation efforts can be
seen in the levee barrier project in Hidalgo County, Texas.
Hidalgo County had plans to use local funds to raise levees
along the Rio Grande River to address flood protection
concerns. The county and other local officials proposed
integrating a concrete retaining wall into the levee
improvement project along the 22 miles of the southern side of
the levee and committed to completing the project within CBP's
planned cost.
Within the Rio Grande Valley we have also made numerous
alignment changes to the proposed fence segments to limit
impacts to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge
areas, a bird watching observation facility in the city of
Roma, and negate the need to relocate approximately 30
residents.
The Border Patrol's objective is nothing less than securing
operation control of the border. We recognize the challenges of
doing so and we have done so for many years. Our national
strategy gives us the means by which to achieve our ambitious
goal. We face these challenges every day with vigilance,
dedication to service, and integrity, as we work to strengthen
and protect America and its citizens.
In closing, let me add some important points to assist in
understanding our operations. Those of us pursuing operational
control of the border recognize that fencing alone will not
solve our problems. It is not a solution. We have always
planned to supplement tactical infrastructure and mix it
properly with significant technology enhancements, along with a
well-informed and equipped Border Patrol agent deployment.
Despite predicted changes in traffic patterns once the
fencing is installed, we will continue to deploy much as today.
Here in the Rio Grande Valley we will be present along the
border on both sides of any fence. We will be in the river, at
the water's edge, and on the patrol roads used currently and
those constructed with fencing. No land will be ceded to
Mexico.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present
this testimony today and for your support of the CBP and DHS
missions. I will be pleased to respond to your questions, and I
would also like to thank Dr. Garcia for her continued
hospitality to the Border Patrol and for allowing this hearing
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vitiello follows:]
Statement of Ronald D. Vitiello, Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley
Sector, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security
CHAIRWOMAN BORDALLO, CHAIRMAN GRIJALVA, AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS:
My name is Ronald Vitiello, and I am the Chief Patrol Agent of the
Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector. I am honored to appear on
behalf of the U.S. Border Patrol to discuss our responsibilities,
operations, and National Strategy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for
protecting more than 4,000 miles of border with Canada, 1,900 miles of
border with Mexico, and 2,627 miles of coastal border to include the
island of Puerto Rico. The U.S. Border Patrol is the sole entity
responsible for securing our Nation's borders between the official
ports of entry and bases its operation on the Border Patrol National
Strategy. To that end, our objectives are to apprehend terrorists, and
terrorist weapons illegally entering the United States; to deter
entries through improved enforcement; detect, apprehend and deter
smugglers of humans, drugs, and other contraband; and to improve the
quality of life in border communities. The Border Patrol uses a
combination of efforts in achieving our goal. The Border Patrol depends
on a ``defense in depth'' posture, utilizing agents in the field,
interior immigration checkpoints, and coordinated enforcement
operations, as well as partnerships with other federal and state law
enforcement agencies.
During Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 alone, Border Patrol agents
apprehended 876,704 persons (858,638 on the southwest border)
attempting to enter the United States illegally, including human
smugglers, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens, and seized 1,859,299
pounds of marijuana and 14,242 pounds of cocaine. As of April 20, 2008,
in FY2008, the Border Patrol has arrested 422,433 illegal aliens
(411,329 on the southwest border) and seized 952,847 pounds of
marijuana and 6,625 pounds of cocaine. In my area of responsibility,
the Rio Grande Valley Sector, in FY2008 alone we have apprehended
42,004 illegal aliens and seized 189,377 pounds of marijuana and 3,461
pounds of cocaine.
Securing our Nation's diverse border terrain is an important and
complex task that cannot be resolved by a single solution alone. To
secure each unique mile of the border requires a balance of personnel,
technology, and tactical infrastructure (such as roads, pedestrian and
vehicle fencing, and lights) that is tailored to each specific
environment. The installation of fencing has proven to be an effective
tool to slow, redirect, and deter illegal entries, especially in
certain areas where personnel and technology alone cannot sufficiently
secure the border.
For example, in an urban environment, an illegal entrant can be
across the border and into the community in a matter of minutes,
sometimes seconds. In this environment, fencing provides a critical
barrier. In a rural environment agents have more time to bring an
illegal incursion to the proper resolution, making it more likely that
vehicles will be used as a conveyance for getting from the point of
entry to staging areas and community infrastructure that supports them.
In this environment, vehicle fence can be utilized to prevent vehicles
from entering and limit the speed and carrying capability of illegal
entrants, along with sensor and surveillance technology to detect and
track illegal entrants on foot. Remote areas may be completely
uninhabited with no roads at or near the border. It could take someone
hours or even days to be able to cross the border and get to a road or
community infrastructure. Vehicle fence could be applied to remote
areas where a vehicle could travel cross-country.
The effectiveness of tactical infrastructure can be seen in the 14-
mile congressionally mandated fence in San Diego, California, which, in
combination with increased personnel and technology, has proved
effective in reducing the number of apprehensions made in the San Diego
Sector. Over a 12 year period between 1992 and 2004, overall
apprehensions made in the San Diego Sector declined by 76 percent. The
Imperial Beach and Chula Vista Stations, whose areas of
responsibilities fall within the 14-mile project area, combined for
361,125 apprehensions in 1992. By 2004, total apprehensions in these
two stations dropped to 19,038 as a result of the increase in fencing,
manpower, and technology.
In the Yuma Sector during the same 12 year period, apprehensions
increased by 591 percent. More recently, however, no sector has seen a
bigger decrease in apprehensions and vehicle drive-throughs. With the
addition of tactical infrastructure and increased staffing over the
past two years, apprehensions in the Yuma Sector in FY2007 decreased by
68 percent and are down 76 percent to date in FY2008. Vehicle drive-
through traffic within the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) decreased
from 694 in FY2006 to 251 in FY2007 and 150 in FY2008 (all statistics
covering only the timeframe between October 1 and April 3 of the given
fiscal year). Vehicle drive-through activity elsewhere within the Yuma
Sector during the same time period decreased from 423 in FY2006 to 145
in FY2007 and 0 in FY2008.
In fact, Congress recognized that tactical infrastructure is
critical to securing the Nation's borders by mandating that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ``achieve and maintain''
operational control of the border and requiring DHS to construct--in
the most expeditious manner possible--the infrastructure necessary to
deter and prevent illegal entry. DHS is responding to this mandate and
installing fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on
hundreds of miles of the southwest border. DHS will have 670 miles of
pedestrian and vehicle fencing completed by the end of December 2008.
These priority miles of fencing are to be constructed in areas where
fencing would be most practical and effective in deterring smugglers
and aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States.
Operational assessments by the local Border Patrol agents and
Chiefs--based on illegal cross-border activity and the Border Patrol's
extensive field experience--identified multiple locations where fencing
would most effectively enhance border security. These operational
assessments identified approximately 370 miles of pedestrian fencing.
In Rio Grande Valley Sector, I identified approximately 70 miles of
border on which pedestrian fencing is operationally necessary to gain
effective control of the border, and my fellow Sector Chiefs performed
these same assessments in their areas of operation.
In addition to the Border Patrol's operational assessments, several
other factors contribute to decisions to construct tactical
infrastructure in certain locations, including engineering assessments,
which include the cost to construct; environmental assessments; and
input from state and local stakeholders, including landowners. Each of
these steps is a standard element of the planning process that enables
us to make informed decisions in deploying the right mix of tactical
infrastructure.
As noted earlier, to meet our operational goals, DHS is committed
to building a total of 370 miles of pedestrian fence and 300 miles of
vehicle fence along the southwest border by the end of December 2008.
In a letter to Secretary Chertoff on March 20, 2008, Associate Deputy
Secretary of the Interior James Cason informed him that while
Department of the Interior (DOI) managers were attempting to facilitate
the construction of border infrastructure on federal land, they had
come to realize DOI could not accommodate approval of some tactical
infrastructure projects based on legal obligations.
Given these obstacles and the ambitious timeline for a project of
this scope and scale, on April 1, 2008, Secretary Chertoff determined
that it was necessary to utilize the authority given to him by Congress
to waive any legal requirements he determined necessary to ensure the
expeditious construction of infrastructure needed to secure the border.
Absent the Secretary's use of the waiver authority, it would not be
possible to achieve the objectives set forth. The first waiver applies
to certain environmental and land management laws for various project
areas along the southwest border, encompassing roughly 470 total miles.
The waiver will facilitate additional pedestrian and vehicle fence
construction, towers, sensors, cameras, detection equipment, and roads
in the vicinity of the border. The second waiver was signed for the
levee-border barrier project in Hidalgo County, Texas. This roughly 22-
mile project will strengthen flood protection in the area while
providing the Border Patrol with important tactical infrastructure. In
addition to environmental and land management laws, this waiver
addresses other legal and administrative impediments to completing this
project by the end of the calendar year.
In planning for a project of this magnitude, DHS cannot anticipate
every potential legal impediment that may arise during construction.
Accordingly, each law listed in the waivers was either an immediate
impediment to expeditious construction or was determined to be a
potential source of administrative delay or litigation. As Secretary
Chertoff stated in his April 1, 2008, press release concerning the
waiver, ``criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless
debate or protracted litigation.''
However, the Secretary's decision to invoke his waiver authority
does not mean that CBP has turned its back on environmental stewardship
or continued consultation with stakeholders who will be directly
affected by the construction of new border infrastructure. We will
continue to coordinate closely with the federal land managers to ensure
impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic
artifacts are minimized to the fullest extent practicable.
As an example of our commitment to the environment, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) representatives participated in the first
comprehensive review of the proposed fence alignment in the Rio Grande
Valley in September 2007. USFWS provided comments on each fence section
and made suggestions, where necessary, relative to fence realignments
that would substantially reduce potential impacts to threatened and
endangered species, or would impact components of the Lower Rio Grande
Valley National Wildlife Refuge and nature reserves in the region.
Throughout the planning process, the USFWS has continued to provide
advice on the fence types and alignment of the fence project segments,
including input regarding incorporating cat passages into the fence in
specific areas that have the potential to serve as movement corridors
for the ocelot and jaguarondi.
It is important to note that the flow of illegal pedestrian and
vehicle traffic across the border not only jeopardizes our ability to
secure our borders, but it has also caused severe and profound impacts
to the environment. For example, illegal roads divert the normal flow
of water and rob native plant cover of the moisture it depends on to
survive. Illegal entrants also leave trash and high concentrations of
human waste, which impact wildlife, vegetation, and water quality.
Numerous wildfires caused by campfires of illegal entrants have caused
a significant threat to human safety and the lands along the border, as
well as increased impacts to soil, vegetation, cultural sites, and
other sensitive resources. We believe that efforts to stem illegal
cross border activity in certain areas of high traffic will result in
an improvement to the environment and increase the public's ability to
enjoy it as a resource.
In addition to our commitment to responsible environmental
stewardship, CBP continues to solicit and respond to the needs of
state, local, and tribal governments, other agencies of the federal
government, and local residents. CBP has gone to great lengths to
obtain public input throughout our planning efforts regarding the
construction of fence along the southwest border. CBP has engaged in
extensive discussions about the placement of fencing with state and
local stakeholders, including repeated consultations with landowners.
CBP has contacted more than 600 different landowners, hosted 11 public
open houses, held 15 publicly-advertised town hall meetings, and
conducted 84 meetings with state and local officials and public groups.
As a result of these outreach efforts, there are many instances
where we were able to make modifications to our original plans to
accommodate landowner/community concerns while still meeting our
operational needs. For example, we made numerous alignment changes to
the Rio Grande Valley segments to limit impacts to the USFWS National
Wildlife Refuge areas, a bird watching observation facility in the City
of Roma, and negate the need to relocate approximately 30 residences.
The fence alignment at the Roma Port of Entry (POE) was initially
proposed to be on top of a 30-foot bluff. During our site visit in
September, it was determined that placing the fence at the top of the
bluff would impact historical buildings and bring about
constructability issues. Based on these findings, Border Patrol, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and USFWS came to a compromise to construct
the fence at the bottom of the bluff, where it would still provide
operational utility. We will continue to consult with our state and
local stakeholders, including landowners, to ensure that our
investments effectively balance border security with the diverse needs
of those that live in border communities.
The Border Patrol's objective is nothing less than securing
operational control of the border. We recognize the challenges of doing
so, as we have dealt with them for many years. Challenges continue to
lie ahead and the need for a comprehensive enforcement approach
remains. Our national strategy gives us the means by which to achieve
our ambitious goal. We face these challenges every day with vigilance,
dedication to service, and integrity as we work to strengthen national
security and protect America and its citizens. I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to present this testimony today and for your
support of CBP and DHS. I would be pleased to respond to any questions
that you might have at this time.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Chief. Let me now ask The
Honorable Chad Foster, Mayor, City of Eagle Pass, for your
comments. Welcome, Mayor. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHAD FOSTER, MAYOR,
CITY OF EAGLE PASS, TEXAS
Mr. Foster. Thank you, sir. Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman
Bordallo, and Subcommittee members. I'm Chad Foster, mayor of
the City of Eagle Pass and Chairman of the Texas Border
Coalition. I'm speaking today on behalf of 2.1 million
Americans in 14 border counties on the 1,250-mile Texas-Mexico
border. Our region is a region of contrast, tradition and
culture. The multinational, multicultural nature of our
community on both sides of the international boundary gives our
region a distinct sense of place.
You are in a place today where the blending of cultures is
unique, where Brownsville and Matamoros played central roles in
shaping the history of our continent. Two civil wars occurred
simultaneously right here and created such a cross-cultural
alliance that we could spend days rediscovering it. Welcome to
our home.
The Texas Border Coalition thanks you for your leadership
in exploring the issues related to the border wall and the
waivers of the Federal law executed by the Department of
Homeland Security--Michael Chertoff, Secretary--to expedite the
construction.
The proposed fencing of the Texas-Mexico border has been
built on a false premise that one size fits all. The reality is
that Texas is the only southern state with a natural
international boundary in the majestic Rio Grande River.
Farmers irrigate from the river, ranchers water their herds
from the river, and children are baptized in the river. It
truly is a river of life. That's why any physical barrier must
first take into consideration how to minimize the impact on
private landowners as well as the many municipalities that hug
the banks of the river. To this day, this has not been the
case.
The Texas Border Coalition supports smart and effective
measures that will achieve true border security, such as the
Vega Project in Webb County, the Eagle Pass Park project, the
Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project, and clearing the banks
of the Rio Grande, north and south, of vegetation such as
carrizo cane and salt cedar that provide hiding places for
illegal border crossers.
We support physical barriers in areas where they make sense
and are agreed to by elected county and municipal officials. We
support smarter, more effective solutions where fences won't
work, that include radar, cameras, sensors, and more effective
deployment of Border Patrol personnel.
The Texas Border Coalition believes that Congress committed
a strategic error in the approval the Secure Fence Act and then
compounded that error in providing the Secretary of Homeland
Security with the unilateral authority to waive--in effect
repeal--all Federal laws to expedite the construction of the
wall. We support repeal of the unconstitutional waiver-repeal
authority and urge the repeal of the Secure Fence Act in favor
of measures that will provide our region with real security.
Illegal border crossing arrests at the Texas-Mexico border
have been falling for more than two years without a wall, a
great tribute to the deterrence of our Border Patrol and Border
Protection agents. Arrests this year along the southern border
are likely to--are roughly going to be half of the nearly 1.6
million we saw during the peak of the year 2000.
We are winning control of the border between the ports of
entry, and that puts our ports under greater stress. According
to the Government Accountability Office, we need 4,000 new
officers to secure the ports of entry. We need $4 billion in
infrastructure and technology. If the goal is security, and
that is one of the main concerns of the Texas Border Coalition,
we need your help to fund these priorities that are ignored by
President Bush's budget.
Let me remind you the 9-11 terrorists entered the United
States through ports of entry. Most undocumented aliens enter
the United States through ports of entry. Most illegal drugs
enter the United States through ports of entry. No border wall
will solve those problems.
It is in this context that we question whether DHS
commitment to secure the border is no more than a hollow
promise that depends on ineffective measures. We have
recommended alternative measures at both ports of entry and
between them that will provide for a safer border region and a
safer America. We need more boots on the ground with the
equipment required to provide for commerce and security.
The Administration has developed a pattern of rejecting
these practical ideas and effective solutions in order to
pursue a misguided policy. That pattern has reached a logical,
ridiculous extreme with the waivers executed by Secretary
Chertoff.
We've met with Secretary Chertoff to share our concerns,
which he's acknowledged, but said Congress tied his hands. He
told us to change the law. Our delegation did just that,
repealing restrictive portions of the Secure Fence Act and
authorizing him flexibility, all in the Fiscal 2008
Comprehensive Appropriations Act. He has chosen to ignore the
new law in pursuit of the strategy he devised to accomplish the
old statute.
In their headlong rush to achieve an arbitrary deadline to
erect an ineffective wall, the Administration has chosen to
abandon our nation's laws that commit us to preserving our
environment, our culture, our history and our religious
liberties.
These waivers will affect the natural movement of animal
species, including large mammal species that are on the
threatened or endangered species lists and cause irreparable
harm to the unique ecosystems and biosystems located along the
Rio Grande River.
Mr. Grijalva. If we could wrap it up now, I would
appreciate it. Are you about to wrap it up?
Mr. Foster. Can I have just two minutes--30 seconds and
I'll wrap it up.
They will provide carte blanche for the destruction of our
cultural and religious artifacts that are irreplaceable to our
heritage. The avoidance and mitigation of these damages is not
an inconvenience to the government. They are essential elements
of our national fabric guaranteed to the people of the United
States under Articles I and II of the Constitution. We don't
demand the enactment of new law. We have already achieved that.
We demand that Congress require the enforcement of our
commitment to being a nation of laws.
The Texas Border Coalition believes we can do better. Based
on our experience, the only way to restore the rule of law is
to repeal the Secretary's waiver authority. We need change. To
achieve it, we also urge your Subcommittees to support the
repeal of the Secure Fence Act in favor of measures--of
measures that will provide more security for our region.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foster follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Chad Foster, Mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas, and
Chairman of the Texas Border Coalition
Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman Bordallo and subcommittee members, I
am Chad Foster, mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas and Chairman of the Texas
Border Coalition. I am speaking today on behalf of 2.1 million
Americans in 14 border counties of the 1,250-mile Texas-Mexico border.
Ours is a region of contrasts, exhibiting differences and similarities
of language, culture, tradition, and economy. The multi-national,
multi-cultural nature of our communities on both sides of the
international boundary gives our region a distinct sense of place.
You are in a place today where the blending of cultures is unique,
where Brownsville and Matamoros played central roles in shaping the
history of our continent. Two civil wars occurred simultaneously right
here, and created such cross-cultural alliances and enmities that we
could spend days rediscovering them. Welcome to our home.
The Texas Border Coalition thanks you for your leadership in
exploring the issues related to the border wall and the waivers of
federal law executed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff to expedite the wall's construction.
The proposed fencing for the Texas-Mexico border has been built on
a false premise that one-size fits all. The reality is that Texas is
the only southern state with a natural international boundary in the
Rio Grande.
Farmers irrigate from the river, ranchers water their herd in the
river, and children are baptized in the river. It truly is a river of
life. That's why any physical barriers must first take into
consideration how to minimize impact on private landowners as well as
the many municipalities that hug the banks of the river. To this date,
this has not been the case.
The Texas Border Coalition supports smart and effective measures
that will achieve true border security, such as the Vega Project in
Webb County, the Eagle Pass Park project, the Brownsville Weir and
Reservoir project, and the clearing of the banks of the Rio Grande--
north and south--of vegetation such as carrizo cane and salt cedar that
provide hiding places for illegal border-crossers. We support physical
barriers in areas where they make sense and are agreed to by elected
county and municipal officials. We support smarter, more effective
solutions where fences won't work that include radar, cameras, sensors
and more effective deployment of Border Patrol personnel.
The Texas Border Coalition believes that Congress committed a
strategic error in the approval of the Secure Fence Act and then
compounded that error in providing the Secretary of Homeland Security
with the unilateral authority to waive--in effect repeal--all federal
laws to expedite construction of the wall. We support repeal of the
unconstitutional waiver-repeal authority and urge the repeal of the
Secure Fence Act in favor of measures that will provide our region with
real security.
Illegal border crossing arrests at the Texas-Mexico border have
been falling for more than two years, without a wall, a great tribute
to the deterrence of our Border Patrol and Border Protection agents.
Arrests this year along the southern border are likely to be roughly
half the nearly 1.6 million during the peak in 2000.
We are winning control of the border between the ports of entry,
and that puts our ports under greater stress. According to the
Government Accountability Office, we need 4,000 new officers to secure
the ports of entry. We need $4 billion in infrastructure and
technology. If the goal is security, and that is the one of the main
concerns of the Texas Border Coalition, we need your help to fund these
priorities that are ignored by the president's budget.
Let me remind you that the 9-11 terrorists entered the United
States through ports of entry. Most undocumented aliens enter the
United States through ports of entry. Most of the illegal drugs
entering the United States come through ports of entry. No border wall
will solve those problems.
It is that context that we question whether the DHS commitment to
secure the border is no more than hollow promise that depends on
ineffective measures. We have recommended alternatives both at the
ports of entry and between them that will provide for a safer border
region, a safer America. We need more boots on the ground with the
equipment required to provide for commerce and security. The
Administration has developed a pattern of rejecting these practical,
effective solutions in order to pursue a misguided policy. That pattern
has reached a logical, ridiculous extreme with the waivers executed by
Secretary Chertoff.
We've met with Secretary Chertoff to share our concerns, which he
acknowledged but said Congress tied his hands. He told us to change the
law. Our delegation did just that, repealing restrictive portions of
the Security Fence Act and authorizing him flexibility, all in the
fiscal 2008 Comprehensive Appropriations Act. He has chosen to ignore
the new law in pursuit of the strategy he devised to accomplish the old
statute.
In their headlong rush to achieve an arbitrary deadline to erect an
ineffective wall, the Administration has chosen to abandon our nation's
laws that commit us to preserving our environment, our culture, our
history and our religious liberties.
These waivers will affect the natural movement of animal species,
including the larger mammal species that are on the threatened or
endangered species lists and cause irreparable harm to the unique eco-
systems and bio-systems located along the Rio Grande River. They will
provide carte blanche for the destruction of cultural and religious
artifacts that are irreplaceable to our heritage. The avoidance and
mitigation of these damages is not an inconvenience to the government.
They are essential elements of our national fabric, guaranteed to the
people of the United States under Articles I and II of the
Constitution. We don't demand the enactment of new law. We've already
achieved that. We demand that Congress require the enforcement of our
commitment to being a nation of laws.
The Texas Border Coalition believes we can do better. Based on our
experience, the only way to restore the rule of law is to repeal the
Secretary's waiver authority. We need change and to achieve it we also
urge your subcommittees to support the repeal the Secure Fence Act in
favor of measures that will provide our region with real security.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me now turn to a
good friend from my part of the world, the Chairman of the
Tohono O'odham Nation, Mr. Ned Norris. Your comments are
welcome, sir. Good to see you.
STATEMENT OF NED NORRIS, JR., CHAIRMAN,
TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION
Mr. Norris. (Speaking in O'odham language)--Ned Norris, Jr.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Chairwoman Bordallo, and
distinguished Subcommittee members. My name is Ned Norris, Jr.,
and I am the Chairman of the Tohono O'odham Nation. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. In the words of the
United States Supreme Court, Indian tribes predate the United
States. We are older than the international boundary with
Mexico, but our land is now cut in half, with O'odham sacred
sites, salt pilgrimage routes, and families divided. We did not
cross the 75 miles of border within our reservations. The
border crossed us. And the border comes at a price.
According to the United--according to Customs Border
Protection estimates, there were 15,500 illegal entries on
Tohono O'odham Nation lands just last month. The O'odham suffer
from break-ins and other crimes committed by border crossers,
coastal resources destruction, increased demands on tribal law
enforcement and health services, migrant waste, and
environmental degradation from CBP and its contractors.
Each year $3 million of the Nation's limited law
enforcement funds are spent on our unfunded mandate to secure
the border, which we all know is a Federal, not a tribal
obligation.
In response to the border crossing crisis, the Nation has
repeatedly partnered with CBP and actively supported
alternatives to walls, including vehicle barriers, towers,
checkpoints and other measures that reduce negative impacts on
tribal lands. Despite the Nation's cooperation, DHS's
inflexible desire to move forward with an unreasonable time
frame continues to damage the environment and cultural
resources.
When the Nation objected to construction methods within a
known jaguar habitat near the reservation's eastern boundary,
the CBP told us during an August 2007 meeting that the project
could be postponed for two weeks for further review, and then
proceeded as planned a few days later.
After the Nation approved the use of barriers to block
illegal vehicle traffic, CBP contractors failed to cap bollards
used in construction. The resulting bird kills are being
investigated as violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
When environmental assessments were conducted on ancestral
O'odham lands between Naco and Douglas, numerous archaeological
sites were identified in the construction zone. During an
October 2007 field visit, fragments of human remains were found
in heavy equipment tracks on the Christian Ranch archaeological
site, a site now crossed by barriers and the border road.
Imagine a bulldozer in your family graveyard turning up bones.
As Secretary Chertoff has issued more waivers, the
destruction has increased. After the 2007 waiver within
traditional Hia Ced O'odham lands on the Barry M. Goldwater
Range, a Boeing subcontractor widened 15 miles of the El Camino
del Diablo, a desert crossing route listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, without first performing an
archaeological clearance. Two known Hohokam archaeological
sites were damaged from the blading.
Today, it is as if Congress never passed NEPA or acted to
protect lands within waiver zones. The Department of Homeland
Security is, of course, not the only Federal agency on the
border. The Department of the Interior's mission is to protect
our natural and cultural heritage on nearly 800 border miles,
and is mandated by Executive Order 13175 to recognize tribes'
inherent sovereign powers over their territory.
Interior has, however, abandoned its mission. In a March
20, 2008 letter, the Department of the Interior acknowledged
that its statutory obligations prevented it from approving
DHS's proposed border security infrastructure. But Interior
supported the DHS waiver of these very laws. Twelve days later,
Secretary Chertoff issued a waiver covering 470 border miles,
including 55 miles on our reservation. Interior never consulted
us before turning its back--before turning its back on the
Nation or the land it is sworn to protect, nor did DHS consult
with the Nation before issuing that waiver. In doing so, the
DHS undermined our partnership and the Nation's resolution
supporting vehicle barriers, which expressly required Federal
officers to perform cultural resource clearances and fully
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
For all these reasons, the Nation and the National Congress
of American Indians support 2593 and the repeal of the DHS
Secretary's Section 102 waiver authority.
Mr. Chairman and Chairwoman Bordallo, I am here to urge you
to restore the rule of law. We support border security, but not
at the price that is now being paid. Thank you. I will be happy
to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norris follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ned Norris, Jr., Chairman,
Tohono O'odham Nation
INTRODUCTION
S-ke:g si'alim. Ban ce:gig Ned Norris, Jr. Good morning Chairman
Grijalva, Chairwoman Bordallo, and distinguished subcommittee members.
My name is Ned Norris, Jr. and I am the Chairman of the Tohono O'odham
Nation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I. The Tohono O'odham Nation is negatively impacted by the border and
has worked closely with Customs and Border Protection to find
appropriate alternatives that will improve border security.
In the words of the United States Supreme Court, Indian tribes
``predate'' the United States. We are older than the international
boundary with Mexico and had no role in creating the border. But our
land is now cut in half, with O'odham communities, sacred sites, salt
pilgrimage routes, and families divided. We did not cross the 75 miles
of border within our reservation lands. The border crossed us.
And the border comes at a price.
According to Customs Border Protection (``CBP'') estimates, there
were 15,500 illegal entries on the Tohono O'odham Nation in March
alone. The O'odham suffer from break-ins and other crimes committed by
undocumented aliens and drug traffickers, damage to our cultural
resources, increased demands on tribal law enforcement and health
services, migrant waste, stolen vehicles that are abandoned by
smugglers and often disabled by federal agents, and environmental
degradation from vehicles driven by smugglers and CBP agents alike.
Each year, $3 million of the Nation's limited law enforcement funds
are spent on our unfunded mandate to secure the border, which we all
know is a federal, not a tribal, obligation.
In response to the border crisis, the Nation has repeatedly
partnered with CBP and actively supported alternative strategies to
walls, including vehicle barriers, towers, checkpoints, integrated
camera-radar systems, and other measures that reduce negative impacts
on tribal lands while still achieving the overarching goal of increased
border security.
II. The Department of Homeland Security's rush to install border
security infrastructure and waive critical laws has seriously
damaged environmental and archeological resources.
Despite the Nation's willingness to work cooperatively, DHS's
inflexible desire to move forward within an unreasonable timeframe has
unnecessarily damaged the environment and cultural resources.
When the Nation objected to construction methods within a known
jaguar habitat near the reservation's eastern boundary, the CBP told
Nation's officials during an August 2007 meeting that the project could
be postponed for two weeks for further review, and then proceeded as
planned a few days later.
After the Nation approved the construction of barriers to block
illegal vehicle traffic but allow animal migration, CBP contractors
failed to cap bollards at border construction sites, resulting in bird
kills in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the project's
Final Environmental Assessment.
When Environmental Assessments were conducted on ancestral O'odham
lands between Naco and Douglas, archeological sites were identified
within the border construction zone. During an October 2007 field visit
to the Christiansen Ranch site, Site AZ FF:9:10, fragments of human
remains were observed in the tire tracks of the heavy construction
equipment. Barriers and the border road now cross the site.
Imagine a bulldozer parking in your family graveyard, turning up
bones. This is our reality.
As Secretary Chertoff has increasingly exercised his Section 102
waiver authority the destruction on federal lands has likewise
increased. After the 2007 waiver was applied to traditional Hia Ced
O'odham lands on the Barry M. Goldwater Range, a Boeing Company
subcontractor widened 15 miles of the El Camino del Diablo, a desert
crossing route listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
without first performing an archaeological clearance. Two known Hohokam
archaeological sites were damaged from the blading.
Today, it is as if the Congress never passed NEPA or acted to
protect lands within the waiver zones, and as if the numerous
agreements between the Nation and the CBP never existed.
III. The Department of the Interior violated its duty to Indian tribes
and the lands under its jurisdiction by supporting Section 102
waivers.
The Department of Homeland Security is, of course, not the only
federal agency on the border. The Department of the Interior has
jurisdiction over nearly 800 miles of the border. Interior's mission is
to protect our common natural and cultural heritage, and it is mandated
by Executive Order 13175 to recognize tribes' ``inherent sovereign
powers over their members and territory.''
Interior has, however, abandoned its mission.
In a March 20, 2008 letter, the Department of the Interior
acknowledged that its legal obligations under the Wilderness Act and
other statutes prevented it from approving DHS's proposed border
security infrastructure. But Interior supported the DHS waiver of these
very laws. Twelve days later, Secretary Chertoff issued a waiver that
is applicable on 470 miles of the border, including 55 miles on our
reservation. Interior never consulted us before turning its back on the
Nation or the land it is sworn to protect.
Nor did DHS consult with the Nation before issuing that waiver. In
doing so, the DHS undermined our partnership and the Nation's
resolution supporting vehicle barriers, which expressly required
federal officers to ``perform cultural resource clearance and fully
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.'' (Tohono O'odham
Legislative Council Resolution No. 04-095.) Has the Nation's sovereign
power to make laws also been waived?
IV. Indian tribes across the United States support legislation to
repeal the Secretary of Homeland Security's Section 102 waiver
authority, mandate consultation, and restore the rule of law.
For all these reasons, the Nation, the Inter Tribal Council of
Arizona, and the National Congress of American Indians support H.R.
2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act of 2007, and other
legislation that would repeal the DHS Secretary's Section 102 waiver
authority, require consultation with tribes and border communities, and
otherwise respect existing laws and citizens' rights in the effort to
secure the border.
We know from our own experience living on the border that security
can be improved while respecting the rights of tribes and border
communities, while fulfilling our duty to the environment and to our
ancestors, and without granting any person the power to ignore the law.
CONCLUSION
Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Bordallo, I am here to provide the
Nation's unqualified support for H.R. 2593 and to urge you to restore
the rule of law on the border. We support border security but not at
the price that is now being paid.
Thank you.
______
Attachments
Tohono O'odham Legislative Council Resolution No. 04-095,
``Supporting Vehicle Barriers and All-Weather Road Project Along the
International Boundary Within the Tohono O'odham Nation''
March 20, 2008 Letter from Associate Deputy Secretary
James E. Cason to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
National Congress of American Indians' Resolution # ECWS-
08-001, ``Supporting Amending Secure Fence Act and Requiring DHS
Secretary to Consult and Coordinate with Tribes in Jointly Developing a
Border Strategy for Tribal Lands along the Unites States' International
Borders''
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me join with my other colleagues, Dr.
Garcia, in thanking you and this wonderful institution for
their hospitality and for helping arrange not only this hearing
room but all the other work that had to go along for this--for
this hearing to occur. Thank you. And with that let me
introduce Dr. Garcia, President, University of Texas
Brownsville and Southmost College. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JULIET V. GARCIA, PH.D., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS AT BROWNSVILLE AND SOUTHMOST COLLEGE
Ms. Garcia. Good morning, Chairman Grijalva and Madam Chair
Bordallo, Congressman Solomon Ortiz. Grace Napolitano, we're
glad to have you back on our campus. And, of course,
Congressman Silvestre Reyes and all of our new friends that
come to understand, from the very community that might be so
affected, the important issues that we face.
Early last summer we were notified of plans by the
Department of Homeland Security to build a fence 18 feet high
on top of the levee on the university's--the levee north of the
university's ITEC campus--ITEC campus is the campus where we
teach international technology and educational center--
essentially placing all of the ITEC on the Mexican side of the
fence. In addition, the plans would also build a fence 18 feet
high on top of the levee just south of the Scorpion baseball
field and of our parking lot, essentially placing our entire
golf course on the Mexican side of the fence.
In October we received a letter from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection asking for a right of entry onto university
property. The request sought access to university land for
possible construction of a fence. The same document informed us
that there was some question if they would be responsible for
any damage done during this time of their activities.
I did not sign the document that would have granted access
for several reasons. It is my responsibility as president to be
a good steward of the resources that have been entrusted to my
care. To have signed this request, this right of entry would
have violated that public trust. There was first a risk to
property investment because the government sought access to
lands from the levee to the building in the very heart of our
campus adjacent to the student union, very close to where we
sit in this building and the life and health sciences building.
Our campus is one of the fastest growing in the UT system
with an enrollment of 17,000 students and expected to grow to
20,000 within five years. The campus currently has eight
construction projects in different stages of development for a
total investment by the taxpayers of this community and in the
State of Texas of over $140 million in new construction alone.
Allowing the Department of Homeland Security unlimited access
to a large portion of the campus had the potential of
jeopardizing a significant public investment that it was our
duty to protect.
It is also my responsibility as president to guard the
safety of our students. If I am aware of potential danger to
them, I am required to take necessary action to ensure their
safety. The right of entry was refused because it was meant to
support preparations for the building of a fence that would
jeopardize campus security.
DHS has repeatedly reported to us that they plan to build a
fence on the levee for the purposes of channeling illegal
entrance to a point presumably for easy apprehension. That
point is the same opening in the fence that would also be used
for entry and exit to the golf course--the headquarters of our
golf team--and directly behind the baseball park and the
recreation center.
I could not sign the original right of entry because having
an opening in an 18-foot high fence for the purpose of
channeling all illegal entrance, including criminals, in the
heart of our campus right next to classroom buildings, the
library and the recreation center, the baseball park and the
soccer field, would gravely endanger, not protect, our students
and jeopardize campus security and safety.
I could not sign the original right of entry because there
had been a lack of opportunity for genuine public input. When
congressmen call town meetings, it goes to gather its citizens
engaged in civil discourse. In contrast, here the only public
hearing that we were afforded was held on December 12 at the
Brownsville Events Center, where we were required to submit
feedback through a computer terminal or through a court
reporter surrounded by armed agents. For those of us who chose
to participate through verbal input, it was necessary to meet
in an open field across from the Events Center while being
photographed.
I could not sign the original ROE because the university
has become a key player in the promotion of the ecotourism
industry and the reclamation of important wildlife areas
inclusive of thousands of acres of the Bahia Grande area. Many
have worked for decades to design a campus that is respectful
of the natural and rich environment of this very special
ecological zone. Signing the right of entry would have
jeopardized ecological systems of our region and obstructed the
development of the campus environment.
Finally, I was unable to sign the ROE because it
jeopardized the historical nature of the campus as you've
already heard. What was being demanded of us under threat of
legal action was unimpeded access by military and civilian
agencies to a UT system campus in state and locally financed
buildings for an extended period of time for purposes of
determining that the land and the buildings could be condemned
and seized.
In January we were notified that a suit had been filed in
Federal court because of our refusal to sign, yet we continued
to meet with various representatives from the Federal
government at the same time that they were filing the suit.
After days of intense negotiations between the university and
the U.S. Department of Justice, an agreed settlement was
reached just hours before we went to Federal court. The order--
not our request, but the court order by a Federal judge, now
requires consultation with the university before accessing the
property, and they must take care to minimize and jointly study
environmental impact, environmental problems and impact on the
culture of the campus and on the historical nature of the
campus. Judge Andrew Hanen stated that the agreed settlement
could be used as a template for working with other landowners.
I thank you for the time you have spent on our campus.
There are many of us in Brownsville who did not have the honor
of being able to address you. But just so you know, there are
many voices that have similar feelings to what you have heard
from the mayor and from others on this podium today. Thank you
so much. I appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Garcia follows:]
Statement of Juliet V. Garcia, Ph.D., President,
University of Texas at Brownsville, and Southmost College
Good Morning Chairman Grijalva and Madam Chair Bordallo and members
of the joint oversight committee. Thank you for this invitation to
testify before you on this very important issue.
The first topic you have asked me to address was the level of
consultation between the Department of Homeland Security and our
university to review and revise project segments slated to cross our
campus and the surrounding community.
As background, I will provide a quick timeline of the events that
have transpired over the last year.
Early last summer, we were notified of plans by the Department of
Homeland Security to build a fence 18 feet high on top of the levee
north of the university's International Technology Education and
Commerce campus (ITEC), essentially placing ITEC on the Mexican side of
the fence. In addition, the plans would also build a fence 18 feet high
on top of the levee just south of the University baseball field and of
the Education and Business Complex parking lot, essentially placing our
golf course on the Mexican side of the fence, literally dividing our
campus.
In October, we received a letter from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection asking for the right of entry onto University property. The
request sought access to survey University land for the possible
construction of the fence, to store equipment and supplies, take
samples and to do any other work they found necessary for the proposed
construction of the fence.
The same document informed us that there was some question as to
whether they would be responsible for any damage done during this time
by their activities. Finally, the letter stated that should they
determine a need for any University land, the University would be paid
market value for the land.
I did not sign the document that would have granted access for
several reasons. I felt the action posed serious harm to the University
on many fronts, including risk to property investment, student safety,
execution of our mission, disruption of the university ecosystem and
the region's ecotourism industry, as well as damage to the historical
nature of the campus.
Because we could not in good conscience sign the document granting
right of entry, the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers notified
us in December 2007 of potential litigation to gain entry to the
campus.
What was being demanded, under threat of legal action, was
unimpeded access by military and civilian agencies to a UT System
campus and its state and locally financed buildings for an extended
period of time for purposes of determining if land and buildings would
be condemned and seized.
The only public hearing we were afforded was held on December 12 at
the Brownsville Events Center where we were required to submit our
feedback through a computer terminal or through a court reporter
surrounded by armed agents.
In January, despite requests from our attorney for extensions of
time to engage in discussions of alternatives, we were notified that a
suit had been filed in federal court because of our failure to sign the
original Right of Entry request (ROE). This heavy handedness and
unwillingness to genuinely discuss alternatives to the ROE's conditions
was sufficient cause for serious concern.
Yet we continued to meet with various representatives from the
federal government including the local Border Patrol officials, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Army Corps of Engineers. While
it was frustrating at times, when the various federal agencies did not
have knowledge of the others' activities, we persisted, believing that
a compromise could be reached that would allow the Department of
Homeland Security to proceed with its goal of better securing the
border, while at the same time allowing the university to preserve the
integrity of our region and our educational mission and moreover,
protect the safety and welfare of our students, faculty and staff.
However, we feel that the purpose of meetings from the government's
standpoint was simply another opportunity for them to tell us of their
intention to build a fence, rather than to explore alternatives.
After days of intense negotiations between the University and
United States Department of Justice attorneys, an agreed settlement was
reached on March 19th, just hours before the federal hearing was to
take place.
Federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen approved the agreement, which states
the following:
The University has agreed to a limited right of entry to
DHS for six months for the purpose of studying the implementation of
security measures on the border in the campus area.
DHS will work with the University to jointly assess
alternatives to a physical barrier.
DHS has been authorized to conduct such studies,
including environmental assessments, as required to consult with the
University regarding alternatives to a physical barrier.
DHS will consider the University's unique status as an
institution of higher education and will take care to minimize impact
on its environment and culture.
DHS will conduct investigations to minimize the impact of
any tactical infrastructure on commerce and the quality of life for the
communities and residents located near the University.
DHS will take all reasonable action to promote safety and
minimize any impact on the University's educational activities.
DHS will coordinate all entry to the campus and give
prior notice of all activities on campus to Campus Police.
DHS has agreed that should damage to University property
occur they will repair or make an appropriate fair market value
settlement.
DHS has agreed to hire contractors that carry sufficient
liability insurance.
DHS has agreed to not clear land, mow grass or otherwise
alter the physical landscape of University property without the
University's consent.
The University retains the right to assert statutory and/
or constitutional challenges to future government actions affecting
University property.
During the hearing, Judge Hanen thanked both the University and the
federal government for working hard to reach an equitable solution. He
felt that the dialogue between the two sides would hopefully lead to a
better resolution regarding this temporary easement, as well as any
potential future barrier. Judge Hanen also stated that the agreed
settlement could, perhaps, be used as a template for working with other
landowners involved.
While we have often felt during this process that the Department of
Homeland Security was unwilling to openly and legitimately consult with
local communities regarding the effects an 18-foot high wall would have
on our region, we are pleased that the court system fulfilled the
purpose our forefathers had planned. It brought together two parties to
be fairly represented and heard.
Since the hearing the Department of Homeland Security, through the
U.S. Border Patrol, has notified the University of various
archeological and environmental surveys and/or assessments that have
taken place. While we have received notification from the federal
government that they are conducting surveys and/or assessments on IBWC
and University property we have not been provided the opportunity to
jointly participate in assessing alternatives to a physical barrier.
There is a meeting between representatives of the University and DHS
scheduled for tomorrow, and we are hopeful that will be the beginning
of the joint assessment, and not simply a repeat of the previous
unproductive one-way communications.
Potential Impact on property investment and safety
As a native of this community, I can speak to the fact that every
piece of infrastructure you see in the Rio Grande Valley today was hard
fought. We didn't have a university in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
until 1991 when UT Brownsville was established. We still do not have a
veteran's hospital closer than San Antonio. The lack of infrastructure
is compounded by our rapidly growing population, and the need for
expanded trade and commerce.
Seizing land for a border fence poses a great risk to our property
investment. In the case of our university, our campus is one of the
fastest growing in the UT System with an enrollment of 17,000 and
expected to grow to 20,000 within five years. The campus currently has
8 construction projects in different stages of development for a total
investment by the taxpayers of the local community and of the state of
more than $140 million dollars in new construction alone. Allowing the
DHS unlimited access to a large portion of the campus has the potential
of jeopardizing a significant public investment that it is our duty as
stewards to protect.
It is also my responsibility as President to guard and protect the
safety of our students. If I am aware of a potential danger to them, I
am required to take necessary action to ensure their safety.
DHS had repeatedly reported to us that the plan to build a fence on
the levee was for the purpose of channeling illegal activity to a point
presumably for easy apprehension. That point in the proposed fence, is
the same opening used for entry and exit to the golf course. The golf
course is home not only to our Scorpion golf team, but also to members
of the community including other school children. This site serves as a
laboratory for learning in our community, just as any other facility on
our campus.
The current plans call for an opening in the 18-foot high fence for
the purpose of channeling all illegal activity, into the heart of our
campus right next to classroom buildings, the library, the Recreation,
Education and Kinesiology Center, the baseball park, and the new soccer
field would greatly endanger our students and jeopardize campus
security and safety.
Potential Impact on the Academic Environment
In addition, the building of a fence on this campus or adjacent to
the campus runs counter to our mission, which is in part to convene the
cultures of its community, foster an appreciation of the unique
heritage of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, encourage the development and
application of bilingual abilities in its students and provide academic
leadership to the intellectual, cultural, social and economic life of
the bi-national urban region it serves.
To support a plan that would build an 18-foot-high steel barrier
between two friendly countries would be to directly contravene our
mission and destroy the campus climate that has been so painstakingly
and carefully created.
Potential Impact on the Environmental and Historic Environment
The University has become a key player in the promotion of the
ecotourism industry and in the reclamation of important wildlife areas
inclusive of the thousands of acres of the Bahia Grande area. Many have
worked for decades to design a campus that is respectful of the natural
and rich environment of this special ecological zone. We also strive
for the development of a campus environment that fosters the physical
and mental well-being of our students. To create this environment we
are designing and constructing bike trails, jogging paths and eco-
trails.
In our master plan, which was created four years ago, we defined
our core values which include:
Respecting the Educational Nature of the Campus
Providing a Safe and Secure Environment
Encouraging Community Involvement
Providing Accessibility
Creating Harmony in Design
Planning for Openness in Design and Space
Creating Intimate Gathering Areas
Providing an Inviting Ambiance
Respecting the Historical Nature of the Campus
Being sensitive to the Ecology
Incorporating the Region's Unique Cultural Character
Clearly, an 18-foot high wall running through our campus would
negate all that we have worked so hard to create.
UTB/TSC has a unique cultural nature. The campus encompasses
several significant historical sites, including historic Fort Brown and
Fort Texas.
Of course, we believe in protecting our borders.
Of course, we believe in strong immigration policy.
But we also understand that a process of intended or unintended
intimidation is no substitute for either.
Every attempt we have made up until this week has proved fruitless
in discovering common ground for a solution.
I love our country and the best that it represents of an experiment
to govern a free people. My life's work has been spent trying to
guarantee that the next generation has access to an education and
becomes vested in protecting, participating in and defending this
democracy. It has been my duty to be a good steward not only of the
resources entrusted to me, but also of the values and principles of our
democracy.
I remain hopeful that we can make genuine progress toward a
meaningful, consultative conversation and that the Agreed Order with
the conditions specified has for the first time, the potential to
discover an innovative and effective manner to achieve the mutual goals
of the DHS and of the University.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. And, Doctor, I had the
privilege and the pleasure of meeting with community members
yesterday most of the day from Veteran organizations to
religious groups to people that work here at this institution.
And your comments and I think the mayor's comments were
repeated time and time again. And so I appreciated that
opportunity to do that.
Let me begin with a couple of quick questions and then move
along and allow my colleagues the same opportunity. Let me
direct us to Mr. Schultz and the Chief. If you could briefly
explain to me this inconsistency that we have. If we are
believing that the premise for the wall and the fence barrier
is the uniformity of security across the southern border, then
this begs the question--this is where I have the--I can't
explain it to myself.
We had to have a court order in order for the university
here to participate in consultation and planning because the
fence is going--the wall is going through that property. Yet we
have properties that perhaps are less security needed, such as
the Hunt property, such as the property at the River Bend. And
yet we have single property owners that their property is--
their security there is high end. And I'm assuming the security
in the Hunt property, which is 5 to 6,000 acres, and at the
River Bend, then that must not be--there must not be a security
need because those have been exempt. Am I correct in that
assessment?
Mr. Vitiello. It's important, Congressman, to understand
that what I've done since my assignment here in July and when
this project started within the sector confines is for us to go
out and look at current activity levels, look at the kind of
access that was available and is required to secure particular
parts of the border.
I'm not familiar with us having particular land that they
own along the border. I'm familiar with the River Bend
requirement. And what we did is we looked at the kind of access
we had. We looked at the kind of activity that was occurring in
those locations, and then made an assessment about where--if
the terrain was enhanced, if the features--the terrain features
were enhanced with fencing, would that assist us in being more
efficient and being more effective in those particular
locations. And where that was the case, where we believed that
this fencing gave us some an additional advantage, then we've
made that a part of the plan, the proposal that we'd like to go
forward and have the installation occur in those locations.
Mr. Grijalva. And Interior's discussion with Homeland
Security, so I'm assuming these two exempted area are of higher
environmental quality, therefore an exception is something that
was worked out?
Mr. Schultz. I don't understand the question, Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. If Interior is working with Homeland Security
as we go along, according to your testimony----
Mr. Schultz. That's right.
Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. And we have two major exemptions
as other property owners are having to litigate in order to get
the consultation, I'm assuming in your consultations those
exceptions were something that you felt were environmentally
high enough to be exempt.
Mr. Schultz. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean exempt
from the----
Mr. Grijalva. Fence, wall.
Mr. Schultz. From the fence. I don't know what the answer
is to that question. I don't think, at least at the
headquarters level, we had that type of detailed discussions
about those sections of fence. They could have been discussed
at the local level in consultation with local officials.
Mr. Grijalva. So as we go through this process, would it
not be good to quantify and qualify the exemptions that occur
in this whole fence-building, why, whether it's environmental,
whether it's not pertinent to operational control, whether it
is some other reason. Don't you think that kind of inventory
would be important.
Mr. Schultz. It would be helpful, I guess. We have relied
on the Border Patrol for their decisions on where they believe
they need the fence. And once they decide where they need the
fence, we will work with them as much as possible to try to
minimize the impact on the infrastructure on DOI interest.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, and perhaps for my renewed
edification and the edification of my colleagues that probably
don't need it--I'm probably the one that does--briefly, the
government-to-government meaningful consultation and
relationship between the Nation and the Federal government and
its impact on what is occurring on your Nation right now given
the waiver and how--did that consultation occur at all prior to
that?
Mr. Norris. No. I can't honestly sit here and tell you, Mr.
Chairman and members of the committee, that that consultation
did, in fact, occur. There are many things that are occurring
on our Nation's lands that are done without consultation. In
fact, as recent as four, almost five years ago, we had to bring
in the representatives from the Tucson Sector into a meeting at
our offices and discuss with the Border Patrol why they were
doing some--conducting some of the activities they were doing
on our Nation's lands.
And it became apparent that we were talking to the wrong
people because their continued comments to us, ``Well, we're
just following orders. We get our orders from Washington, D.C.,
and that's what we're following.'' And so we immediately let
them know that we're talking to the wrong people, that we need
to deal with Washington, D.C.
We have continuously made efforts to consult with and have
continuously numerous times invited Secretary Chertoff to the
Tohono O'odham Nation's lands so that way we can have a face-
to-face contact with him and express our concerns about what's
been going on on our Nation's lands. And we have not been
honored any invitation that we have extended to him.
Secretary Chertoff finds the opportunity to visit border
areas to the east of the Tohono O'odham Nation's lands and to
the west of the Tohono O'odham Nation's lands, but has never
made--acknowledged our request to come visit us and discuss
these issues that are critically important to us on the Nation.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and my time is up. Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
couple of questions for this round. In your statement, Chief
Vitiello, you reference as a reason for Secretary Chertoff to
use his authority to issue a blanket waiver of over 30
environmental statutes as a response to the Department of
Interior's inability to accommodate approval of some tactical
infrastructure projects. And this raises the question of why
did the Secretary issue a blanket waiver when it was known that
Interior only objected to a portion of the projects on Federal
lands? Can you give me an answer on how many project segments
did Interior say they could not accommodate and what percentage
of the total does this represent?
Mr. Vitiello. I'm happy to get back to the committee about
specific technical details of which parts that you refer to
within the Department of Interior's and our consultations. I
can only tell you that in our particular area, there are
approximately 70 miles of fence that we have established
locations along the border where we feel that fencing would
assist us in our--in our work. And we also know, based on the
time lines authorized in appropriation, that the waiver makes
sense in order for us to complete under the time line outline.
Ms. Bordallo. I guess that's really not my question. I just
wondered what percentage. Because Interior had said that they
only object to some, not all.
Mr. Vitiello. I don't have that technical knowledge about
that.
Ms. Bordallo. All right.
Mr. Vitiello: I would be happy to get back to you.
Ms. Bordallo. The other one, Chief, was--I was really very
impressed with how you informed 600 different landowners,
hosted 11 public open houses, held 15 publicly advertised town
hall meetings, and conducted 84 meetings with state and local
officials and public groups. It seems to me you covered
everything. But you discussed your agency's activities, as I
have just repeated--the other Federal agencies and local
residents, including uncounted numbers of meetings, open
houses, town hall meetings--while it is somewhat reassuring to
know that your agency can at least demonstrate that it has
conducted public outreach, your statement provides no
reassurance about the quality of the consultation.
So I would like you to explain or describe the kind of
information that is provided during public outreach sessions,
what kind of information is solicited, and then describe the
process the agency uses to incorporate this information into
your decision making. And after listening to Chairman Norris,
his Nation was never informed.
Mr. Vitiello. Typically these meetings, in our experience
here, would have been a scenario where we have identified
particular parcel landowners. In some cases we went to county
commissions, local leadership, mayors and such, and informed
them about what we knew of the state of the situation; about
where we were requesting fencing; what we felt our operational
requirement is; where we thought fencing made sense in
particular locations. Some was an edification for why given the
activity level.
The quality--and I'll give you an assessment here locally.
There are about 400 different people who are impacted directly,
as in they own land right along the border here in the Rio
Grande Valley. We've talked to each and every one of them, both
through my office, the Army Corps of Engineers, the people at
SBI and at CBP and the totality of the people that would
necessarily need to be involved in an operation or in a
construction project like that. And with about 400 landowners
in this area, we're in a situation where just over 270 or so
were ready to proceed. We are in a dialogue and continue to be
in discussions with them, and the balance are in varying forms
of ongoing consultation, or, in some cases, the litigation
aspect.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, Chief, I don't know what the outcome
was after all of this interaction with the landowners and so
forth, but it seems that we have a roomful of people here that
don't agree that they were even informed. Chairman Norris,
would you like to comment on the exchange you had.
Mr. Norris. Yes, I would. And thank you, Chairwoman, for
the opportunity. It seems to me that our experience has been
that the attitude with the Department of Homeland Security has
been that it's pretty much the attitude that, ``Well, we're the
Federal government. We're the United States government and
you're a Federal reserve, and so we're going to go and come in
and do whatever the hell we want to do within the Federal
Indian reservation,'' which is an unfortunate situation because
that is definite ignorance of the tribal sovereignty authority
that we have in the tribal government.
And that's all we ask. We want to be at the table with the
United States government. We want to be able to discuss with
them--and, you know, it's not the say that the Nation itself
has not extended itself to the effort to secure the border. We
have allowed various vehicle barriers. We have allowed SBI in.
We have allowed the establishment of law enforcement centers.
We have allowed the increase of border presence on our Nation's
lands. So we are working with them.
But with regards to the long-term, the impact of a wall on
our Nation's lands, the Tohono O'odham Nation will never agree
to a wall fence. And the primary reason for that,
Congresswoman, is the fact that we have 1,500 enrolled tribal
members that live south of the international border. We have
nine tribal communities that exist. We have about almost 5,000
people that are eligible for membership in the Tohono O'odham
Nation's lands.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Chairman Norris. My time
is up.
Mr. Norris. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now turn to our Ranking Member, Mr.
Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for your testimony. One of the things that I think I heard more
often than anything else that seemed I think inaccurate in
terms of describing the project that we are to focus on today
is the implication that the wall is a singular solution to a
problem. I do not know of anyone, either Border Patrol or the
Administration--certainly I have never thought of a barrier
along the southern border, no matter how long, as the
solution--as the solution to the problem with illegal entry
into this country. It is just simply part of a solution. It
just helps us begin to control parts of the border where we
presently do not have that control.
And so I just wanted to emphasize, at least from my point
of view and my observation of this issue, that the thing we're
arguing about today is not the simplistic application of some
sort of barrier that will then solve all of our immigration
policies--problems. That is certainly not the case. I
understand that.
I also believe that there may certainly have been problems
with the kind of communication that should go on and is
necessary to go on in order to obtain the support of the local
community for an ongoing effort of this nature. And I turn to
the Chairman in particular because I have visited the Nation on
more than one occasion.
I remember several years ago when I was there and there was
an--a concern expressed to me by almost every single person,
every single member of the tribe, that the present situation
was untenable; that the amount of drug trafficking through the
area was--certainly that it could not be dealt with by the
local law enforcement activity or agency that was involved, the
number of people that you had on the force; that the effect of
the drug activity wasn't just simply the passage of drugs
through the tribal lands, it was what was happening on the
tribal lands, the number of children who had become addicted.
And I remember a long litany of concerns. And I also
remember at the time that one of the things that was described
as a potential solution was some sort of barrier. I also
remember the discussion about the need to have this kind of
transportation--open transportation--for the people who live on
both sides of that border today and who are also part of the
Tohono O'odham tribe.
Do you not think--and I totally believe and understand the
frustration that you expressed, the kind of--the way that this
thing has unfolded on the land. But do you not believe that
there is a need for something there that will restrict that
movement and allow people, allow members of the tribe to
actually get back and forth for various purposes and just
visiting, but at the same time try to restrict the ability of
people coming through there who are doing such great damage to
the tribe? And do you not think that if a--some sort of barrier
is constructed that comes up let's say to tribal lands and ends
there, that that does create even a greater threat to the
environment and to the tribe itself? Because, of course, it
becomes a funnel. And that's the whole purpose of what we're
trying to do here, is actually funnel people into areas where
we can stop them with human resources. But it seems like--that
unless we can progress with some sort of barrier there, that we
are--potentially the tribe is open to far more danger and far
more destructive elements than it is without something.
Now, I guarantee you I would work with you--and to the
extent that I have time to do so in the Congress that I'm in
and will be in my term sometime--but the time I'm there, I
commit to you my efforts to try to bring together some degree
of cooperation, if that is your desire. But I just need to know
specifically what it is you believe would protect both the
sovereignty of your Nation and the security of our borders.
Mr. Norris. Mr. Chairman--Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman,
members of the committee, all those situations that you
described, sir, are--continue to be concerns of the Tohono
O'odham Nation and its people. Those situations do exist. We're
a little bit tired of being tour guides. We've had a number of
people from Congress come out and visit our Nation and see
what's going on on our Nation's lands and see the increased
border issues that are impacting our Nation, but we don't see
any result of that. We continue to expend tribal dollars, to
the tune of $3 million a year, on the United States
government's immigration problem. And we need to take the
situation to the next level.
Definitely we are concerned about the influx of human
cargo. We are concerned about the influx of drug trafficking.
We are concerned about the fact that too many of our tribal
members are being bought into that business. And, yes,
definitely we want to be able to see what we can do together.
Not imposed on, but together in working with the Department of
Homeland Security, allowing us to be at the table to discuss
these issues with them, allowing us to share with them what
impacts their activity is going to have on our Nation's lands,
allowing us to be able to share with them what sovereignty
issues we are concerned about when it comes to dealing with us
on a government-to-government level.
So, definitely, sir, we welcome and continue to offer the
opportunity to sit at the table with the United States
government, and would like to be able to do that with the
Department of Homeland Security. We continue to invite
Secretary Chertoff. We want him out here. We want him out to
our Nation's lands. He's probably one of the only visitors we--
that we haven't had the opportunity to tour on our Nation's
borders and express our concerns. We want that opportunity, but
we want some action. We want some active--opportunity to
actively participate in the decisions that are being made in
Washington, D.C., that are negatively impacting our people and
our land.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman, and now I'd like to
recognize the gentlelady from the State of California, Mrs.
Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. OK. I am on. In
all this process, I don't see the Department of Homeland
Security represented here. And I'm not sure why. But that
should be one of the things----
[Applause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Please. It takes my time. Please.
That--in order to be able to get answers from some of the
agencies, we need to have them present, or at least it goes on
the record. Dr. Garcia, those words that you talked about, have
them submitted for the record for this hearing, because it will
be open for 10 days. Anybody can submit for the record. That is
law.
Now, one of the other things that we have heard repeatedly
is it's a tough process. We all agree with you. We have not
been able to get that done for a number of reasons because
there's people in Congress stymieing the process that we try to
put through.
And, Mr. Schultz, on your second paragraph you indicate
this impact by this illegal migration. But the fences and the
roads don't damage that environment?
Mr. Schultz. Congressman----
Mrs. Napolitano. Congresswoman, sir.
Mr. Schultz. Congresswoman. Pardon me.
Mrs. Napolitano. I'm a woman.
Mr. Schultz. The roads and the fences do damage the public
land as well, which is why we need to work with them to try to
minimize the impacts of the roads and fences on those natural
and cultural resources.
Mrs. Napolitano. Because of what I'm reading from some of
the testimony that was provided to us prior to today, there are
a lot of this--and Mr. Chairman Norris indicates that there was
no consultation with them as to how to minimize or what their
ability is to be able to have input, to be able to do that. Dr.
Garcia is saying the same thing in essence.
Mr. Schultz. Congresswoman, there has been significant
discussion between Fish and Wildlife Service folks, folks that
work with the Bureau of Land Management and Park Service folks
to try to minimize the impact.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. But that's only between the agencies.
What about the people who are affected, the farmers? And my
understanding is that this was taken into a computer or sent to
a separate room to put in their input without public opinion
being open. I mean, we're--if people want to accept the
dialogue, the plans that you have, you have to be transparent.
And if you are not, then you're going to have people sit up and
say, ``Hey, wait a minute. This is the United States.'' We
don't follow that anymore.
We don't--you know, building a wall--we're tearing down
China--the Berlin Wall. And so other areas that we are seeing
we do not need walls. We need more security for the people that
work the borders, more technology, more funding. But we end up
taking those funds away. And I know Interior could use the
funds. In my Subcommittee, I can tell you I go through that all
the time.
And to Mr. Norris, were you included at all in any of the
planning? I think you said, but I want it for the record
specifically. Were you included? Were you asked to be at the
table? Were you asked for input about how it would impact your
tribal lands?
Mr. Norris. Initially we were not. After we had raised the
concern of not being at the table, after we--and I'm talking
about previous administrations to mine continuously asking that
we need to be at the table, continuously pressuring the local
sectors of the Border Patrol at our office and being told,
``Well, these decisions are made in Washington, D.C.'' And that
we need to be at the table in Washington, D.C., we have had
some impact and some ability to share our thoughts and our
positions.
One of the things that we did find out is that the
Department of Homeland Security was consulting with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. And what we found out was that once we had
seen an increase in border presence on our Nation's lands, we
understood that they got the approval and the permission from
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be increasing their presence on
these lands.
Mrs. Napolitano. Did the BIA----
Mr. Schultz. We weren't involved in that process.
Mrs. Napolitano. Did the BIA ever consult you?
Mr. Norris. No.
Mrs. Napolitano. Did any other agency consult you?
Mr. Norris. Well, not at the Federal level. But at the
local level we have been knocking on their doors and they have
opened those doors.
Mrs. Napolitano. You have been knocking. They have not--as
part of the landowners--been asked to participate.
Mr. Norris. We have not.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't take any
more time, but I do have some questions for the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. And let me now turn to
our colleague, Mr. Hunter, for any questions you might have,
sir.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again--and,
incidentally, I didn't realize this is Solomon Ortiz's
district. And I just would be remiss if I didn't say as a
fellow member of the Armed Services Committee what a great job
he's done on that committee. We've flown on a lot of choppers
together--from down in Central America with the 82nd Airborne,
in the DMZ in Korea--on lots of those trips accompanied by
the--Mr. Reyes, a very articulate gentleman. And I appreciate
you letting us be here, Solomon----
Mr. Ortiz. You're quite welcome.
Mr. Hunter [continuing]. To have this hearing. You know,
folks, we're all in this together. And what I've gotten from
your testimony is a couple of things. One thing is that we all
acknowledge you've got to control the border. The second thing
is that there's lots of custom making to be done along this--
along this border to ensure that controlling the border is
consistent with local communities.
Now, Chairman Norris, you started out by showing your--
showing the damage that's being done by the smugglers moving
massive numbers of people and narcotics through the
reservation, right? And you'd like it to stop. But you
haven't--you haven't come up with a solution. And, you know,
I've looked at this for a long time and we tried to do the same
thing in San Diego. We tried lots of stuff, and we also tried
to do it at one time just by amassing Border Patrol. In fact,
we had a third of all the Border Patrol for the entire U.S.-
Mexico and U.S.-Canada border all together. We had about a
third of that Border Patrol just in San Diego. And we still
couldn't stop that flow with people alone.
And one of our institutions said, ``You have to have
something that slows folks down. You've got to have a fence.''
They recommended a triple fence. And I will get my friend,
Silvestre Reyes, in trouble by reminding him that he helped me
get the first triple fence in. I'm sure he's going to remind me
that that's not in good taste after this hearing is over. But
hopefully we're friends so we'll get past that.
But, you know, I've looked at all the things we've tried to
use as a substitute. We just tried one of the substitutes in
Arizona, a so-called virtual fence. I told the Department of
Homeland Security it wasn't going to work. I said, ``You're
going to spend a ton of money on the problem. You're going to
have guys with alligator shoes selling you this radar stuff.
They're going to be late. They're going to be way over budget,
and in the end it's going to be a mess.'' And it ends up with
guys in a radar tower trying to vector guys in off-road
vehicles down through gullies and through brushland after a
moving target once these folks come into the U.S.
Whereas if you have the double fence and it's not a wall,
it's two fences with a high-speed road in between, the Border
Patrol can move 60 miles an hour on that road. That means in
one minute a Border Patrolman who is a mile away, once he's
alerted, can be at the scene of entrance by smugglers coming
into the United States.
Now, Chairman Norris, my first question to you would simply
be wouldn't that be desirable for the Nation if you also had
several ports of entry where members of the tribe, legitimate
members of the Nation could come through and where they would
monitor that border to make sure that people who are not
members of the Nation did not come through without U.S.
clearance? Would a fence with ports of entry make sense to you?
Mr. Norris. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
Congressman Hunter, I don't necessarily agree that the answer
is a port of entry. When you look at the Nation--and as I
described in my testimony, we didn't cross the border, the
border crossed us. You know, we have had traditional passage of
what is now the international border since time immemorial. We
have enjoyed the opportunity to live as a people since time
immemorial, well before the United States was even here, well
before this international border was established.
You asked me that we haven't come up with any solutions. We
may not have come up with any solutions, but we have also
allowed the establishment of vehicle barriers; we have allowed
the establishment of the virtual fence; we have allowed the
establishment of law enforcement centers; we have allowed the
establishment of beacon lights; we have allowed the
establishment of many more activities that the Border Patrol
has wanted to establish within our Nation's lands, all in the
interest of assisting and securing the--securing the United
States border. We have done that as a people. We have allowed
that as a people.
We don't believe that the full-fledged wall is the answer
along the international border. We have too many people that we
have to be concerned about as far as tribal members of the
Nation is concerned. We have too much interest in Mexico as a
people--both historically, both culturally, both spiritually--
that we have to be able to traverse back and forth in and
outside of Mexico into the United States.
And so the answer isn't a wall. The answer isn't a wall to
continue to divide our people from what has been traditionally
their opportunity to come in and outside of the United States
and participate in cultural, participate in spiritual,
participate in traditional activities of our people. So, you
know, in answer to your question, you know, we have done--we
believe that we have done what we have allowed you--for the
United States government to allow to establish that.
We want a place at the table. If you're planning to build a
wall along our international--75 miles of international border,
we want to know about it. We want to know today and we want to
know what opportunities we have to have some discussions with
you about that type of activity.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Reyes, any questions?
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to call my
friend--Duncan Hunter a friend and certainly a colleague. And
where--I think I said on this 2,000-mile border with Mexico,
about 10 percent is--in my opinion, based on 26 and a half
years of working as a Border Patrol agent--is about what I
think we would need. In the area that Chairman Hunter was
talking about in San Diego, that was certainly a huge challenge
because it was known as a soccer field and you had these huge
waves of undocumented people coming through and we just did not
have enough Border Patrol agents at that time.
Now, we're on our way to hiring 18,000 Border Patrol
agents. I think when you talk about the investment--foolish
investment, in my opinion--of $50 billion on a fence or a wall,
it doesn't make sense. I'd rather invest that in Border Patrol
agents. These guys are trained, they're dedicated, they're
professional. And I just can't say enough about the difference
between hiring agents and putting up these kinds of barriers.
If you go back and you look at any area--and you saw when
Dr. Garcia put up the areas here at the university. You saw how
that border zigzags here in this particular area. There is no
way that you can, I think, engineer a fence or a wall--and
correct me if I'm wrong, Chief--that would go through like a
Chinese snake around the border area. To me it makes sense--
this is a perfect example of where we would use technology, we
would use personnel, we would go to the community and say,
``This is what--this is the challenge that we're facing. This
is what we need to do. This is how we intend to do it. Give us
your feedback and let's come up with an agreed-upon strategy.''
That's--I've had many conversations with Secretary Chertoff
and raised with him about consulting the local communities. I
mean, making local communities partners because that's--I
think--I believe that's the right way to do it. When I put in
``Hold the Line'' in El Paso, I was told, ``It will never
work,'' you know. ``None of that will be possible.'' Well, we
proved people wrong.
I think if you give the Chief an opportunity, if you give
him the resources, the personnel--don't hang a fence around his
neck. And, of course, he's sitting here. I've been in his
position before. He's sitting here toeing the party line. He's
got to if he wants to remain chief of this sector.
Mr. Vitiello. And I do.
Mr. Reyes. But I can tell you, these guys are the
professionals. I've been out of that line of work for 12 years
now in Congress, and I would put my--I would stake my
credibility, my reputation, on these guys right here. Because
they will tell you what to do. They will get together with the
other chiefs there and say, ``Look, how do you think we need to
do this thing? Let's work this as partners.''
But, Chairman Hunter, we need to--instead of forcing 700
miles of fence, as you and I have discussed many times, let's
give them the resources, let's hire the agents, let's get the
technology in place. I know that the mayor--because I've had
many conversations with Mayor Foster and the mayors of the
coalition--there are ways that we can address it.
And the other part, by the way, is let's make Mexico a
partner in this thing. We are wasting billions of dollars in
the Middle East on a weekly basis. It seems to me like we ought
to be able to invest a couple or $3 billion with a partner like
Mexico to help manage this border. I think there is that
solution.
Now, I just wanted to ask one question. Mayor, in the
context of your issue in Eagle Pass, we have been told that
there are multiple strategies with multiple types of fencing
that--that could be considered for an area like Eagle Pass.
Could you tell this committee the consultations that you've
had, the options that you've been provided, the--perhaps the
opinions that have been sought?
Mr. Foster. I want a fresh clock. Yes, sir. We've worked
with DHS--I'm going to say '06 after the Secure Fence Act came
out--but we've been working with them. Our municipal golf
course goes up to the river between our two international
bridges and continues to our golf course north of Bridge 1 in
the city park. They want to eradicate 1.25 miles of carrizo
cane, which is a wonderful idea. It would open up the golf
course, the city park. It would open up the Cedar River. They
wanted to overlay a structure to support Border Patrol vehicles
on top of the existing cart path. Great idea. They wanted to
continue that road along the banks of the river into our city
park. Wonderful idea. They wanted to put 15 stadium light
towers about a quarter of a mile off the river to illuminate
our golf course and our city park at night. Wonderful idea.
Then they wanted to put a decorative fence along that same
alignment. Well, we, like most Texas border communities, have a
resolution against any fences or any form of physical fiscal
barrier within the city limits. And we tabled the item.
I was approached by DHS late December of '06 and they made
me aware, ``Washington has allowed us to take the fence facet
off of that project.''
``Let me get you on a council meeting.'' They were on our
first council meeting of '07, January 9. They made the same
presentation, but with the deletion of the fence facet. To me,
it's a park improvement project. We're a five-member council.
We approved that project on a 3-2 vote. After the council
meeting I asked the two dissenting council members, ``What is
your issue with this project?''
``We do not trust them.'' That was on January 9th. Later
that January, the Texas Border Coalition had the opportunity to
meet with Secretary Chertoff in Washington, and I used that as
an example of how border communities can work with DHS and
everybody walk off with a win-win. He said, ``My hands are tied
by the Secure Fence Act, and in my comments, that's been
changed.''
As the President's signature hit the paper on December 26th
of 2007, we're no longer bound by the Secure Fence Act. In the
State of Texas where you have such a magnificent natural
boundary as the Rio Grande River, we continue to advocate
eradicating the carrizo cane, the salt cedar that facilitates
line-of-sight to the Border Patrol agents to the physical banks
of the river. Let's upgrade our technology, our sensors that
are embedded in the banks of the river. And let's get more
boots on the ground. Because these gentleman have a tireless
job, but they are so very successful.
In our Texas border I think statistically speaking
apprehensions are down somewhere in the neighborhood of 78
percent. Conversely, on the California border, where you do
have physical barriers, apprehensions are up somewhere in the
neighborhood of 10 percent. So I think we can--we have control
of our Texas border. The statistics speak for themselves. But
the analogy is we've got a kitchen sink with a broken pipe.
Instead of sending in a plumber to fix the pipe, which is
immigration reform, we keep sending in more money. And when we
fix the sink, we're going to get the neighbors off, get them
off the river, and we're going to put them on the bridge as a
guest worker. Canada, as we speak, is flying guest workers from
Monterrey and Mexico City to Canada. And we can do the same.
But we lack immigration reform.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Now let's turn to the gentleman
from American Samoa for any questions you might have, Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been
listening very attentively at some of the questions and--not
wanting to be repetitious of some of the questions that were
raised by members of the panel. Mr. Schultz, I have read I
think there are approximately 30 Federal laws that come under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior that have been
waived by Secretary Chertoff. And I just wanted to ask you, in
your capacity as a National Borderland Coordinator, do you work
directly under the Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. Schultz. I work--Mr. Congressman, I work for the Deputy
Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. Faleomavaega. With the Deputy Secretary of the
Interior. So we have the Under Secretary of the Interior, the
Deputy Under Secretary, then the Assistant Secretary of the
Interior, then the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
So you are under the Deputy Under Secretary of the Interior?
Mr. Schultz. I'm under Deputy Secretary of the Interior
Lynn Scarlett. That's who I work for.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And in the process of screening and
approving these 30 Federal laws that Chertoff decided to waive,
what was your procedure in waiving these Federal laws? Was it
extensive, or just DHS says, ``We want to waive these laws
whether you like it or not''.
Mr. Schultz. Congressman, over the past nine months or so
we've been working with Homeland Security on a variety of
issues, including statutes that we deal with, and also the
relatively compressed time frame under which DHS is required to
build a fence.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You mentioned--in your testimony you said
you're under extremely compressed time. Are you saying that
come December 2008, if the border fence does not appear between
Brownsville and Matamoros, is all hell going to break loose.
Mr. Schultz. Congressman, that's not my decision. What
we're trying to do is respond to requests in a timely fashion
that we have received from Homeland Security for access to our
lands and for permits.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How many illegal aliens have been
monitored in this borderline you have between Matamoros and
Brownsville as an example.
Mr. Schultz. Honestly, Congressman, I don't have the
answer.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Maybe we should have checked it out.
Mr. Vitiello. So far for the fiscal year, Congressman, the
Rio Grande Valley Sector has apprehended just over 42,000
illegal aliens in this particular area, and that includes folks
that are smuggling drugs and human smugglers as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Vitiello, you said that no land will
be ceded to Mexico. And after listening to Dr. Garcia's
testimony, the whole golf course is going to be ceded over
there--am I correct--in the way the fence is being proposed
now.
Mr. Vitiello. As currently proposed, the fence will be
north of what is the golf course now. But our activity with
regard to enforcement--the enforcement footprint, if you will,
that is exercised by the Border Patrol--will remain as it is
today. We'll be patrolling the river by boat as we do now.
Agents will be on the river's edge and using the levee roads
and the roads that are constructed along with this fence to
patrol the border much in the same manner that we are now.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, the good citizens of Brownsville have
to get permission to go over and play golf.
Mr. Vitiello. That's not correct. We're going to be present
on both sides of that fence.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And how many Border Patrol people are
going to be involved in the security and the monitoring and
all.
Mr. Vitiello. Between Brownsville and Ft. Brown there is
approximately--there's well over 600 agents that are on duty in
this area, that are assigned to these regions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just between the borderline between
Mexico and the U.S. now, speaking just to Congressman Ortiz's
district, what's the total mileage that we're talking about in
the borderline between Mexico and the U.S.
Mr. Vitiello. I'm not sure about the jurisdiction of the
district. My area, the Rio Grande Valley sector, is 316 miles
U.S.-Mexico border, and it's like 380 miles up along the Texas
Gulf Coast.
Mr. Faleomavaega. That 300-some miles, can you just wing
it? About how many is involved in Congressman Ortiz's district?
Mr. Vitiello. I'm going to be--it's going to be in the
neighborhood of 60, 70.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And there's going to be fences in that
whole 300-mile stretch.
Mr. Vitiello. No, that's not correct. What we've got--I
don't know how many segments, but if you add up the segments
that we've requested, it's just under 70 miles.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So there are some exceptions.
Mr. Vitiello. They're not exceptions. What we looked at
were the activity levels and made an assessment where fencing
would assist us in the work that we do. Typically in this area
the fencing is dedicated to locations where there's an urban
interface where both cities in Mexico and the U.S. are close to
the border or are built up close to the border. That fencing in
those areas assists us in being more efficient and more
effective.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just want to say to Chairman Norris it
was my privilege a couple of years ago to visit your Nation.
And hopefully a couple of my relatives playing for the Arizona
Wildcats will come and help your football team. Chairman
Norris, one thing you mentioned about being at the table. If
you're not at the table, you're going to be on the menu. And
please stay the course and continue your efforts in making sure
that the people and your Nation's needs and interests are
protected.
And, Mayor Foster, you know, as someone once said, unjust
laws are no laws at all. And would you consider these waivers
of these 37 laws just an effort on the part of the Federal
government to do this?
Mr. Foster. Yes, sir, absolutely. We--our country is based
on law. We are based on and we operate by law. I mean, that
would be lawless if we had--again, for that reason, we're
asking to have the Secretary's waiver authority repealed. I
mean, where does it end?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is this proposed fence construction, is
it going to have any impact on economics between Matamoros and
Brownsville as an example?
Mr. Foster. Yes. In the Valley, there's 69.9 miles of
fencing scheduled that would be within 1 to 3 mile slips. It
will have an economic impact. I mean, we have--one of the
issues with the Texas border, of the 2,000 miles of southern
border, Texas enjoys approximately 1,250 miles. We're the most
populated border. We have the most relations with sister
cities. That's not to say that we don't have issues on those
borders.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm sorry, Mr. Foster. The Chairman is
going to kill me if I continue with the questioning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much. You know, we are talking
about and I've talked to some people here about creating
funnels. They would call it a certain way, but we have created
a funnel. Because when we have a 2,000-mile border and only 700
miles of fences, they don't think they can go around those 700
miles and go to those 1,300 miles? And one of the things that
we haven't touched on today is the Canadian border. What have
we done--Chief, maybe you can help me. Are we doing anything on
the Canadian border?
Mr. Vitiello. I'm not aware of any specific projects that
are ongoing with the Canadian border in regards to fencing as a
separate infrastructure. I can tell you that in my previous
assignment in Vermont on the Canadian border, the only
particular areas of that border where we knew that
infrastructure to block the paved roads and unpaved roads that
crossed the border--we looked for tactical infrastructure to
stop that traffic, that traffic that we knew was putting us all
in jeopardy. So there may not be the same kind of tactical
infrastructure contemplated for the northern border, but it
will be part of a complete solution.
But let's not forget that the fence that we're requesting
here is not an ultimate solution. We recognize that people can
defeat physical infrastructure. We're asking for fencing. We're
doing very well in improving the level of staff, Border Patrol
agents and mission support folks in every sector. And then
we're looking on top of all, where there will be fence and
where there won't be fence, a technological solution that cues
the activity and increases our efficiency. So it's not just
walls or fences. It's part of a complete solution that includes
all three elements.
Mr. Ortiz. Am I correct that the border, the length of the
border in Canada is twice as long as the Mexico side?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes.
Mr. Ortiz. OK. Are you familiar--and I know you are--with
the OTMs?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes.
Mr. Ortiz. Have you heard of that?
Mr. Vitiello. It's the agency vernacular for folks that we
arrest that are not from Mexico.
Mr. Ortiz. And I can remember, you know, and I think I
brought that to the forefront, that the--if you were coming
across, you know, and if you were a Mexican, those were the
only ones that were apprehended. Am I correct?
Mr. Vitiello. Well, there was and there is a difference in
sort of the options available for folks that are not from
Mexico that are arrested here. Since Mexico is our neighbor,
the people that are apprehended here from Mexico are treated in
a separate way under the administrative process.
Mr. Ortiz. But the thing is this. Now, I remember going to
some of the checkpoints here. People would come in and say,
``I'm not Mexican. Arrest me. Arrest me. I'm not Mexican.''
They had no identification whatsoever. And they were given a
piece of paper with no picture, no fingerprints, no nothing,
and they were told to report to an immigration law office
within 45 days.
Mr. Vitiello. Previously we did not have the detention
space or funding available to hold folks that were arrested
here that weren't from Mexico to allow them to have their due
process right. Under the administrative proceeding, they were
given a notice to appear. That policy has ended.
Mr. Ortiz. But it lasted for about two or three years.
Mr. Vitiello. I'm sorry.
Mr. Ortiz. Or maybe longer than that. The OTMs, how long
was it being done?
Mr. Vitiello. It was for many years. But I can tell you
that in 2006 in this sector and all the others in the south
along the border, those folks are now detained and held in
custody until their administrative process is completed. So
that the policy of catch and release--called catch and
release--has been ended. With the great support from Congress
and the leadership shown by the Department of Homeland
Security, we are now able to detain everyone who is amenable to
deportation proceedings within the United States.
Mr. Ortiz. And I know we have numbers. We have two more
panels. But it looks to me like all of a sudden we saw the
light. The fence--the fence, you know, that's what we need to
do after we let thousands and thousands and thousands, maybe
millions of people come in, not only from Mexico--most of the
people from Mexico come here looking for jobs. People from all
over the world came through because they were not Mexicans. And
all of a sudden we've seen the light and the answer is a fence,
a 700-mile fence--and let me--and I want to be real quick now.
Are we having any damages done to the fencing that is being
built now?
Mr. Vitiello. I'm aware that once infrastructure is in
place on the border, if it's not protected and patrolled
adequately, smugglers will try to defeat any physical
infrastructure. That's part of our charge when we're trying to
take operational control of the border, we're aware of when
that activity occurs and do our best to stop it.
Mr. Ortiz. Can you give us an estimate as to how much it
costs to repair?
Mr. Vitiello. I'm happy to go back to the agency and get
this sort of nationwide wrap-up on these types of things but I
don't have it today.
Mr. Ortiz. And we appreciate the work that you do and I
know that sometimes you're mandated by higher-ups and we
understand that.
Mr. Vitiello. We appreciate the support. And let me be
clear that the 69.6 miles that we've requested for the Rio
Grande Valley is something that I've been able to validate
since my assignment began in July. And I would not be asking
the taxpayers or the Congress or the department, the CBP, to
support that if I didn't believe it was necessary.
Mr. Ortiz. We can't afford to be spending another $20
million like we did on technology in Arizona when our people
are having to pay $4 a gallon on gasoline. And that's, to me,
you know, taxpayers' money. That's the taxpayers' money. I
appreciate the work you've done. And, again, we have two other
panels. I think--go ahead.
Mr. Foster. Maybe the Secretary could get Boeing to waive
that fee.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Vitiello. Anyway, let me--I
have--in lieu of follow-up questions, I would encourage my
colleagues at the dais here to forward written questions. I
certainly had a couple of rounds, but I think that for the sake
of time and for the sake of our other panelists that have
patiently been waiting, I will submit those for the record. And
with that, let me thank this panel very much for your testimony
today. It's much appreciated and invite the next panel up.
Thank you.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Pursuant to Clause 2 of
House Rule 11, I ask that the witnesses please stand and raise
their right hand to be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Grijalva. Let the record indicate that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. You're now under oath and we'll
begin to hear your testimony. And we'll begin with The Most
Reverend Raymundo Pena, Bishop of Brownsville. And, Bishop,
with all due respect, you don't know how uncomfortable I was
swearing you in right now. That's another story for another
time. Welcome, sir. Thank you, Father, for your time, and we
look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE MOST REV. RAYMUNDO J. PENA,
BISHOP OF BROWNSVILLE
Bishop Pena. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Madam
Chair, and members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife
and Oceans. I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you
regarding this very important issue. As I begin my testimony,
let me offer a few observations that will allow for a
substantive and truthful discussion on the proposed topic of
this hearing. As a man dedicated to pastoral ministry, let me
remind everyone here that the issues before this Subcommittee
should not be used for partisan advantage. We have to guard
against policy disputes that encourage or excuse ethnic
hostility or discrimination. We must continue to seriously
discuss legitimate concerns regarding the protection of our
borders, curbing the flow of unlawful immigration, the
potential displacement of native workers and the possibility of
exploitation with guest worker programs.
These issues are not to be ignored, exaggerated, dismissed
or used as political weapons. The Church calls for charity and
justice at all times and especially in a public forum such as
this.
The wall has been discussed very frequently and thoroughly
in this part of Texas because our community is a border
community. For many Americans the emphasis is on the word
border, but for us who have lived in this area for generations,
the reality is that community comes first, and our community
has existed long before the border was ever drawn.
This wall, built on U.S. soil, will not only move the U.S.
border inward from the Rio Grande River, but will also alienate
people and businesses who live and work between the wall and
the border, in effect creating a zone where U.S. citizens and
businesses exist south of the border.
In addition to the existing human community, which has
thrived in this land for hundreds of years, the Rio Grande
Valley houses several wildlife refuges and parks that preserve
God's creation. Therefore, let me humbly advise the
Subcommittee that the word ``expedite'' should not be part of
the dialogue. For a great many people living in the Rio Grande
Valley, building a wall along the border would not mean
protection from the outside world, but the building of a
barrier between families, friends and businesses.
I am very concerned as well about the wall's proposed
location and the possibility that it might be a barrier that
may prevent us from fulfilling our pastoral mission in parts of
this diocese. It would be wrong to discuss this in terms of
expecting--of expediting construction before our community has
had a chance to voice its opinion on the merits of why we
oppose the wall.
We oppose the construction of the wall because one-
dimensional solutions may be simple, but they are often
illusions and can make things worse. No fence we can build will
be long enough or high enough to wall out the human and
economic forces that drive undocumented immigrants into our
country. We oppose the wall because immigration policies that
begin and end at our borders will not be successful. We oppose
the wall because residents of the Valley and visitors from
across the country stand to lose the opportunity to visit and
enjoy the vibrant wildlife areas unique to our Valley, places
where all can discover and connect with God's creations and
with one another.
I have, therefore, supported Valley Interfaith's petition
against the border wall and have invited our parishioners to
support it as well. To date over 10,000 registered voters have
signed this petition. Instead of a wall, we need Congress to
pass comprehensive immigration reform. Instead of a wall, we
need national policies that help overcome the pervasive poverty
and deprivation, violence and oppression that push people to
leave their own homes. We need policies that promote family
unity, debt reduction, economic development, foreign aid and
fair global trade. These are essential elements that the Church
recommends for effective comprehensive immigration reform.
Let me say again that rather than debating the impacts of a
wall, what we need is a constructive discussion that neither
diminishes our nation nor divides our communities, but instead
achieves realistic, practical and principled steps toward
solving the challenges that face our nation. I thank you for
this opportunity. I thank you for your attention and I will
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Pena follows:]
Statement of The Most Reverend Raymundo J. Pena,
Bishop of the Diocese of Brownsville
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and good morning to all the members of
the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. I thank you for
this opportunity to speak to you regarding this very important issue
and I welcome you to our beautiful State of Texas and our home in the
Rio Grande Valley. My name is Raymundo J. Pena and I am the Bishop of
the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brownsville. Our diocese operates one
hundred and seven parishes and missions for the approximately eight
hundred thousand Catholics who live in the Valley and we also serve the
greater population of nine hundred and forty thousand through a shrine
and retreat center, twelve parochial schools, five centers for social
services, three homes for the aged, and religious education programs at
all parishes and missions.
As I begin my testimony, let me offer a few observations that will
allow for a substantive and fruitful discussion on the proposed topic
of this hearing, ``Walls and Waivers: Expedited Construction of the
Southern Border Wall and Collateral Impacts to Communities and the
Environment.''
This title sounds imposing and, indeed, the topic of building a
wall between the United States and Mexico has generated a lot of
controversy in our community. Passion and strong convictions can be
good ingredients for an informative civic discourse, however, anger is
no substitute for wisdom, attacks are no substitute for dialogue, and
feeding fears will not help us find solutions to the challenges that
lie before us.
As a man dedicated to pastoral ministry, let me remind everyone
here that the issues before this Subcommittee should not be used for
partisan advantage. We have to guard against policy disputes that
encourage or excuse ethnic hostility or discrimination. We must
continue to seriously discuss legitimate concerns regarding the
protection of our borders, curbing the flow of unlawful immigration,
the potential displacement of native workers, and the possibility of
exploitation within guest worker programs. These issues are not to be
ignored, exaggerated, dismissed, or used as political weapons. The
Church calls for charity and justice at all times, and especially in a
public forum such as this.
The ``Wall'' has been discussed very frequently and thoroughly in
this part of Texas, because our community is a border community. For
many Americans the emphasis is on the word ``border'' but for those
families that have lived in this area for generations, the reality is
that the community comes first and our community has existed long
before the border was ever drawn. This Wall, built on U.S. Soil, will
not only move the U.S. border inward from the Rio Grande River, but
will also alienate people and businesses who live and work between the
Wall and the border, in effect creating a zone where U.S. citizens and
businesses exist ``south of the border.'' This is problematic not only
for the movement of people and goods between the U.S. area north and
south of the wall, but also because it creates a new mentality of who
is and who is not a U.S. citizen.
In addition to the existing human community, which has thrived in
this land for hundreds of years, the Rio Grande Valley houses several
wildlife refuges and parks that preserve God's creation. Wildlife areas
including the International Falcon Reservoir, Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley
State Park, Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, Lower Rio Grande Valley
National Wildlife Refuge, Nature Conservancy's Southmost Preserve and
Texas Sabal Palm Sanctuary would be threatened by such a wall. These
parks enhance family life in our community.
Therefore, let me humbly advise the Subcommittee that the word
``expedite'' should not be a part of this dialogue. For a great many
people living in the Rio Grande Valley building a wall along the border
would not mean protection from the outside world, but instead, the
collateral impact of building a wall would mean building a barrier
between families, friends, and businesses. The wall would mean
physically living, on a daily basis, with a massive edifice that almost
no one here wants. There is a great deal of confusion in our community
about the location of the wall and which properties and communities
would be directly impacted. I am very concerned about the wall's
proposed location and the possibility that it might be a barrier that
may prevent us from fulfilling our pastoral mission in parts of this
diocese. It is not clear to me if our historic church properties and
missions might be impacted. It would be wrong to discuss this in terms
of expediting construction before our community has had a chance to
voice its opinion on the merits of why we oppose the wall.
We oppose the construction of the wall because one-dimensional
solutions may be simple, but they are often illusions and can make
things worse. No fence we can build will be long enough or high enough
to wall out the human and economic forces that drive undocumented
immigrants into our country. We oppose the wall because immigration
policies that begin and end at our borders will not be successful. We
oppose the wall because it poses a serious threat of increased flooding
in our region in the event of a hurricane, which on this coast is not a
possibility, but a reality. We oppose this wall because residents of
the Valley--and visitors from across the country--stand to lose the
opportunity to visit the vibrant wildlife areas unique to our Valley,
places where all can discover and connect with God's creation and with
one another. I have, therefore, supported Valley Interfaith's petition
against the Border Wall and have invited parishes in the diocese to
support it, as well. To date over 10,000 registered voters have signed
this petition.
Instead of a wall, we need Congress to pass comprehensive
immigration reform. Instead of a wall, we need national policies that
help overcome the pervasive poverty and deprivation, violence and
oppression that push people to leave their own homes. We need policies
that promote family unity, debt reduction, economic development,
foreign aid and fair global trade. These are essential elements that
the Church recommends for effective comprehensive immigration reform.
I should also add that a collateral consequence from Congress not
passing any comprehensive immigration reform has been the flood of
local and state proposals in Texas to deal with this federal issue. In
our most recent session of the state legislature, more than sixty bills
were introduced that attempted, among other things, to fund local law
enforcement agencies to act as federal border agents, bar the
undocumented from access to any public education or emergency
healthcare, and deny citizenship to any child born in Texas to
undocumented parents. Fortunately, nearly all of these punitive
measures were defeated, last year. Our next legislative session is
scheduled to begin in January and we are bracing for all these bills to
be re-introduced.
Let me say again, that rather than debating the impacts of a wall,
what we need is a different type of debate. We need a constructive
discussion that neither diminishes our nation nor divides our
communities, but instead achieves realistic, practical, and principled
steps towards solving the challenges that face our nation.
Thank you again for your attention, I look forward to any questions
that you might have for me at this time.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me now call upon Ms. Betty
Perez, local private landowner active in this community.
Looking forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BETTY PEREZ, LOCAL PRIVATE LANDOWNER
Ms. Perez. Thank you. My name is Betty Perez. I am with No
Border Wall, a grassroots coalition of people coming from many
different perspectives to oppose the wall. We thank you,
Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Bordallo, for having this
field hearing here in the Valley, and we thank you all for
coming down to the border to hear from the community that will
suffer most of the consequences of the border wall.
Members of the coalition, of the No Border Wall Coalition,
may differ as to the solution of the immigration problems and
the security problems the U.S. suffers, but we are all united
in one aspect, we don't believe this wall is the answer. Our
diverse group consists of people who really care about the Rio
Grande Valley's environment and who don't want to see it
scarred, social activists and clergy who believe that we are
treating desperate Mexican people inhumanely, farmers and
ranchers who mostly want to get water to their crops and their
cattle and easily access their land, business professionals
worried about the effects a wall will have on the economy of an
already impoverished area, and historians and archaeologists
who are afraid we'll lose some of our rich history. There are
people in this group that think this wall is plain and blatant
racism, those that are afraid the border is becoming more and
more militarized, and those who are dismayed at the way the
government is trampling upon our Constitutional rights.
We don't want a war zone in the Valley. We don't want to
make enemies of our Mexican friends and neighbors, and we fear
that the United States is trending toward isolating itself from
the rest of the world when we wall ourselves off.
We know that Secretary Michael Chertoff and the DHS mislead
the Nation by saying that residents along the border have had
an opportunity to make their views heard numerous times. In
fact, the handful of open house meetings the DHS held left
people frustrated and angry that their questions were not
answered and that their opinions could only be written or given
to a stenographer. Now even that input will not be released
because of Mr. Chertoff's waivers. Where did those comments go?
Other than this hat I wear called No Border Wall activist,
I wear a few others in giving my testimony today. I'm a
landowner, a native plant grower, and I manage my family's
cattle ranch and dryland farm. Thankfully, it's not right on
the border. I helped organize a nonprofit canoe touring
enterprise in the Rio Grande, which caters to ecotourists, and
I can proudly say I'm a paddler. I'm a Valley native of Mexican
descent and have roots here that go back centuries. There are a
lot of people like me in the Valley who can talk long and
proudly of our family history. My family's ranch was bought in
the '30s, but my roots in the Valley go back into Mexico and to
the Texas land grants of the 1700s. There are Valley people
along the river who still own land first granted by the king of
Spain.
We know how hard it is to hold on to land through the
years, through hard times, high taxes, drought and eminent
domain, but the longer you do hold on to that land, the more
the land becomes part of who you are.
As a rancher and farmer, I also understand how important
access to water is. The Valley is still in its worst recorded
drought in history. You brought rain. We thank you. It didn't
stop the drought, however. We measure rainfall by the
hundredths of an inch. The ranch got 1.01 inches last night.
The wall will diminish essential access to water for farmers
and ranchers along the river.
The hat that I wear that has led me to actively work
against the wall is that of environmentalist. Because of the
Valley's location on a major flyway for migratory birds in an
area that includes coastal, riverine, semi-arid and semi-
tropical habitats, we have one of the nation's richest
collections of birds, butterflies and plants. We have rare
species of cats that most of us only dream of seeing. We have a
beautiful river, a getaway, a recreational relief from the
heat, the dust and the busy metropolis that most of the Valley
has become.
It is this river that brings birders and butterfliers and
an estimated $125 million a year from ecotourism, this river
that we will lose access to because of the wall.
And the Rio Grande is the basis of a fantastic dream for
many of us, the completion of 275 miles of an international
greenbelt running alongside it and across it from the Gulf of
Mexico to Falcon Dam. This wildlife corridor extends down the
Gulf Coast into Mexico's wetlands and would have the potential
to expand to the nearby mountains of Mexico, even down into
Central America.
In many places along the river the corridor of wild habitat
extends north over the levee, so the proposed levee wall would
cut off the habitat to the north from access to the river and
the corridor. Congress has supported the wildlife corridor with
funding for over 20 years. The wall and levee wall will
devastate it. It is a crime to take down 100-year-old trees
lining the river in Starr County necessary for rare birds like
the red-billed pigeon and the gray hawk for a wall that most of
us believe won't work.
It is wrong to wall off our Sabal Palm Grove, the nation's
pristine Southmost Preserve and the refuge tract at the Lower
Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. It is wrong to cut
off access to water to terrestrial animals north of the levee
wall.
Today the coalition is submitting a letter to Congress
asking for a moratorium on the construction of the wall. Quote,
``A moratorium will allow time to assess the value of border
walls in the overall national security strategy and ensure that
we do not needlessly sacrifice the social, economic, and
environmental health of our border region.'' It has been signed
by environmental, religious, social justice and business groups
from all over the country. Our list of signatories grows by the
day. I have submitted it in my written testimony and I'd like
to personally present it to each of you today.
We in No Border Wall have been concerned enough to do
something about the wall, to call and write letters to you, our
representatives, to organize rallies against it and get the
word out to the rest of the Nation that something awful is
happening down on the Rio Grande. We're still trying to do
that, and thank you for giving us this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Perez follows:]
Statement of Betty Perez, No Border Wall Coalition
My name is Betty Perez. I am an active member of the coalition, No
Border Wall. Thank you Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Bordallo for
organizing this field hearing, and thank you all for actually coming
down to the border to listen to what our community has to say about the
border wall.
Secretary Michael Chertoff and the DHS are either out of touch or
misleading the nation in saying that residents along the border have
had this opportunity to be heard many times before. The handful of open
house meeting they held, left people frustrated and angry that their
questions were not answered and that their opinions could only be
written or given to a stenographer. These meetings were not
opportunities for public input or dialogue; they were rigid forums
where DHS did not listen or respond to legitimate concerns. Now even
that input we are told will not be gathered and released because of Mr.
Chertoff's abuse of the REAL-ID Act waivers.
I'll venture to say that if you get out and actually talk to the 3
million people who live along the Texas border and who are being
directly affected by this intrusive wall, you will find that
overwhelmingly, they are against it. Those who are for it have loud,
angry voices, and those are the ones being heard in Washington. Mostly
folks down here will say that the wall is a big waste of money, there's
serious doubt we can stop the Bush Administration from rolling over our
wishes to stop it, and that someone's getting richer because of it.
I'll sum up who the No Border Wall group is with words written by
one of the No Border Wall founders, Scott Nicol: ``NO BORDER WALL is a
grassroots coalition of groups and individuals united in our belief
that a border wall will not stop illegal immigration or smuggling and
will not make the United States any safer. A border wall tells the
world that we are a fearful nation, not a strong and confident nation,
and that we are unable to address difficult issues in an intelligent
and meaningful way. It will do irreparable harm to our borderlands and
our country as a whole.''
The coalition consists of people coming from a lot of different
perspectives and backgrounds. There are people who really care about
the Rio Grande Valley's environment and who don't want to see it
scarred; there are social activists and clergy who believe that we are
treating desperate Mexican people inhumanely; there are farmers and
ranchers who mostly want to get water to their crops and their cattle
and easily access their land; there are business professionals worried
about the affects a wall will have on the economy of an already
impoverished area. There are people in this group that think this wall
is plain and blatant racism; those that just love this area and don't
want to see our unique culture ruined by a wall; those that are afraid
the border is becoming more and more militarized; and those that are
dismayed at the way the government is trampling upon our Constitutional
rights.
I should tell you now why we use the word wall. When I hear the
word fence I think of the barbed wire fences that separate properties
and pastures. Even the cows can get through those if the grass is a lot
greener on the other side. Or I think of the cedar fence around my
mother's yard. It's easy to get past a fence, not so easy to get past a
wall. And that's what has been proposed here by the Bush
Administration--a wall that illegal immigrants and terrorists can get
through by going over it or under it or around it--but that terrestrial
wildlife will not be able to pass. You can't change what a bad thing
inherently is by giving it a sweeter name. It's not a fence and it's
not just a levee with its river side made of 2' thick and 18' high
cement. It's a wall. Why is Secretary Chertoff building it? The
appropriations bill passed last December removed the requirement that
Mr. Chertoff build walls in our area. But he's doing it anyway.
When I think of a wall, I think of the one being built between
Israel and Palestine, and of the ongoing violence on the border between
those warring countries. Or I think of the wall between East and West
Berlin, and how that monstrosity once separated the German people. Or I
think of the Wall of China that isolated that country from the rest of
the world for centuries. We don't want a war zone here in the Valley.
We don't want to make enemies of our Mexican friends and neighbors, and
we don't think the United States should isolate itself from the rest of
the world.
Other than this new hat I wear called activist, I wear a few other
hats in giving my testimony today--I'm a landowner and manage my
family's cattle ranch and dry land farm, which thankfully is fourteen
miles north of the border and not directly affected by the wall. I
helped organize a canoe touring enterprise on the Rio Grande when I was
director of the Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, and can proudly wear
the hat of a paddler now. I'm a Valley native of Mexican descent and
have roots in the Rio Grande Valley that go back centuries on both my
parents' sides
As a rancher, farm owner and native plants grower, I strongly
relate to those who are in danger of being cut off from their water
source by a wall. I worry about our cattle and crops, because it has
been 6 months since we've had a decent rain. Much of the water that our
cattle and the wildlife drink on our land is drawn up by windmills. Our
farm land is at the mercy of rain; we don't have irrigation. The native
plants we grow are watered from rain water that we collect off our
roofs. To put it another way, water is not taken for granted in these
parts. We measure rainfall by the hundredth of an inch after all. So if
farmers and ranchers along the river have a difficult time getting to
their water in 100-degree heat, you know why most of them are against
the construction of this wall.
There are a lot of people like me in the Valley who can talk long
and proudly about their deep roots here. Although the ranch my family
owns now was bought in the 30's by my maternal grandfather, my roots in
the Valley go back into Mexico and to the Texas land grants of the
1700's on both my maternal and paternal sides. There are Valley people
who still own family land going back centuries. All of you have no
doubt heard about Dr. Eloise Tamez' struggle to keep what family land
she has in El Calaboz or of the citizens of Granjeno, who have already
lost some of their land to the levee system. It's hard to hold onto
land through hard times, high taxes, drought, and eminent domain. But
the longer you do, the more the land becomes part of who you are. It is
wrong for our government to seize it and tear it in two for a wall that
won't work.
At heart though, and maybe partly because of these other hats I
wear, I'm an environmentalist. I got involved in actively protesting
the wall, because I am an environmentalist. We have something quite
unique here in the Valley that I strongly feel needs to be protected
and enhanced. Because of our location on the Central Flyway for
migratory birds, in an area that includes coastal habitats, riparian
habitats, semi-arid and semi-tropical habitats, we have an incredible
biodiversity of birds, butterflies and plants. We have rare species of
cats that most of us dream of seeing. We have a beautiful river, a
getaway, a recreational relief from the heat, the dust and the busy
metropolis that most of the Valley has become. The river should be
promoted for its recreational and health benefits and not made
inaccessible. This is an area that has few such recreational
opportunities and a population that has a large incidence of diabetes,
due to poor eating habits and little exercise.
And the river is the basis of a wonderful dream for many of us--the
completion of 275 miles of greenbelt running along the Rio Grande, on
the Mexican side too, from the Gulf of Mexico to Falcon Reservoir. This
wildlife corridor would extend across the river, and down the wetlands
of the Gulf Coast. It wouldn't stop at Falcon either, this corridor for
wildlife has the potential to expand into the nearby mountains of
Mexico, and even down into Central America, keeping endangered and non-
endangered species alive and healthy. It wouldn't stop at our flood
control levees, which were not intended to stop wildlife, or illegal
immigrants and terrorists for that matter, but would reach into the
tiny islands of brush on the north side of the levees that need to be
connected to the river system.
The levee-wall being proposed by some local representatives is a
bad idea. It will be just as bad for the environment as the original
fence proposals. It is absolutely impenetrable to terrestrial animals--
a true wall even though local representatives have characterized it by
saying we will no longer have the wall in some areas due to get it.
Furthermore, with Chertoff's latest waivers, specifically for the
levee-wall, no environmental impact studies will have to be made for
it. The idea is being rushed along with no proper studies of its
safety. And it is bound to insure that the Mexican side of the river
with levees two-feet high in some places is what ends up getting
potential flood waters from a hurricane.
When I had the time to volunteer for the Friends of the Wildlife
Corridor, I lobbied in DC two times to get Congress to appropriate
money so that land along the river, mostly farmland, could be bought at
good prices from willing sellers and turned into the corridor. We were
relatively successful. Nearly $90 million dollars into the project, the
Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge is over half-
completed. And now Congress has voted to bulldoze through hundreds of
those hard-earned acres. When 95% of native brush is already gone in
the Lower Rio Grande Valley, then each acre cleared is significant.
Ecotourists from all over the world generate more than $125 million
dollars for local economies, which is very significant for counties
with an average annual median household income of $15,000. Birders come
here to see birds reaching their northern limits here in the Valley;
that are found nowhere else in the U.S. They come to see ``million
dollar birds'' like the brown jay, the green kingfisher, the great
kiskadee and the green jay. They come to get rare glimpses of the red-
billed pigeon and gray hawk, two birds that need the large trees that
grow along the river to roost and nest in. In Starr County these trees,
some of them hundreds of years old, will be bulldozed right next to the
river.
How will these tourists access the best birding areas? Will refuge
managers let staff or work and fire crews go between the walls and the
river? Probably not; it won't be safe. How will the 300 fires that
start in the wildlife corridor every year be brought under control?
Will Sabal Palm Grove and Southmost Preserve have to be closed because
they are on the river side of the levees? Probably; it won't be safe.
No Border Wall is asking Congress for a moratorium on the border
wall. I quote from our moratorium letter: ``We are deeply troubled by
the headlong rush to build walls along the United States' southern
border without meaningful consideration of the walls' negative impacts
on border communities and the environment, and without evidence that
such walls will enhance national security or curtail illegal
immigration and smuggling. The border wall is a monumental project that
will severely impact the entire 1,954-mile southern border and the 11
million U.S. citizens who live along it. A moratorium will allow time
to assess the value of border walls in the overall national security
strategy, and ensure that we do not needlessly sacrifice the social,
economic and environmental health of our border region.'' I am
including our moratorium letter at the end of this written testimony.
We in No Border Wall have been concerned enough about the building
of this wall to try and do something about it, to exercise our
democratic rights, to call and write letters to our representatives,
organize rallies against it, and try to get the word out to the rest of
the nation that something awful is happening down on the Rio Grande.
Thank you again for this opportunity to hear our voices.
Call for a Moratorium
Dear Representative,
We urge you to enact an immediate moratorium on border wall
construction. We are deeply troubled by the headlong rush to build
walls along the United States' southern border without meaningful
consideration of the walls' negative impacts on border communities and
the environment, and without evidence that such walls will enhance
national security or curtail illegal immigration and smuggling. The
border wall is a monumental project that will severely impact the
entire 1,954-mile southern border and the 11 million U.S. citizens who
live along it. A moratorium will allow time to assess the value of
border walls in the overall national security strategy, and ensure that
we do not needlessly sacrifice the social, economic and environmental
health of our border region.
There are numerous problems with the border wall project and the
way it has been implemented thus far:
The Department of Homeland Security has yet to develop a coherent
border strategy: Rather than evaluating the relative effectiveness of a
border wall versus other security measures such as more boots on the
ground, DHS begins with the conclusion that border walls must be built.
Even though construction is due to begin immediately, DHS still claims
that they have not yet determined the border walls' final route. The
Draft Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments
written for the border wall lack key information that is required by
federal law, including final maps and design specifications. In
addition, alternatives that were rejected outright in the draft
environmental studies, such as building the walls into the flood
control levee system, are being hastily revived and pursued. Critical
questions regarding the levee-walls' impacts on public safety, on
private and public property, and on wildlife remain unanswered.
The border wall does not appear to be based on operational needs:
According to the Border Patrol's own statistics, illegal crossing of
the southern border decreased significantly between 2006 and 2007,
including a 34% decrease in the Rio Grande Valley Sector and a 46%
decrease in the Del Rio Sector. Both Texas sectors are slated to get
walls despite this reduction and in spite of intense local opposition.
By contrast, the heavily fortified San Diego Sector, where a triple-
layer wall divides the border, saw a 7% increase in illegal crossing,
suggesting that walls are not a meaningful deterrent for undocumented
crossers. Indeed, a June 2007 Congressional Research Service report
concluded that the walls in San Diego had ``no discernible impact'' on
the number of people entering the U.S. illegally. The Border Patrol has
also stated repeatedly that a wall only slows crossers down by a few
minutes, rather than stopping them.
According to Secretary Chertoff, there is no imminent threat along
the southern border: While DHS has frequently referred to the threat of
``terrorists and terrorist weapons'' crossing the southern border in
order to justify the breakneck speed of border wall construction,
Secretary Chertoff has admitted that no potential terrorists have ever
been apprehended on the southern border. In February he told the New
York Daily News, ``I don't see any imminent threat'' of terrorists
infiltrating from Mexico. Yet DHS has fast-tracked the border wall
project and expects to complete 370 miles by December of this year. In
the absence of an imminent threat this deadline appears to be an
arbitrary and politically-motivated date timed to coincide with the end
of the Bush Administration's period in office.
Border residents are not protected by the rule of law: Section 102
of the Real ID Act of 2005 gives Secretary Chertoff the power to waive
all laws in order to build border walls. Such power concentrated in the
hands of a single unelected official undermines democratic processes
and places border residents under an undue burden, denying them the
same legal protections guaranteed to all other United States citizens.
Secretary Chertoff has issued 5 Real ID Act waivers to date, the most
recent one setting aside 36 federal laws along the entire southern
border. Secretary Chertoff can, and has, used waivers as trump cards in
the face of legal challenges, waiving the very laws that were the basis
of successful lawsuits. This has had a chilling effect on those
individuals and entities that have legitimate cases against DHS and has
permitted the agency to disregard public safety, environmental
protection, and humanitarian concerns. The only conceivable reason for
DHS to waive laws is because they know that their actions will break
them.
The wall could have permanent adverse impacts on border
communities: When the border wall project is complete, walls will slice
through municipal and private property, federally protected natural
areas, state parks, and even a university campus. Homes will be
bulldozed, and farmers and ranchers may be unable to access portions of
their property. Along the Rio Grande, access to the river for
municipal, agricultural, and recreational uses will be disrupted. In
the hurricane-prone Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, the border
wall is planned to be constructed on or near the flood control levees
that parallel the river. A similar levee-wall is also planned for
Presidio, Texas near Big Bend National Park. No studies have yet been
published that describe what impact the wall would have on flooding or
on the integrity of these levee systems, and DHS has announced that in
order to speed construction no further studies will be done.
The negative impacts of the border wall will fall
disproportionately on poor and minority citizens: Although there are
many vibrant local economies along the border, approximately one-
quarter of the population in the counties along the border live at or
below the poverty line. This is more than double the national poverty
rate. In addition, most of the counties in the border region have
majority-minority populations. Given these demographics, the potential
social, economic, and environmental damage caused by border walls could
be magnified and will certainly affect poor and minority communities
disproportionately. Nevertheless, DHS has failed to adequately examine
environmental justice issues.
Existing walls have created a humanitarian crisis in the
Southwestern desert: DHS has continued to operate under the false
assumption that the harsh conditions of the desert are a deterrent for
people seeking entry into the U.S. The reality is that as DHS builds
walls in populated areas, desperation drives more people into remote
desert areas where hundreds die from dehydration and exposure. The
General Accounting Office found that as walls went up between 1995 and
2005, the number of people who died attempting to enter the U.S.
doubled.
Border walls threaten protected natural lands and already
endangered species: Nearly one-third of the 1,954 mile U.S.-Mexico
border lies within public and tribal lands, including hundreds of miles
within the National Park system. Spectacular wildlife, including both
terrestrial species and resident and migratory birds, rely upon
protected public lands along the border. Many endangered species
including the jaguar, ocelot and the jaguarundi are dependent on border
habitats for survival. Border walls will fragment habitat and isolate
species currently at risk, undermining decades of conservation efforts.
Walls between Mexico and Arizona will end the hope that the jaguar,
which has only recently returned to the U.S., will reestablish itself.
Constructing border walls damages our relationship with Mexico:
Mexico is our neighbor and our largest trading partner, but Mexicans,
from the president on down, see the border wall as an unprovoked
insult. Building walls on the Mexican border, while leaving the
Canadian border wide open, is interpreted by many as racist. In
addition, the wall may also be in violation of a number of treaties
with Mexico, including a 1970 treaty which stipulates that neither the
U.S. nor Mexico can erect any structure that would result in a shift in
the Rio Grande and therefore change the international boundary between
the two countries.
It is irresponsible to erect more walls without a complete
understanding of what the long-term consequences will be. A moratorium
will allow time for a non-partisan organization such as the General
Accounting Office to review both the impacts of the walls that have
already been built and the foreseeable impacts of proposed walls. The
information gleaned from such a careful examination will allow our
nation to better evaluate whether building walls is in fact the best
way to address the complex issues of immigration and national security.
DHS's blind rush to break ground and build fences, without regard for
impacts or likelihood of success makes a Congressional moratorium on
border wall construction imperative.
______
Mr. Grijalva. I would now like to call on our next witness,
Ms. Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations,
NumbersUSA. Welcome. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY JENKS, DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NUMBERSUSA
Ms. Jenks. Thank you very much. Good morning. Chairwoman
Bordallo, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Tancredo,
Congressman Hunter, members of the various Subcommittees and
Committees, thanks for the opportunity to come here today and
discuss the environmental impact of illegal immigration and the
border fence.
My organization, NumbersUSA, represents more than 600,000
Americans and legal residents from every congressional district
in America. They have joined NumbersUSA because they agree on
one thing, we need to set immigration laws in our national
interest and they need to be fairly and effectively enforced.
As this map shows, much of the border land in Arizona is
administered by the Federal government. I have traveled
extensively through this area and spoken with refuge managers,
park service, forest service and field rangers and members of
the Tohono O'odham Nation. Most of the slides in my
presentation are from photos I took during those travels in
Arizona.
The Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness
is one of the most beautiful and one of the most embattled
lands in our country. This map of Cabeza Prieta from 1998 shows
the historical condition of the refuge. There is one major
road, Camino del Diablo, running through it and then a handful
of administrative roads. Over the next five years, this is the
impact of illegal immigration on the refuge. There, the dark
blue is abandoned cars, the turquoise is abandoned bicycles,
the red is new roads, illegal roads and trails created through
this pristine wilderness. The green is where fences have been
cut and cattle have been allowed onto the refuge. There is a
yellow line along the border on this very southern tip where
the entire fence was stolen. And, of course, it was a three-
strand barbed wire fence. It was not the kind of fence we're
talking about today.
Essentially over a period of only five years, illegal
immigration has turned a unique and pristine refuge into a
trash-strewn war zone. Deaths are reported there every year.
During the summer there are weekly search and rescue operations
that the refuge has to pay for. Their Fish and Wildlife Service
law enforcement has to go out and find and save lives, mostly
due to exposure.
These are examples of some of the vehicles that are
abandoned by--usually by smugglers in the refuge, have to be
towed out, often are full of drugs. And this is just a sampling
of the weapons, ammunition, night-vision equipment,
communications equipment that is confiscated from smugglers on
the refuge on a regular basis now.
Between 1999 and 2006 the typical group of illegal aliens
moving across the refuge grew from small groups of five to 10
to large groups of 50 or more. The roads they have carved
through the land are essentially permanent. Because of the soil
composition, the larger ones like this will still be visible
200 years from now even if you manage to stop new illegal
immigration flows along them. And the thousands of tons of
trash will continue to threaten wildlife and water sources for
generations.
There is good news on the refuge. The lesser long-nosed
bat, which was listed as endangered in 1988, is found only in
Arizona, New Mexico and Mexico. There are only four known
maternity roosts in the United States where these bats
reproduce. One is an old mine shaft on the Cabeza Prieta
Wildlife Refuge. The bats abandoned the maternity roost in 2002
and 2003 after drug smugglers began to use the cave to hole up
during the day. Luckily, a common-sense solution has sent the
smugglers packing. A fence was all it look. The bats are back.
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is also on the front
lines of the battle against illegal immigration. This is the
Organ Pipe for which the monument is named. Saguaro cactus,
which can live for hundreds of years, are being cut down by
illegal aliens desperate for water and hoping to find it stored
inside these plants. Since the water is stored in the plant
tissues, they soon realize there is no available source of
water, but the damage is already done.
Just as in Cabeza Prieta, trails are being carved across
the land at Organ Pipe. Judging by this trail, the posted sign
acts more as a marker than a warning. The southern portion of
Organ Pipe is closed to the public because it is too dangerous
for either visitors or park employees due to smuggling
activity. And, again, trash is everywhere.
This memorial stands in front of the Kris Eggle Visitors
Center at Organ Pipe. On August 9th, 2002, Kris, a park ranger,
was gunned down in cold blood by a drug smuggler who drove into
the park from Mexico while being pursued by Mexican
authorities. Having abandoned his vehicle, he ambushed Kris
after Kris responded to calls for assistance from the Border
Patrol. Kris was 28 years old.
This is Kris's dad, Bob Eggle, at the memorial on the spot
where Kris was murdered. Bob sacrificed his eye for his country
while serving in the Army in Vietnam. In 2002 he sacrificed his
only son in another war. Had the vehicle barrier now in place
along the border between Organ Pipe and Mexico been in place in
2002, Kris would be alive today.
East of Organ Pipe is the Tohono O'odham Nation. There,
too, illegal immigration is scarring the land with footpaths,
evidence of smugglers transporting drugs on horseback, and
trash. The Sonoran Desert National Monument is north of the
Tohono O'odham Nation and is administered by the Bureau of Land
Management. Extending well over 100 miles north of the border,
it too is littered with evidence of illegal immigration.
But perhaps the most frightening thing impacting illegal
immigration on our public lands is the presence of what the
military calls LPOPs, or listening posts/observation posts,
essentially machine gun nests on U.S. soil. Mexican cartels
send aliens illegally into the U.S. to take up positions on
hilltops overlooking smuggling transportation routes. They
generally take up positions in pairs. Most are police- or
military-trained and they're armed, often with AK-47s. Their
job is to watch the Border Patrol and other law enforcement and
guide smuggling vehicles around them. These LPOPs are located
on BLM land about 70 miles north of the border between Tucson
and Phoenix, and these are the views they see from the top of
the hillside as they're watching for U.S. law enforcement.
Mr. Grijalva. Ms. Jenks, I extended the courtesy as much as
I did for Ms. Perez, but----
Ms. Jenks. I appreciate that. I will wrap it up right now.
The point of this is that every single law enforcement from all
of our public agencies and Federal agencies walk out of their
home every day, go to work, and know they could be in a gun
sight of one of these spotters. And that is not something we
should ask of them.
The invitation to this hearing asked what message the
border fence would send. My answer is exactly the right
message, that you come legally or you don't come at all because
cheap labor and cheap votes come at an unacceptably high price.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenks follows:]
Statement of Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations,
NumbersUSA
Chairwoman Bordallo, Chairman Grijalva, and Members of the
Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the environmental impacts of the southern border fence. My
organization, NumbersUSA, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan immigration-
reduction organization representing more than 600,000 Americans and
legal residents from every congressional district across this country.
They come from every socio-economic background and they span the
political spectrum from liberal to conservative. They have joined
NumbersUSA because there is one thing on which they all agree: U.S.
immigration law should be set in the national interest and it should be
enforced effectively and humanely throughout the nation.
Our mission reflects the conclusions of the bipartisan U.S.
Commission chaired by the late Barbara Jordan, a dedicated civil rights
leader and Democratic Representative from the state of Texas, in which
we have gathered for this hearing. After studying every aspect of our
immigration system, she concluded in 1994 that:
The credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a
simple yardstick: people who should get in, do get in; people
who should not get in are kept out; and people who are judged
deportable are required to leave. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, U.S. Immigration Policy:
Restoring Credibility. 1994. p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This hearing focuses on the middle part of that equation--keeping
out those who should not get in. As demonstrated by the estimated 12 to
20 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States, and
the estimated million or so new illegal aliens who enter the country
each year, our efforts to date at keeping out those who should not get
in have failed dramatically.
Instead of the credible immigration policy Barbara Jordan
recommended, we have a policy that says, in effect, ``if you can
successfully evade the Border Patrol or overstay a lawful visa, we will
give you a job and let you stay.'' The result, not surprisingly, has
been continued mass illegal immigration.
The chart in Appendix A shows the average net annual growth of the
illegally resident population in the United States. Net annual illegal
immigration has more than quadrupled since the 1980s, when Congress
passed the ``one-time only'' 2 amnesty in the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In fact, Congress has passed six additional amnesties since
1986. See http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amnesty.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the numbers began to skyrocket in the early 1990s, most illegal
entries were occurring in urban areas along the U.S.-Mexico border,
particularly in the San Diego area. Increasing incidents of aliens
being hit by cars as they ran across major highways, high-speed
vehicular chases resulting in crashes, and foot chases through
residential areas, and even into apartment complexes made it clear to
all that illegal immigration in urban corridors presented an
unacceptable threat to human lives--the lives of the aliens, of the
Border Patrol agents whose job was to chase them down, and of the
American citizens and legal residents who happened to get in the way.
Moreover, it was clear to law enforcement that illegal entry in urban
corridors improved the aliens' chances of disappearing into the
community before they could be apprehended, and resulted in increases
in criminal activity, including vandalism, theft, and the violent
crimes associated with human and narcotics trafficking.
Beginning in 1993 with the incredibly successful Operation Hold the
Line, created and implemented by Congressman Silvestre Reyes, when he
was Border Patrol Chief in the El Paso Sector, the Border Patrol began
focusing on closing off the urban corridors and thus reducing the
associated risks. It was hoped that forcing illegal aliens and
smugglers into more remote areas would deter some of them from even
attempting illegal entry, but it was also believed that it would be
easier to catch those who did make the crossing because the Border
Patrol would have more time to apprehend them before they could make it
to an urban area and disappear.
This effort to close off illegal immigration in urban corridors was
undertaken with the explicit support of Congress. In 1996, Congress
passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA)--the original version of which was designed specifically to
implement the immigration policy recommended by the Jordan Commission.
Thanks largely to the efforts of Congressman Duncan Hunter, this law
included a provision that requires the administration to ``take such
actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and
roads in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal
crossings in areas of high illegal entry [most of which were in urban
corridors at that time] into the United States,'' including the
construction of 14 miles of triple fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border
south of San Diego. To accomplish this, it authorized the
administration to waive the requirements of the Endangered Species Act
and the National Environmental Policy Act. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Nearly a decade after enactment of IIRIRA, the administration
still had not completed the original 14 miles of fencing near San Diego
because of challenges by the California Coastal Commission that the
proposed fencing violated state environmental laws. In 2005, Congress
responded by including a provision in the REAL ID Act authorizing the
Secretary of Homeland Security to waive ``all legal requirements'' that
the Secretary determines are necessary to ensure the construction of
the San Diego fence and other necessary border barriers. The Secretary
is required to notify the public of the decision to waive legal
requirements by publishing it in the Federal Register, and any such
decision may be challenged in Federal court on constitutional grounds.
So, while the breadth of this waiver authority is unprecedented,
Congress appropriately ensured that it could not be used without public
notice, and that it could not be used in a way that violates the
Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apprehension statistics show that the effort to control illegal
immigration through urban corridors has been relatively successful. As
the table in Appendix B indicates, apprehensions of illegal aliens in
the San Diego, El Centro, and Laredo sectors, for example, dropped by
50 percent or more between 1997 and 2006. At the same time, however,
apprehensions in the Yuma sector quadrupled and apprehensions in the
Tucson sector rose by almost 50 percent.
The result is hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens walking,
bicycling, and driving across some of the most fragile, protected
ecosystems in the United States. The impact has been particularly
devastating in southern Arizona, where a significant share of the land
is administered by the Federal Government. The most heavily impacted
lands include the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and
Wilderness, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Buenos Aires National
Wildlife Refuge and the Coronado National Memorial.
Among a long list of the devastating environmental impacts of
illegal immigration through these protected areas are the following:
Trash
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that illegal
aliens dumped more than 25 million pounds of trash in the Arizona
desert between 1999 and 2005--that is almost 2,100 tons of trash each
year.
The accumulation of disintegrating toilet paper, human
feces, and rotting food has become a health and safety issue for
residents of and visitors to some of these areas, and is threatening
water supplies in some areas.
Birds and mammals, some endangered, die when they eat or
become entangled in the trash.
Illegal Roads and Abandoned Vehicles
By early 2004, the Chief Ranger at Organ Pipe estimated
that illegal aliens and smugglers had created 300 miles of illegal
roads and ``thousands of miles of illegal trails.''
More than 30 abandoned vehicles are removed from Organ
Pipe alone each year.
Since its creation in 2000, more than 50 illegal roads
have been created in the Ironwood Forest National Monument, and more
than 600 vehicles are abandoned there each year.
There are an estimated 20-25 abandoned vehicles in the
Cabeza Prieta NWR at any given time.
An estimated 180 miles of illegal roads were created in
Cabeza Prieta between 2002 and 2006.
Fires
In 2002 in southern Arizona, illegal aliens were suspected
of having caused at least eight major wildfires that burned 68,413
acres.
In May of 2007, illegal aliens set at least five fires in
the Coronado National Forest over a 10-day period in an effort to burn
out Border Patrol agents conducting a law enforcement operation in the
area.
Declining Wildlife Populations
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, mass illegal
immigration ``is a likely contributing factor in the dramatic 79
percent decline in the U.S. Sonoran pronghorn population between 2000
and 2002.
These are just a few examples of the massive environmental
destruction being caused by rampant illegal immigration in southern
Arizona. Similar damage is being done to remote, fragile lands in
California, New Mexico, and Texas.
There is only one acceptable solution to this environmental crisis:
stop the illegal traffic at the border. That means we must build a
combination of physical barriers and technological barriers that will
effectively ensure that, in the words of the late Barbara Jordan,
``people who should not get in are kept out.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1959.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1959.002
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me now turn to Joan
Neuhaus Schaan, Executive Director, Houston-Harris County
Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council. Your testimony,
please.
STATEMENT OF JOAN NEUHAUS SCHAAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSTON-
HARRIS COUNTY REGIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL
Ms. Schaan. Thank you. Good afternoon. As the committee is
well aware, security is a critical issue on the Texas-Mexican
border, and increasingly in the metropolitan areas. First let
me comment on the smuggling organizations themselves. Mexico is
struggling to maintain civil authority against a potent
adversary, and if it's not successful, the consequences could
be dire. According to studies conducted in Mexico, alien
smuggling profits are now approaching drug smuggling profits.
And according to other studies, of the $16 billion in cash flow
from the United States to Mexico, 10 billion cannot be
accounted for by legal activity.
The increased profitability has resulted in more
professional and ruthless smuggling organizations that now
resemble drug smuggling organizations and/or include the drug
smuggling organizations. As the more ruthless organizations
take over increasing portions of the smuggling trade, anecdotal
evidence indicates prices are rising and operations are
increasingly sophisticated. Currently the flow of illegal
immigrants into the United States is of such proportions that
it overwhelms immigration, law enforcement and the criminal
justice systems of the border states and their communities.
There have been estimates that there are 12 million illegal
aliens in the United States, but given the fact that
approximately 1.2 million are apprehended annually, usually
coming in from the border, and assuming that 10 to 20 percent
of those that come in are apprehended, that means we have 6 to
12 million coming in on an annual basis.
From the point of view of civil authorities, the criminal
organizations outman and outgun law enforcement and they have
extremely effective intelligence-gathering, brutal intimidation
tactics, including beheadings, torture, burnings and threatened
decapitation of children, and they also have very deep pockets
for bribery.
Allow me to offer the opportunity to describe for you the
cycle of violence as experienced in other countries and appears
to be experienced at the beginning stages in Mexico. As civil
authorities struggle to maintain control and are approaching
the tipping point of control, law enforcement officials,
elected officials and judges are assassinated, police stations
are attacked, organized crime influences and then controls
elected officials, and the press is silenced. Once past the
tipping point, the organizations control a community, and those
that do not acquiesce to their activities must leave or face
the consequences.
In its most extreme form, civil authorities cede entire
geographic regions and the lawless organizations develop
enclaves of autonomy, as such has been the case in Colombia and
Lebanon. In recognizing the severity of the situation,
President Calderon is taking unprecedented measures to combat
organized crime.
As Mexico is in the throes of this struggle, in no place is
it more evident than in Nuevo Laredo. The criminal
organizations control the streets after midnight. Judges,
police chiefs and city councilmen have been assassinated.
Executions and firefights occur on a regular basis and have
forced the American Consulate to close for as much as weeks at
a time. Seventy percent of the businesses in Nuevo Laredo have
closed in the past few years, though some of the shop space has
been reoccupied. Mexican businessmen are desperate to live on
the Texas side of the border due to the multiple kidnappings a
week. The local press has stopped reporting on crime after
multiple attacks on their personnel and their offices, and the
San Antonio Express-News and the Dallas Morning Herald have
pulled their Laredo reporters due to concerns for their safety.
In fact, Reporters Without Borders lists Mexico as the most
dangerous country in the world, except for Iraq, for
journalists.
In January military elements arrived in Nuevo Laredo to
take charge of security in the area due to lost confidence in
the public safety officials. And also in January the Texas
Department of Public Safety issued a warning against crossing
the Mexican border. And then on April 14th the State Department
issued a travel alert for Mexico.
The struggles the Mexican authorities are facing are not
dissimilar to what our counties and state are confronting as
the phenomenon spills across the border. The menace of
organized crime's violence and corruption must vigilantly be
guarded against all levels of civil authorities as evidenced by
multiple arrests in Texas in the last year or two. Our law
enforcement agencies are outmanned and outgunned. As I said
before, the criminal organizations are not only armed with
advanced weaponry, including assault rifles, grenades and
grenade launchers, but with rocket launchers capable of
bringing down aircraft, machine guns and explosives, such as
Tovex, which is a highly explosive hydrogel. There are even
suspicions the cartels assisted a Mexican militant group in the
bombing of the energy infrastructure.
The organized criminal activity involves Texas and Texans.
And you may have noticed on her slides of the vehicles that
were caught smuggling back in, most of them appeared to have
United States license plates. Arrests in Mexico regularly
involve U.S. persons and U.S. vehicles, and students are being
approached as they cross from Juarez into El Paso.
The result of this has been very difficult for the ranch
owners. They have difficulty leaving their homes unattended.
When they return, often there is someone in the yard. Speaking
with one ranch manager, he personally in a period of 12 months
had over 300 illegal aliens in his front yard, called Border
Patrol, and had to release many of them because Border Patrol
was not able to come in time.
Mr. Grijalva. If I may, the courtesy has been extended as
well. If you can wrap up.
Ms. Schaan. Well, the other issues have to do with----
Mr. Grijalva. The whole testimony will be part of the
record.
Ms. Schaan. OK.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schaan follows:]
Statement of Joan Neuhaus Schaan, Executive Director,
Houston-Harris County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council
Please allow me this opportunity to first introduce myself. My name
is Joan Neuhaus Schaan. I am the as the Fellow for Homeland Security
and Terrorism Programs at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice
University, and I am also the Executive Director of the Houston-Harris
County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council. The Advisory
Council serves as an independent third party on homeland security
matters and advises the Mayor of Houston, the County Judge, City
Council and Commissioners Court.
Per the request of the staff of Joint Subcommittee staff, I am
offering my comments with regards to Texas Border security. As the
committee is well aware, security is a critical issue on the Texas-
Mexican border, and increasing in the metropolitan areas.
On the border there are several levels of crime--the crime
associated with drug and human smuggling organizations; general crime
outside of the smuggling operations in the form of kidnapping, burglary
and theft; and national security threats posed by elements that choose
to exploit the unique characteristics of our border.
First, let me comment on the smuggling organizations. Mexico is
struggling to maintain civil authority against a potent adversary, and
if not successful, the consequences will be dire. According to studies
conducted in Mexico, alien smuggling profits are now approaching drug
smuggling profits. The increased profitability has resulted in more
professional and ruthless smuggling organizations that now resemble
drug smuggling organizations and/or include drug smuggling
organizations. As the more ruthless organizations take over increasing
portions of the smuggling trade, anecdotal evidence indicates the
prices are rising and operations are increasingly sophisticated.
Currently the flow of illegal immigrants is of such proportions that it
overwhelms immigration, law enforcement and the criminal justice
systems of border states and their communities. Houston alone has an
estimated 400,000 to 450,000 illegal immigrants. This is only an
estimate, as it is illegal to ask an individual about their immigration
status in many instances.
From the point of view of civil authorities, the criminal
organizations outman and out gun law enforcement, they have extremely
effective intelligence gathering, brutal intimidation tactics
(including beheadings, torture, burnings, and threatened decapitation
of children) and deep pockets for bribery. Allow me the opportunity to
describe to you a phenomenon in the cycle of violence as experienced in
other countries. As civil authorities struggle to maintain control and
are approaching the tipping point of control, law enforcement
officials, elected officials, and judges are assassinated; police
stations are attacked; organized crime influences and then controls
elected officials; and the press is silenced. Once past the tipping
point, the organizations control a community, and those that do not
acquiesce to their activities must leave or face the consequences. In
its most extreme form, civil authorities cede entire geographic
regions, and the lawless organizations develop enclaves of autonomy, as
has been the case in Colombia and Lebanon. In recognizing the severity
of the situation in Mexico, President Calderon is taking unprecedented
measures to combat organized crime.
Mexico is in the throws of this struggle as we speak, and in no
place is it more evident than in Nuevo Laredo. The criminal
organizations control the streets after midnight. Judges, police chiefs
and city councilmen have been assassinated. Executions and firefights
occur on a regular basis and have forced the American Consulate to
close for as much as weeks at a time. Seventy percent of the businesses
in Nuevo Laredo have closed in the last few years, though some of the
shop space has been reoccupied. Mexican businessmen are desperate to
live on the Texas side of the border, due to the multiple kidnappings a
week. The local press has stopped reporting on crime after multiple
attacks on their personnel and offices, and the San Antonio Express
News and the Dallas Morning Herald have pulled their Laredo reporters
due to concerns for their safety. In fact, Reporters Without Borders
lists Mexico as the most dangerous country in the world--except for
Iraq--for journalists. Last week, military elements arrived in Nuevo
Laredo to take charge of security in the area, due to lost confidence
in the Public Security officials in the area. In January, the Texas
Department of Public Safety issued a warning against crossing the
Mexican border, and on April 14th the State Department issued a Travel
Alert for Mexico.
The struggles Mexican authorities are facing are not dissimilar to
what our counties and state are confronting as the phenomenon spills
across the border. The menace of organized crime's violence and
corruption must be vigilantly guarded against at all levels of civil
authority, as evidenced by multiple arrests in Texas the last year or
two. Our law enforcement agencies are out manned and out gunned. The
criminal organizations are not only armed with advanced weaponry
including assault rifles, grenades, and grenade launchers, but with
rocket launchers capable of bringing down an airplane, machine guns,
and explosives, such as Tovex, a highly explosive hydro gel. There are
even suspicions the cartels assisted a Mexican militant group in the
bombing of energy infrastructure. The organized criminal activity
involves Texas and Texans. Arrests in Mexico regularly involve U.S.
persons and U.S. vehicles. Students crossing from Juarez to El Paso are
being targeted by drug traffickers. Recently, Mexican cartel members
have order hits on persons in Texas.
As David V. Aguilar, chief of the U.S. Border Patrol has said ``The
American public must understand that this situation is no longer about
illegal immigration or narcotics trafficking. It is about criminals and
smuggling organizations fighting our agents with lethal force to take
over a part of American territory so they can conduct criminal
activity.''
As the volume of smuggling has increased, so have the incidents in
the next level of crime--kidnapping, burglary and theft. Most
kidnappings go unreported, even those involving American citizens, for
fear of retribution. But the crime is not just occurring along the
border. The City of Houston has seen an increase in kidnapping in the
immigrant community, whether legal or illegal. At least one kidnapping
ring was disrupted last year that preyed upon Hispanic immigrants. This
may not be an unusual phenomenon along the border, but it is relatively
new to Houston. One can easily envision the organizations moving beyond
the immigrant population to more lucrative targets.
Burglary and theft has increased with the general level of
smuggling in border communities. I have spoken with many Texans from
rural communities that are fearful in their own homes and who do not
leave their home unattended, because when they return there are
strangers in their home. This is particularly difficult on couples
living alone, because they no longer can leave their home together or
at the same time, even to go to the grocery store, for fear their home
will be burglarized or occupied when they return. In one specific case,
an older rancher, who operated a ranch on the Rio Grande that had been
in his family for generations, made the difficult decision to sell the
ranch, but he is having difficulty finding a buyer that is not
associated with organized crime. The effects of this crime also are
felt in Houston. For example thousands of trucks in Houston were stolen
last year, many of which were later found to be involved in smuggling
operations along the border. Reportedly F-250 and F-350 trucks are
preferred, and at least 1250 Ford F-250 and F-350 trucks were stolen
last year.
The threat resulting from criminal smuggling increasingly looms
over Texas communities, but the violence is not the only threat to
landowners. Landowners are threatened by the lawsuits brought by those
involved, and they need protection from lawsuits when they assist law
enforcement. Currently, landowners that allow law enforcement officers
on to their property are being sued by those involved in the criminal
activity that claim injuries occurred while on the property. This is
particularly true when law enforcement was involved/present during a
pursuit or arrest. While Customs and Border Patrol have statutory
authority to enter property within predefined distances of the border,
the same is not true for other law enforcement agencies and greater
distances from the border. Lawsuits in the last few years have been
brought against landowners in rural areas, for injuries to illegal
immigrants and/or trespassers in the presence of law enforcement,
because the landowner allowed the law enforcement agency on to the
private property. Although the legal application has been in rural
communities, the same legal theory, if left unchecked, could apply to
law enforcement in metropolitan areas as well.
Landowners' livelihood also is threatened by damaged fences and
lost livestock. As smuggling operations cross private property, the
smugglers open and close gates and/or cut fences. These activities
result in livestock being cut off from water or straying onto road
ways. If the livestock is hit by a vehicle, the landowner becomes
liable. In many remote areas, ranch workers cannot leave a vehicle
running while opening a gate, because persons emerge from the brush and
drive off in the vehicle. Long time ranchers now feel more imperiled
when riding the fences alone.
Turning to the national security implications of the border
environment, extremists are well aware of the United States' inability
to control its borders, and use of the border is mentioned not
infrequently in extremist chat rooms in the context of discussing
tactics and logistics. Extremists have had their own smuggling
operations in Mexico, and unaffiliated smuggling organizations have
expressed a willingness to assist extremists willing to pay the price.
A 2005 DEA report outlines an ongoing scheme in which multiple Middle
Eastern drug-trafficking and terrorist cells operating in the U.S. fund
terror networks overseas, aided by established Mexican cartels with
highly sophisticated trafficking routes.
This is of particular concern to the metropolitan areas, such as
Houston. From an illegal activity perspective, the nature of the city
provides a great operating environment for criminals and terrorists--
anonymity, ease of entry and exit, readily available resources, robust
commercial trade. From a terrorist perspective, Houston provides not
only a good operating environment, but it is considered one of the top
five economic targets in the United States. Terrorist associates and
sympathizers are known to have been active in the Houston area and are
believed to have well established networks. Their organizations have
shown the means, knowledge, capabilities, and motivation to carry out
terrorist operations.
Securing the border is of paramount importance. Only when the
border is secure can American citizens engage in a thoughtful debate on
immigration policy for the future, rather than engaging in reactionary
measures. The flow of illegal immigrants is of such proportions
currently that all available tools should be employed. Once the border
is secure and proactive policy has been determined, then appropriate
changes can be made.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit this testimony
to your committee.
______
Appendix
Travel Alert 14 April 2008
On 14 April 2008 the U.S. Department of State issued the following
Travel Alert:
``This Travel Alert updates information for U.S. citizens on
security situations in Mexico that may affect their activities while in
that country. This supersedes the Travel Alert for Mexico dated 24
October 2007, and expires on 15 October 2008.
``Violence Along The U.S.-Mexico Border--Violent criminal activity
fueled by a war between criminal organizations struggling for control
of the lucrative narcotics trade continues along the U.S.-Mexico
border. Attacks are aimed primarily at members of drug trafficking
organizations, Mexican police forces, criminal justice officials, and
journalists. However, foreign visitors and residents, including
Americans, have been among the victims of homicides and kidnappings in
the border region. In its effort to combat violence, the government of
Mexico has deployed military troops in various parts of the country.
U.S. citizens are urged to cooperate with official checkpoints when
traveling on Mexican highways.
``Recent Mexican army and police force conflicts with heavily-armed
narcotics cartels have escalated to levels equivalent to military
small-unit combat and have included use of machine guns and
fragmentation grenades. Confrontations have taken place in numerous
towns and cities in northern Mexico, including Tijuana in the Mexican
state of Baja California, and Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez in the
state of Chihuahua. The situation in northern Mexico remains very
fluid; the location and timing of future armed engagements there cannot
be predicted.
``Armed robberies and carjackings, apparently unconnected to the
narcotics-related violence, have increased in Tijuana and Ciudad
Juarez. Dozens of U.S. citizens were kidnapped and/or murdered in
Tijuana in 2007. Public shootouts have occurred during daylight hours
near shopping areas.
``Criminals are armed with a wide array of sophisticated weapons.
In some cases, assailants have worn full or partial police or military
uniforms and have used vehicles that resemble police vehicles.
``U.S. citizens are urged to be especially alert to safety and
security concerns when visiting the border region. While Mexican
citizens overwhelmingly are the victims of these crimes, this uncertain
security situation poses risks for U.S. citizens as well. Thousands of
U.S. citizens cross the border safely each day, exercising common-sense
precautions such as visiting only legitimate business and tourist areas
of border towns during daylight hours. It is strongly recommended that
travelers avoid areas where prostitution and drug dealing occur.
``Criminals have followed and harassed U.S. citizens traveling in
their vehicles, particularly in border areas including Nuevo Laredo,
Matamoros, and Tijuana. There is no evidence, however, that U.S.
citizens are targeted because of their nationality.
``U.S. citizen victims of crime in Mexico are urged to contact the
consular section of the nearest U.S. consulate or Embassy for advice
and assistance.
``Crime and Violence in Mexico--U.S. citizens residing and
traveling in Mexico should exercise caution when in unfamiliar areas
and be aware of their surroundings at all times. Violence by criminal
elements affects many parts of the country, urban and rural, including
border areas. Though there is no evidence that U.S. citizens are
specifically targeted, Mexican and foreign bystanders have been injured
or killed in some violent attacks, demonstrating the heightened risk in
public places. In recent years, dozens of U.S. citizens have been
kidnapped in Mexico and many cases remain unresolved. Moreover, new
cases of disappearances and kidnap-for-ransom continue to be reported.
No one can be considered immune from kidnapping on the basis of
occupation, nationality, or other factors. U.S. citizens who believe
they are being followed should notify Mexican officials as soon as
possible. U.S. citizens should make every attempt to travel on main
roads during daylight hours, particularly the toll ('cuota') roads,
which are generally more secure. It is preferable for U.S. citizens to
stay in well-known tourist destinations and tourist areas of the cities
with more adequate security, and provide an itinerary to a friend or
family member not traveling with them. U.S. citizens should avoid
traveling alone as a means to better ensure their safety. Refrain from
displaying expensive-looking jewelry, large amounts of money, or other
valuable items.
``Demonstrations occur frequently throughout Mexico and usually are
peaceful. However, even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn
confrontational and escalate into violence unexpectedly. Some deaths
occurred during violent demonstrations, including an American citizen
who died in the 2006 violence in Oaxaca. During demonstrations or law
enforcement operations, U.S. citizens are advised to remain in their
homes or hotels, avoid large crowds, and avoid the downtown and
surrounding areas. Since the timing and routes of scheduled marches and
demonstrations are always subject to change, U.S. citizens should
monitor local media sources for new developments and exercise extreme
caution while within the vicinity of protests. The Mexican Constitution
prohibits political activities by foreigners, and such actions may
result in detention and/or deportation. Therefore, U.S. citizens are
advised to avoid participating in demonstrations or other activities
that might be deemed political by Mexican authorities.''
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me just very quickly--Ms.
Jenks, the questions I prepared for was really your testimony,
but that's not the testimony you gave. So it's kind of----
Ms. Jenks. I wrote it. So I know what's in it.
Mr. Grijalva. No, no. I mean, the testimony you submitted
is different from the testimony you gave.
Ms. Jenks. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. So I went off the one you submitted.
Ms. Jenks. OK.
Mr. Grijalva. I couldn't--I couldn't read your mind. The--
but--so I'll forward those in writing.
OK. Bishop, if I may--and I really appreciate the comments
that you made about as difficult as it is with this issue to
maintain the level of civility and dialogue in the discussion
of the issue of the border wall and everything attendant to the
issue of immigration. I think your comments are very important,
to keep those in mind.
And one of the things I--you know, having grown up on the
border in Arizona, let me--just to get your perspective on
that, do you think people who don't live along the border with
Mexico perhaps have some stereotype wrong impression about what
these border communities are?
Bishop Pena. Well, I think--I guess you get a picture of
what the border communities are. I've lived on the border all
my life as well, and all my ministry has been on the border. I
think that the sister cities that exist along the border in
many respects are one city. People go back and forth, most of
them legally, some illegally, to visit grandparents, to visit
family. And I think barriers like that would be very much--very
similar to doing what the Nation in Arizona is talking about,
dividing families, dividing relationships, friendships and even
businesses. And I think to create a new barrier besides the
river that would now divide American citizens from one side or
the other would be very disruptive to our families and to our
businesses.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Perez, would you like to
comment on the same question about the impression that people
have on this region?
Ms. Perez. Well, His Excellency answered it wonderfully.
There really isn't a border for most of us that live down here.
You know, we just--we go back and forth, you know, relatives. I
was on somebody's land last week who, you know, pointed across
the river, he had land on the river, and said, ``That's my
cousin over there that farms that.''
So, you know, the ranch is only 14 miles from the river.
You know, we see illegal visitors all--immigrants all the time,
and we've never had a problem. We did have a bottle of wine
stolen from the refrigerator once. But I don't think largely
the Valley people are frightened of these people. I do
understand the people that are right on the river. I know that
they're having problems and that they're afraid, some of them
are afraid.
Mr. Grijalva. I really don't have any questions. I did--I
did go on the NumbersUSA website, Ms. Jenks, and maybe you can
help me define this. There was a reference to the
organization's support for preserving America for real
Americans, and----
Ms. Jenks. I don't think that's----
Mr. Grijalva. And it listed on the website that that
definition dealing with the issue of population and immigration
had to do with pre-1970 stock Americans. Is that correct?
Ms. Jenks. No, we don't talk about real Americans meaning--
every American citizen is a real American in our view. So I
don't know quite what you're referring to. What we do talk
about is that if U.S. immigration numbers had been brought to
zero net in 1970, the U.S. population would be stabilized. And
that is not a judgment call on whether we needed to stick with
the stock population of 1970. That is simply a fact that the
Census Bureau published.
Mr. Grijalva. That's the date that's picked?
Ms. Jenks. It's based on Census Bureau statistics. So,
yeah, that's what that is all about. But, no, we don't judge--
make any judgments on any Americans.
Mr. Grijalva. Without sounding totally facetious, which I'm
about to do, I wonder why you didn't choose an earlier date,
like, let's say, pre-1492 stock.
Audience Member. That's when the real war in America
started, 1492.
Mr. Grijalva. You need to chill a little bit.
Ms. Jenks. You know, this is a serious policy issue in our
view.
Mr. Grijalva. I know. I know. Excuse my facetiousness, but
it's like setting arbitrary lines of 1970 stock, 1980 stock,
that is--you know, if the issue of population growth is the
end-all be-all for the reasons that we have the environmental
issues that we have in this country, I would suspect and I
would hope that NumbersUSA would also be equally controlled--
concerned with climate change, the effect that's having on our
ecosystems across the world and across this nation. Population
growth is part of it, the human--the human print on our
environment, but part of that human print is the kind of damage
that we've done with regard to climate change and regarding
other issues. But I didn't find those on the website, and if I
missed them, I'll go back and look again.
Ms. Jenks. You should go back and look again. Essentially,
we are an immigration organization, which is why we're not
focused entirely on all of the environmental issues. What we
are focused on is the impact that immigration policy has on the
United States of America.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, thank you.
Ms. Jenks. That is our job and that is our organization.
Mr. Grijalva. Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It was
mentioned that millions of dollars have been invested by the
Federal, state and local governments and by nongovernmental
organizations to protect the environment and conserve wildlife
habitat. This is one portion of my Subcommittee that I deal
with in the lower Rio Grande Valley. Now, it has been noted
that the border wall will have serious negative impacts to the
environment. This circumstance again raises the situation where
the Federal government will end up having to go back in and
spend more funds to correct or address the impacts caused by
the wall construction. This just seems to be setting up another
instance of the Federal government throwing good money after
bad.
So to you, Ms. Jenks, do you have any idea what the cost
estimates will be for the Federal government to mitigate the
environmental impacts caused by the construction of the
southern border security infrastructure?
Ms. Jenks. I don't know the dollar figure.
Ms. Bordallo. Don't you agree with me that there will be an
impact?
Ms. Jenks. There will be an--certainly there will be an
impact for building the fence. It will be dramatically less
than the impact of allowing hundreds of thousands of people and
vehicles and smugglers and guns and, you know, all the
attendant effects of illegal immigration through pristine
areas. I mean, yes, we will be tearing up, you know, a certain
width of land along the border, presumably along the border.
And, by the way, I'm not here to justify DHS's specific
plans to, you know, move the fence to this side and cut off
parts of the U.S. But, I mean, yes, we would tear up a portion
of land to create the fence and have a road along it, but that
is going to save hundreds and hundreds of acres from the damage
that is being done every day.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, this is why we're here, and I certainly
would like to see what the cost will be to the taxpayers'
pocketbook on both sides of the fence. And, you know, we were
elated when the wall was torn down in Berlin, and here we are
in our own country building walls. When you travel around in
Washington, D.C., it's sad to see all the barricades in front
of all of our public buildings. I hope that we're not going to
continue to go in this direction.
The other question I have very quickly, Mr. Chairman, is
His Excellence, the Bishop, noted that the Diocese of
Brownsville opposes the border wall in part because it is a
simplified, one-dimensional solution to a complex problem. Now,
in fact, to illustrate this point, Bishop Pena noted that a
collateral consequence of Congress not passing comprehensive
immigration reform legislation is that it has created a flood
of state and local proposals in Texas to address inadequate
border security by the Federal government.
So this raises a dilemma. In our rush to implement a
solution, we may, in fact, be encouraging just the opposite. We
may be creating circumstances on the state and local level
where there is no coordinated response to illegal immigration.
Is this outcome a real possibility? I'd like to ask Ms. Perez.
Ms. Perez. I'm sorry. Would you please run the last part of
that.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Well, in other words, in our race, in
our rush to implement a solution, we may be encouraging just
the opposite. We may be creating circumstances on the state and
the local level where there is no coordinated response to
illegal immigration. So do you feel that that outcome is a real
possibility?
Ms. Perez. I can't answer that. I'm not understanding the
question, I don't think. I--what comes to mind is the levee
wall fence and how expensive that thing is going to be.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, maybe His Excellency can--you were the
one that brought it up in the testimony.
Bishop Pena. Yes. I think there is real possibility. If you
see what happened in the state legislature during the last
session, they introduced legislation that would empower the
local sheriff to act as a Border Patrol agent, they introduced
legislation that would deny health care and education to any
illegal immigrant, they introduced legislation that would deny
citizenship to infants born to undocumented citizens or
residents, and I think worse things could be proposed in the
next legislature. And actually, then, who is responsible for
the border? Is the government responsible or is the state
responsible? And what we need to do is pass Federal legislation
that will truly control our borders in a humane and Christian
way.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Your
Excellency.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Tancredo, your questions.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. If I may--I'm sorry, Mr. Tancredo. Let me
acknowledge, Bishop, that you'll be submitting for the record
10,000 signatures of registered voters that have--here in the
general Brownsville area and the region as a whole in
opposition----
Audience member. Yes, we have 10,000 signatures.
Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. In opposition to the wall. Thank
you very much. Sorry, Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your Excellency and
also Ms. Perez--well, Ms. Perez, in particular, you stated
something that I think was quite interesting. You said that for
you and many other people here the border really does not
exist. That's an interesting observation, and I just wondered
if, Your Excellency, if you believe in your heart of hearts
that a border should exist, if there is such a thing as a
meaningful border and should it exist between Mexico and the
United States.
Bishop Pena. It exists and should exist.
Mr. Tancredo. Should we have a border?
Bishop Pena. Well, let me answer. It exists and it should
exist. However, we cannot prevent families that are divided by
the border, because they happen to be citizens of different
countries, to have the freedom of access to one another, to
have barriers that separate them.
Mr. Tancredo. Then, Your Excellency, what is the purpose of
the border if it is not to actually distinguish one country
from another? And should the United States be able, as Mexico
is and every other country, should we be able to determine who
comes across those borders, for what purpose, and for how long?
Do you think that's a legitimate policy goal of our government,
essentially anybody?
Bishop Pena. Yes, certainly that should be the goal of any
government. Every government has a right to protect its
borders, but we oppose protecting our borders by means of a
wall that would not realistically protect the border.
Mr. Tancredo. The question about realistically protecting
the border, may I suggest that there is a possibility that
there is such strong opposition to some sort of barrier--I know
that the use of the word wall is used mostly to denote
something like the Berlin wall that's been referred to here
before, certainly inaccurately, as that particular wall was
built to keep people in; this particular structure, whether it
is a fence, a double fence, or even a vehicle barrier, is meant
to keep people out who should not be coming in without our
permission.
It is a significant difference in connotation, by the way,
of the use of the word wall and/or barrier. But I do suggest to
you that that is, in fact, a logical and effective approach, as
has been determined by its use in other places; that it is
perhaps the most humane way to address this issue, as it does
discourage--as it does discourage the kind of activity that we
have seen up there that ends up with people being murdered,
being raped, having the drugs that are brought into this
country through those particular avenues. It does, in a way--
and it's only a small way--I again state, this is no way a
complete solution to the problem. Nobody suggests that. No one
I have ever heard of thinks that a fence is the only solution.
It's just part so that we can use other assets to actually plug
the gaps that occur. That's all there is to it.
And in terms of the environmental degradation, the birds
that won't fly, the butterflies that won't be able to traverse
this area and the like, if you weigh that against the
environmental degradation that is going on every single day on
this border, I cannot understand, Ms. Perez, that your concern
wouldn't be as great for us in order to try and stop that
degradation, which we have seen plenty of evidence of. And yet
our attempts to do so are seen as anti-environmental.
On the other hand, I suggest to you that they are exactly
that, that they are meant exactly to do--at least a portion of
what the solution is for that is some sort of structure, some
sort of physical barrier that would ease the flow across those
areas that now does, indeed, do great damage to the
environment. So I would hope that your organizations would at
least take into consideration the two sides of this, how much
is being done as opposed to what environmental damage may be
done by the construction of the fence.
And, finally, the question I have for Ms. Neuhaus, that you
did not get a chance to get to in your own testimony, is the
impact--the impact of illegal immigration is having on ranchers
here in Texas, and if you would explain the legal problems
they're facing.
Ms. Schaan. One of the significant legal issues that the
ranchers are facing, particularly if they're removed from the
border itself and its approximately 40 miles in part inland, is
that Customs and Border Patrol have the authority to go onto
private property in pursuit of smugglers, whatever it is that
they're smuggling, in their law enforcement pursuit. Farther
inland than that, they do not have that statutory authority.
One of the issues that they are dealing with up closer to
Kingsville and Falfurrias is that if they authorize law
enforcement to come onto their premises to pursue illegal
activity and someone involved in the activity is harmed, the
ranch owner, the landowner is being sued because they gave
permission to the law enforcement agency to come onto their
property.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Before I
recognize our next member, the 10,000 signed petitions of U.S.
citizens will be entered into the record by the committee.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The information has been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
Ms. Bordallo. And now I'd like to recognize the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just--Bishop,
thank you so very much for all your testimony and for getting
sure that people have a voice through those petitions. Why is
it that we call these undocumented aliens? They're human beings
that come for a better life, and yet we continue to label them,
not knowing--not realizing that they are part of our economy
that, yes, they are here illegally. What we should be doing is
going after the smugglers and rapists and the real lawbreakers.
Do you have a comment on that, Bishop?
Bishop Pena. I agree with you totally. What I said was
undocumented residents.
Mrs. Napolitano. I know that you did, yes, sir.
Bishop Pena. Now, why they choose illegal aliens, I
couldn't answer, but I think it is important that we go against
all the criminals, regardless of what the nature of their crime
may be. And, by the same token, we need to respect all those
who contribute to our economy, who help us harvest our crops,
who clean our houses. An interesting thing when I was in El
Paso and that operation went into effect, people were joking
that now the Border Patrol agents were coming with their shirts
not neatly pressed.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Bishop, and I agree. Now,
unfortunately, we seem to forget that they are not the
undocumented in this country, because this country used to be
Mexico. Now, that aside, I know the treaties, I know everything
else. But we supposedly are treading on those treaties of the
Native Americans and others. So we apparently honor only those
treaties we like. One of the things that you mentioned in your
testimony is the government trampling on the constitutional
rights of the farmers of being able to have that ability to
have redress if they are sued; am I correct, Ms. Neuhaus?
Ms. Schaan. Can you hear me?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Ms. Schaan. The landowners, it has to do with the liability
laws, but, yes, they--it's a fact that in the State of Texas,
law enforcement is not allowed on private premises without
authorization. So if the--if whoever--and this could apply to
the cities as well. Say you have----
Mrs. Napolitano. I'm sorry. I don't mean to--but wouldn't
you think there would be some provision in having those waivers
by Mr. Chertoff be able to have a waiver so that those ranchers
then have the ability not to get sued?
Ms. Schaan. Oh, that's one of the things they would just
really appreciate having.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, why would that not be part of
sitting down with you, the farmers and others, to figure out a
way how to protect our U.S. properties and our owners?
Ms. Schaan. I think that that is a wonderful idea and it's
not just in the pursuit, but there are other issues that have
to do with the aliens cutting the fences and livestock being on
the roads and then the rancher being sued because the car hit
the cow and--you know, it's a whole host of issues, and also
very high----
Mrs. Napolitano. Which was my point in asking the
individual from the agency is did they sit with the folks and
hammer out small details they cannot think because they don't
live there? They don't see the impact. Am I correct?
Ms. Schaan. Yes, you are, but I'm not with the Department
of Homeland Security.
Mrs. Napolitano. No, I know that. But that's what I was
saying, that they needed to have people at the table to discuss
the unintended consequences that there may be.
Ms. Schaan. Yes, in my case the consequences that I'm
talking about are what is happening to the degradation of the
life in the rural communities where people are not allowed to
leave their homes unattended. I know one grandmother, her
grandson came walking back to the house from a pasture and
there were 20 men dressed all in black with advanced weaponry
under the trees in the front yard, and they're somewhere
between 5 to 10 miles from the nearest highway. And that's the
sort of life that they're having to endure.
Mrs. Napolitano. But, to any of you, real quickly, because
I'm out of time, don't you think that a good immigration reform
would help?
Ms. Schaan. Clearly, and I think it needs to--if you're
asking me from a policy perspective, I tend to focus on the
security element. I think that everything needs to be tried in
order for us to get control of the situation so that thoughtful
immigration policy can be pursued. Because part of this
security element is that there are so many people who are
frightened that it's causing a lot of reactionary measures
being taken rather than thoughtful proactive measures.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. But that was my point, is that
we do need good immigration reform. We agree safety has to be
paramount, of our country, of our land, and of our people.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from California, and I
now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and,
again, thanks--I want to thank our host for holding this
hearing. Bishop Pena, I would hope that you would talk with
some of the bishops in the San Diego area, because you said
very clearly we need to go against criminals. And let me tell
you, when we built the double border fence in San Diego, by FBI
statistics--because we had the border gangs and we had people
moving narcotics on a large scale going back and forth, people
coming over on a nightly basis hurting Americans and going back
to the refuge at the end of the day, and we had a no man's
land, which was the subject of novels, best-selling novels,
because it was so desperate and so violent, with hundreds of
rapes every night, with dozens of murders on the borders, with
beatings, with great brutality. And when we built the double
fence, the crime rate by FBI statistics in the County of San
Diego, California dropped 56 percent. So if you truly believe
that we need to do something that is going to keep people safe,
that double border fence worked in San Diego.
And, let me tell you, you've got a bigger problem, simply
the idea of people moving back and forth in a community.
Because people that come through that border are moving massive
tonnages of cocaine that's going into the veins of American
children throughout this country, some 24 metric tons last
year, some 386 metric tons of marijuana, most of it coming
through Texas. So when we allow a situation to exist--and it
continues to exist despite the added resources--where massive
tonnages of cocaine and marijuana are smuggled in that end up
in the veins of America's children, then we aren't serving this
nation well.
And to the gentlelady who is the rancher and landowner, let
me just say that I've read some of the accounts of other
ranchers. I've read the accounts of John Wooders, who wrote a
very poignant article entitled Good-bye to My Ranch. And he
told about going out to his ranch that he and his wife loved
and had for years and being faced with people with Members Only
jackets and automatic weapons coming through their land
stealing everything that wasn't nailed down and providing so
much--such a threat to them that they felt compelled to sell
the ranch and leave the area. That is a story that is not
uncommon. So I know you said you had one bottle of wine stolen
and that was the extent of your damage. I think that there is
lots of other Texas ranchers who would have a very different
concern.
And, last, to all of you, this has a humanitarian aspect.
Over 400 people came through last year who died in the desert
heat, mainly in Arizona. And, Bishop Pena, you know, my brother
puts out water. In fact, he's the only guy that's done it year
after year of all the people in the United States to save
people in the desert. He puts out water stations to save their
lives and he's saved hundreds of lives. Let me tell you, those
coyotes take the people to the border, they tell them that the
road is a mile to the north after they get their money. In some
cases they're 20 miles to the north. And about 11:00 o'clock
the next day, they're out there in 110-degree heat and they're
dying of sun stroke and heat stroke.
Now, if you had 400 high school students drowning in a
canal every year, what's the first thing that you would direct
them to do as a leader in this community? You'd say ``fence the
canal.'' So if we have 400 people dying in the border region,
mainly in this 110-, 115-degree heat that we see in the low
desert, places like Arizona and some in Texas and some in
California, the first thing you would do is fence that border.
That would have a humanitarian aspect.
And, last, the confrontation between the Border Patrol and
the smugglers, like Compian and Ramos, who were sent to prison
for wounding a drug dealer who was bringing across 700 pounds
of drugs, that was an area where a fence built on that road
would have covered the border, and that van load of 700 pounds
of marijuana would have never made it across, there never would
have been the confrontation, there never would have been the
shooting.
What we found in San Diego is the double fence separating
the smugglers and the Border Patrol has a salutary effect on
the safe-being and the well-being of the Border Patrol. They
can't be rocked, they can't be shot through that fence, they
can't be beaten, and it's a margin of separation which gives a
lot of safety for the Border Patrol.
So I know that your 10,000 signatures are well-meaning, but
I wish those people would look at those considerations, the
vast amount of drugs coming through, the fact that we have
250,000 criminal aliens in Federal, state and local
penitentiaries and jails. And those people didn't come across
for a job or to see their relatives. They came across to hurt
Americans. They did hurt Americans. And they cost this country
about 3 billion a year to incarcerate. That $3 billion would
pay for 1,000 miles of border fence.
And, last, my friend the mayor stated that this sector has
had fewer apprehensions than the San Diego sector. The San
Diego sector went from 202,000 apprehensions, the fenced
sector, to 9,000. That's more than a 90 percent decrease. The
Yuma sector, which was just fenced, went from an astounding
138,437 to 3,869. That's a 95 percent decrease. That's one
third--those two sectors combined that are fenced is one third
the number of illegal aliens who were apprehended this year in
this sector. So the fence works.
And, you know, I've come to the conclusion after 28 years--
we've all talked about other solutions. None of the other
solutions have worked. The virtual fence hasn't worked. You
can't get enough Border Patrolmen to hold hands across this
border. The fence has worked, and in the end they will save
lives on both sides of the border.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, let me turn to the
gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. Sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to
thank members of the panel for their testimony this afternoon.
I just wanted to ask Bishop Pena a question that these 10,000
signatures, in contrast to the alleged claim by Mr. Schultz
earlier in the hearing that there was consultation by the
Department of Homeland Security, was this ever brought to your
attention, the way the DHS had proceeded in supposedly holding
a public hearing about this same issue? The fact that you've
got 10,000 signatures in opposition to building a fence, I'm
curious if you're aware or has the Department of Homeland
Security ever contacted your office, and did you participate in
the hearings that they have taken here sometime back?
Bishop Pena. The Department of Homeland Security has never
contacted our office for anything. We own land along the river.
We have not been consulted, we have not been asked, we have not
been told. We called to ask ``Is our land covered?'' and they
said, ``Well, if it is, we will let you know.'' We haven't been
advised anything. So, no, there is no communication. Any
communication that has taken place has been on our side and we
have not received answers.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So to this day the community here in
Brownsville has never heard since at the time what was the
sentiment and what was the consensus among the community people
at the time that DHS conducted that so-called hearing.
Bishop Pena. No, we have heard nothing.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. Ms. Jenks, I've listened to your
testimony very closely and it seems--and the point is well-
taken--you're talking about security, security, security,
especially to the many families and people living along the
border. And I suspect there is a lack of effort on the part of
the Federal government, other than lately they're beginning to
do something about it. I remember meeting with families living
along the Arizona border and the same complaints, the slowness
of the Federal government to respond to the problems about
destruction of private property. I thought, Ms. Schaan, that
the law here in Texas is shoot first and ask questions later.
Is that still in place?
Ms. Schaan. If you are protecting your property, you are,
under certain circumstances--particularly if it's a home
invasion, if you shoot a trespasser, then, generally speaking,
the grand jury will not bring an indictment against you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is this also true in Arizona?
Ms. Jenks. Yes, it is. If it's self-defense in your home,
you can shoot.
Mrs. Napolitano. Inside?
Mr. Faleomavaega. But in a yard, you cannot shoot.
Ms. Jenks. You can't defend--in most states you can't
defend your property with lethal force, but you can defend
yourself and your family with lethal force.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to express a sense of
concern that for years the issue of immigration has really torn
our country apart to the extent that with all good intention of
what we're trying to do to protect our borders. The so-called
20 million illegal aliens that supposedly come from the Mexican
border are not all Mexicans. I believe only about 5 million are
Mexicans. The rest come from Central and South American and
other foreign countries. You might also note as a matter of
statistics that illegal aliens provide some $52 billion they
send back home by Western Union to help their families,
especially most of these families from poor areas in not only
Mexico but other areas in Central and South America.
So I don't want to say that it's OK to come here illegally
so that way you can provide the needs of the family, but, as
you mentioned earlier, Bishop Pena, there are positive aspects
of many of our aliens who do work, who do provide a very
valuable service to the American community. Without them--and
maybe my good friend from California, Mr. Hunter, can help me
with this--without illegal immigrants conducting the work in
farms and throughout the State of California, the farm produce
industry would go to pot. And I don't know if I'm accurate on
that description, Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. No, I think, my good friend--and indeed you are
a very good friend--I think the idea that we--that the economy
would collapse without the help or the work of people who are
here illegally is wrong. And what I'm reminded when they had
the packing plant closed and the Swift packing plants closed
down, and they took 800 people that were there illegally from
those jobs. The next day American citizens were lined up, from
what was reported, to get their old jobs back at 18 bucks an
hour. So I don't agree with the theme that we're desperate to
have folks come in illegally.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just want to say----
Mr. Hunter. But thanks for letting me have a word in here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to say to my good friend from
California that his points are well-taken about the serious
drug trafficking and issues of the coyotes and the cartels. I
recall a leader from Latin America once making a comment that
if there wasn't so much demand for illegal drugs here in
America, maybe they wouldn't supply so much of it.
But here is the question, and, philosophically, you can
take it any way you want. We are really under a somewhat of a
double standard. We always point the finger that Mexico is the
culprit, we've got all these problems, but it's OK to have a
free borderline between Canada and the U.S. And I just want to
see if there is equity and fairness in the process, and I'm
sure that is the intent and exchange of Ms. Schaan, that some
form of protection, the Federal government has that
responsibility but it has failed.
And so I do appreciate Mr. Tancredo's comments that the
fence is only part of the solution. And, unfortunately, this
has not exactly been agreed upon by communities who live along
the border, which includes the citizens of Brownsville and I
suspect the people living in Matamoros, which is almost a
million people, and many companies, American companies doing
business and American workers also working in Matamoros. I
notice my time is over, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. As I understand it, Mr. Reyes, you have no
questions from this panel.
Mr. Reyes. No.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. I just wanted to welcome my bishop. We come from
the same hometown, the biggest little town in Texas, which is
Robstown, and our families grew up together. And I think the
testimony has been very eloquently spoken today and I just want
to say thank you for joining us today. Thank you so much.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me thank this panel, and if there are
follow-up questions on the part of my colleagues, they will be
forwarded to you for comment in writing. Thank you very much
for your time and your courtesy and your testimony.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me welcome the next panel
pursuant to Clause 2 of House Rule 11. I ask that the witnesses
please stand and raise their right hand to be sworn in. Thank
you.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Grijalva. Let the record indicate the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative and we will begin with the opening
statements. Let me welcome Mr. John McClung, president and CEO,
Texas Produce Association. And he already has ingratiated
himself with this Congressman by being a graduate of the
University of Arizona and a Tucsonian. So, welcome, sir. Good
to see you. And look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN McCLUNG, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
TEXAS PRODUCE ASSOCIATION
Mr. McClung. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman,
Members of Congress. My name is John McClung. I'm the president
of the Texas Produce Association headquartered in Mission,
which is 50 or 60 miles west of here. The association
represents the interests of farmers, growers, shippers,
importers, processors and marketers of fresh produce in Texas.
I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify
today on a matter that's of enormous concern to the area
farmers and agricultural interests. And, frankly, that's a
component that hasn't gotten a lot of attention up to this
point.
It may be most useful I think to begin where we,
obviously--where almost all of the segments have--seem to be in
agreement, and that is we all want border security, we all want
to return rule of law to the border, we all want to make
certain that people who are intending to come here illegally
are not able to do so, that those who do come are coming for--
mean us no harm. That's really not the issue here at all, never
has been. The issue is doing it intelligently, doing it cost-
effectively, and doing it in a humane fashion. The--and, by the
way, that whole--that whole formula may, in fact, involve some
fencing or some walls in certain very limited, very precise
places.
That said, the individuals that I've talked to that are
involved in agriculture in South Texas, by and large--not
exclusively, but for the most part--are strenuously opposed to
a fence or a wall as it has been detailed to us. There are
several reasons for that. And let me say here that we have not
been much consulted by the Department of Homeland Security
about any kind of a--any kind of construction. There has been a
lot made today of the issue of consultation. I think you all I
hope recognize that in no small part this business of
consultation has to do with the definition of consultation.
When you are talking across the hood of a pickup truck to a
member of the Border Patrol, that's not a consultation in any
meaningful way.
The Department of Homeland Security has had no problem
saying that the Border Patrol is consulting for them with many
people in the Rio Grande Valley. The Border Patrol has no
authority to consult. The Border Patrol only has authority to
tell us what Washington is intending for us subchapter and
verse, but that's not a consultation in any constructive
fashion.
And so many, many landowners along the river, along the
three south counties of the Rio Grande Valley, have never been
approached by anybody from the Federal government on this
issue. And many times when we go to talk to them, when we
initiate that conversation, we're told, ``Look, your land is
not where we are planning to survey or where we're planning to
build a wall. We don't have any need to talk to you. Relax.
Don't worry about it.''
The problem with that is there--there are several problems
with farmers in the Valley. The first is that we have to have
access to our land. We're not really talking about a border
wall here, you know. We're talking about north of the border
wall. In some cases you're within a very short distance of the
river where the levee runs. In some cases you're a couple of
miles from the river. There are thousands of acres south of the
levee up north of the river. We've just simply not been told
how we are going to have access to the land south of that
levee. There have been some maps and proposals, but nothing has
been definitive, nor have we been told how we're going to
access river water.
We irrigate entirely out of the Rio Grande River. Without
that river, we can't successfully farm for the most part down
here. So we have to have access and we have to have access 24/7
because the pumps, the water pumps get clogged up, vegetation
grows in them. It's a very--a very practical kind of a problem.
The other issue, and the one that I particularly want to
emphasize, is that nothing much has been said about the value
of land south of the levee if there is a wall constructed. At
the risk of some melodrama, there is a lot of talk about
turning that land into a no man's land. I'm not sure that is
altogether accurate. We're not ceding anything to Mexico that
I'm aware of in a legal sense, but we are creating a boundary
here between that levee and the river.
And land values in that boundary area cannot help but go
down if farmers cannot get access to it, yet people don't want
to get access to it. And that is something that has been
virtually unaddressed to my knowledge.
The--I want to make sure that I cover this thoroughly here.
Many farmers in Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr Counties have been
approached by--have never been approached by the DHS, as I said
before. And others have been told that DHS has no interest in--
in their--in building along those sections where these people
operate.
You know, many of the landowners that you've heard about
along the Rio Grande are small landowners, a few acres, and
they're in the vicinity of Brownsville or Hidalgo or other
little towns along the border. The big commercial agricultural
operations are not in those areas, for the most part. They're
in areas very often where there is no intention of building a
wall at this point, and so they weren't--they aren't factored
in. But their land values are going to deteriorate.
Well, I have a written testimony. Obviously, I would
appreciate having it go into the record.
Mr. Grijalva. It's part of the record, sir.
Mr. McClung. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClung follows:]
Statement of John McClung, President and CEO,
Texas Produce Association
Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee. My name is John McClung. I
am President of the Texas Produce Association, headquartered in
Mission, some 60 miles west of here. The association represents the
interests of growers, shippers, importers, processors and marketers of
fresh produce from Texas.
I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify today
on a matter that is of real and immediate concern to the fruit and
vegetable industry of Texas. It may be most useful to begin where there
appears to be agreement among all parties that have taken an interest
in the construction of a wall along the southern levy in the three
southmost counties of the Rio Grande Valley. Nobody I have talked to
opposes reestablishment of the rule of law at our southern--and
northern--borders. Thoughtful observers all recognize the need to
secure the borders, prevent the entry of undocumented aliens, and
ensure that those who enter mean us no harm and are here for legitimate
purposes, including labor in our farm fields.
However, most of the individuals I have talked to want this goal
achieved in as intelligent and cost effective a fashion as possible.
And with few exceptions, they oppose the wall as an inefficient tool in
curtailing or even significantly slowing illegal immigration.
The farmers, packers, processors, importers and marketers of fruits
and vegetables take particular exception with their virtual exclusion
from the Department of Homeland Security's planning process, and
vigorously deny claims by that agency that they, as impacted
landowners, have been consulted in any meaningful way. I want to
emphasize that some of them have talked with Border Patrol agents about
the construction of a fence or wall, but in most of those instances,
the field level agents they conversed with knew little more, if as
much, as they did.
Farmers in the Valley have several practical concerns about the
wall, even in areas where no construction is contemplated.
--First, we must have access without artificial impediments to our
fields. Every day, farmers and their employees work the land, including
the thousands of acres of highly productive delta south of the levy. In
places, the levy is a few yards north of the River, but in others it is
a mile or two. Under the federal government's plan, as we understand
it, that land could be accessed only through gates or other points of
entry widely spaced along the wall. Such a scheme is wholly inadequate.
--Second, we must have access to the river for irrigation water. In
the three lower counties of the Valley, we irrigate virtually
exclusively from the River, using pumps along the edge of the river.
Those pumps are subject to breakdown frequently, and to clogging from
river vegetation. We must be able to approach and repair them day or
night.
--Third, should DHS's ill-conceived wall plan come to pass,
farmland south of the levy would become what many refer to as a ``no
man's land.'' Obviously, this land would not be officially ceded to
Mexico, but land values below the wall would certainly plummet, even in
those long stretches where there would be no physical barrier along the
levy. Farm families that have owned and worked that land for
generations would see its worth implode. This is a point that seemingly
has escaped many analysts, and I want to make certain I cover it
thoroughly here. Many farmers in Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr Counties
have never been approached by DHS at any time, while others have been
told DHS has no interest in meeting with them because there are no
plans in the agency to survey for or build a wall on their property.
But if the levy becomes the second southern border, their land will
likely not retain its value, and the hard work and pride of generations
will be squandered.
--Finally, farmers are practical people of necessity, depending on
a good deal of seat-of-the-pants engineering to do their jobs
successfully. They look at the tentative wall plans--all tentative wall
plans--and conclude the obvious: It won't work. In terms of prohibiting
illegal immigration, it isn't even a good joke. What it will do--all it
will do--is allow a small number of misguided ideologues in the U.S.
Congress to tell their extremists supporters that they ``did
something.'' And that is an absurd reason to spend give-or-take $5
million a mile in South Texas.
Of late, there has been a good deal of discussion about a ``two-
for-one'' deal in which a wall would be constructed in Hidalgo and
possibly Cameron Counties with the paired objectives of preventing
illegal immigration and rehabilitating our ailing levies. I want to
make the point here that the levy problem is very real, and must be
addressed. Further, the levy is owned and operated by the federal
government, and should be maintained with federal dollars. But to try
to pay for levy rehabilitation with border security dollars is, in my
opinion, a deeply troubling way to try to solve unrelated problems.
Ironically, this hybrid approach might meet the levy repair
requirement, albeit at a ghastly price, but it would no more solve the
security problem than any other wall or fence scheme. I asked one of
the key engineers working on the design for the combined levy/wall plan
how access to land and water would be afforded to farmers, and his
response was that they were most likely to build in gates where there
are dirt roads crossing the levy. These would have to be extremely
large and heavy gates--and therefore very expensive--to accommodate
large farm equipment. The farmers would be issued electronic remote
controls to open and close the gates.
What a hopeless mess that would be. In the first place, each farmer
would require multiple ``clickers'' to enable his crews to get through
the gates. How long does anyone think it would be before a few of them
disappeared? Or before the coyotes figured out the frequencies? While
it is not my intention to discuss implications for wildlife, I want to
add that this same engineer told me the likely plan would include
``ports'' to allow small animals to pass through. Swell idea. Doggie
doors in the security gates. Interesting to see how many skinny illegal
immigrants we would catch in the first year.
In my opinion, these are the kinds of unworkable solutions tortured
engineers dream up when they have their backs against the wall,
literally in this case, and there are no good solutions.
The real fix, as Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said most
recently, and many others have pointed out in the past two years, is
comprehensive immigration reform. It is in my belief shameful that the
U.S. Congress, when presented with legislation last year that would
have intelligently and effectively dealt with the key needs of genuine
reform, was incapable of acting and so fell back on the most foolish,
least efficacious arrow in the quiver--a border fence. It is beyond
shameful that the Department of Homeland Security and its boss,
Secretary Michael Chertoff, have mindlessly waived the environmental
and related laws of the land and pushed ahead with a wall when the
Hutchison-Rodriguez amendment to the omnibus funding bill for FY 08
gave them every opportunity to act constructively by setting aside the
prescriptive language of the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
At this point in time, the battle lines are dug so deep, perhaps
the best we can hope for is that no substantive construction take place
in Texas until we have a new Administration and a new Congress,
hopefully with new courage to confront the immigration issue. The
farmers and other agricultural interests I represent are a
conservative, profoundly patriotic lot by-and-large. They want what is
best for this country. Most of them believe a border wall isn't it.
Thank you very much for permitting me to testify here today.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Merritt, sir, your comments.
STATEMENT OF KEN MERRITT, PRIVATE CITIZEN
Mr. Merritt. Thank you, Chairman and Chairwoman, as well as
Members of Congress. I appreciate this opportunity. Up until
January of this year I was employed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as refuge manager for the three national
wildlife refuges we have down here in South Texas, the Santa
Ana, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and Laguna Atascosa National
Wildlife Refuges. And I was pleased to have this invitation and
also feel somewhat liberated in terms of my comments, I
suppose, now that I'm not an agency staff person, but I'm not
too liberated probably.
I would like to start basically with giving a little
background of myself without going--I'll stay within my time
limit, I'm sure. I have 30 years in with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as a wildlife biologist and a refuge manager,
and the last 11 years I was in charge of the refuges here in
the Valley. And when you're talking about the border fence, you
really are talking about all the Rio Grande Valley National
Wildlife Refuge. That's one of the points I'm going to try to
make here.
And I think it's useful to go back and look at what the
Fish and Wildlife Service went through most recently here. I
was in charge of basically leading the effort in terms of the
Fish and Wildlife Service for Texas refuges. And, you know,
April of 2007 we saw a news article in one of the Roma papers
that said Border Patrol agents were contacting private
landowners to determine whether they would be able to get
access to their lands for the border fence. And that was a
surprise to the Fish and Wildlife Service, at least locally. I
would imagine upper levels as well. And subsequent to that we
made concerted efforts to contact the Border Patrol and finally
got a meeting with the Border Patrol and it was confirmed that,
yes, indeed, Texas' border was going to be part of the picture
and also that a lot of the fence was going to occur on U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service property.
The interesting thing about that was that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service property was thought of somewhat like low-
hanging fruit. Because it was already Federal land, it was
thought it would be much easier to access those lands and build
a fence on those properties. So months go by and very little
contact between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and refuges and
Border Patrol.
And you get to October and I go to a meeting in Harlingen
with my staff and find out that, indeed, we're going through
with this. And, of course, we were provided with maps at the
first meeting about where these fences were going to be, which
was really nice. Those were maps that we could not share with
anyone, and yet what we heard was that no decisions had been
made on locations on where these fences were going to be. But
we were looking at it but held it as asked.
So in October we go to a meeting and we're basically asked
about access to the refuge, which we dutifully tried to make
happen. And here we are in December and we grant the
consultants who work for DHS an opportunity to do that. And at
about the same time we're having public hearings.
So you can imagine--my point is really that you could
imagine that the level of surveys needed for a DEIS were really
not given the sufficient time to figure out exactly what we
have on the refuges and what the impacts of the border fence
would be. I really think it's an unrealistic schedule that DHS
has and I would believe a lack of concern about national
wildlife refuges, which are special places to the American
public. There is a long history of the Lower Rio Grande
National Wildlife Refuge as a wildlife corridor which couldn't
be interchanged very easily.
In fact, before 1980 many people got together and looked at
this and decided this was indeed a place for a national
wildlife refuge. The Valley needed a place for a national
wildlife refuge since 95 percent of the native habitat in the
Valley, in the U.S. Valley has been cleared off, and so we have
a very narrow strip where habitat remains and 18 species of
threatened or endangered species, a wonderful place for
migratory birds. But yet a narrow place.
When you look at the border fence impasse, I think you have
to look at, yes, there is going to be a small area that would
be cleared. That area being cleared, how important is that?
Well, I think you can do an analogy basically when you look at
the river and the little strip that's remaining of native
habitat. And then you consider taking more habitat away, it is
devastating to our national wildlife along the border and it's
a national and international resource.
An analogy in Canada is that if you took a strip out there,
there are millions of miles of uninterrupted habitat. Here we
have fragmented habitat that might be a quarter mile or less
from the river at any particular point. Very little habitat
remaining. So the impact will be barriers to wildlife, ability
of wildlife to get the water. You also have jaguarundi, which
needs to be able to travel, an endangered species--there is
only about 70 to 100 left in the U.S.--very much impacted by
border walls as prescribed currently.
I think the operational part of this for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is that how do we operate in what we'll call
no man's land? The Border Patrol has indicated they'll continue
to go south of those fences where there is distance between the
river and the levees, for example, but what happens when we
have fires? We have over 300 fires on U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service property every year and those properties are
endangered, yet where are those escape areas?
I'll summarize. The waiver invoked by Secretary Chertoff on
April 1st basically included well over 30 Acts, but in
particular the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Endangered Species Act were of great concern to a lot of folks
in this area, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think
really the point I want to make is that thoughtfulness, logic
and really listening to the public really hasn't been served in
this case. The schedule just wouldn't allow it in my
estimation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Merritt follows:]
Statement of Kenneth L. Merritt, Occupation:
Retired from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (30 years)
My testimony is based on my knowledge and experience as a wildlife
biologist and refuge manager with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
during the last 30 years as well as my B.S. degree in wildlife
management from Humboldt State University. Specifically, I held
positions of Deputy Project Leader (4 years) and Project Leader (7
years) for the South Texas Refuge Complex. As Project Leader I oversaw
the operations and management of Santa Ana, Lower Rio Grande Valley,
and Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuges. My duties during my 11
years in the Lower Rio Grande Valley included close coordination with
Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security and more recently
I took the lead for National Wildlife Refuges in Texas in U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in negotiations with DHS on the construction of the
Border Fence.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was first made aware of
permanent border fencing in the Valley in April of 2007 when newspaper
articles appeared chronicling the contacts local border patrol agents
were making in and around Roma, Texas. This was followed by contacts
made by FWS to the Rio Grande Headquarters for information on this
potential fence. As a result of this inquiry carried out by FWS, a
meeting was held at Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge with Border
Patrol and Army Corps of Engineers representatives. During this meeting
the plans for a border fence were confirmed and the Lower Rio Grande
Valley National Wildlife Refuge was put on notice that DHS intended to
build miles of fence on the Refuge. Further, DHS indicated that the
refuge was targeted because it was thought that it would be easier to
build the fence on property already owned by the Federal Government.
During this meeting, preliminary maps were provided to the FWS which
could not be shared with outsiders. Though at the time, and continuing
for many months, it was DHS's official position that no decisions had
been made regarding fence locations.
Many months passed with few (largely unproductive and
uninformative) meetings between FWS and DHS and ACOE until September
when the FWS was invited to a meeting at the Harlingen Border Patrol
Headquarters to meet with DHS and their consultants (E2M) who were
tasked with conducting biological, cultural, and engineering surveys on
private land and refuge lands to gather information for the DEIS for
the border fence. This marked the first time that FWS Refuges were
informed that surveys would be requested on refuge lands. Surveys were
conducted on private lands beginning in October 2007 and Refuge lands
in December 2007. Public meetings aimed at gathering public comments on
the DEIS were conducted at various locations in the Valley in December
2007.
The narrative and chronology of events described above aptly
illustrates the DHS's unrealistic schedule and concern for carrying out
a proper evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed border
wall. Without proactive efforts on the part of FWS it is unclear
whether the FWS would have been notified of this pending action until
well into the summer months. This is ironic since DHS apparently put
many of its ``eggs'' in the refuge basket counting on the ease of
accessing and constructing a border fence on a National Wildlife
Refuge. The content and tone of DHS throughout this process could only
be described as having no special consideration for the fact that a
major action (permanent fence) was proposed to be place on one of this
nation's most ``special places''. Further, the DEIS prepared for DHS is
founded on very superficial biological surveys of private and Refuge
lands which constitute a totally inadequate ``gathering of the facts''
to evaluate such a major construction project.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge was
established in 1980 after extensive investigations and research and was
promoted by a large and very diverse public who recognized the
importance of the Refuge, both nationally and internationally. Also
known as the ``wildlife corridor'', the Refuge was established and
designed to perform in concert with hundreds of private landowners,
conservation organizations, and municipalities as well as Mexico to
create a viable migration corridor for south Texas wildlife. So far,
over 70 million dollars of Land and Water Conservation Funds (Federal)
has been expended to acquire lands within the Refuge. Millions have
also been spent to restore native habitat along the river. A major
reason for the establishment of the refuge and corridor was to serve as
habitat and a migration corridor for the endangered ocelot and
jaguarondi (cats). Within the south Texas Refuges and adjacent private
lands are a total of 18 endangered or threatened plant and animal
species. Largely confined to the wildlife corridor in south Texas, this
area is home to over 500 species of birds, 300 species of butterflies,
and 1,200 species of plants. It is one of the most biologically diverse
regions of the U.S.
A driving force for scientists and the public alike in the
establishment of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge
was the historical loss of native habitat. Over 95 percent of the
native brush in the Valley has been cleared and over 98 percent of the
river edge forest has been cleared. This leaves a very narrow ribbon of
wildlife habitat that is critical to thousands of wildlife species.
Though the footprint of a border fence is somewhat unclear at this
time, it is clear that significant wildlife habitat will be cleared to
construct and maintain the fence. Further clearing of wildlife habitat
further jeopardizes the existence of south Texas wildlife populations
that are already ``on the brink'' due to historical land clearing.
Clearing of additional wildlife habitat on the refuge and private lands
adjacent to the Rio Grande is not analogous to clearing habitat on the
border with Canada. Thousands of square miles of uninterrupted wildlife
habitat remain on our northern border.
The narrow wildlife corridor that currently exists along the river
serves as a critical stopover for millions of migrating birds traveling
from North America to South America. Situated between the Gulf of
Mexico in the east and the deserts of the west, this narrow strip of
habitat serves migrating birds from two flyways which funnel through
the Rio Grande Valley. A real life example of this is the spring
migration of broad-winged hawks. In April of each year, tens of
thousands of hawks and falcons settle in on the nearby Santa Ana
National Wildlife Refuge for nightly rests before rising on thermals to
travel thousands of non-stop miles to northern breeding areas.
Satellite maps confirm that vast areas north of the wildlife corridor
in the U.S. and south into Mexico have been cleared for agriculture,
business and municipalities. There is no visible alternative for
millions of migrating birds seeking rest and food. Additional habitat
losses through the construction of a border fence will likely result in
further losses of a declining migratory bird population.
The proposed fence will also impact endangered species like the
ocelot and jaguarondi by serving as a barrier to travel for these
endangered cats. Current estimates range from 70-100 ocelots remaining
in the U.S. Barriers to travel will impact the ocelot's ability to
travel from Mexico into the U.S. and within the U.S. An important
factor in the health of the ocelot population is its genetic viability.
Due to low numbers and current restrictions to movement, the ocelot
population is showing signs of genetic inbreeding. Inbreeding often
affects the health of individual cats by increasing their
susceptibility to disease. Border fencing constructed as part of the
International Boundary and Water Commission Levees would not allow any
passage for terrestrial wildlife like the ocelot and jaguarondi.
Northern movement from the wildlife corridor to areas such as Laguna
Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge and southern movement from Laguna
Atascosa through the wildlife corridor into Mexico are critical to the
continued existence of these cats.
Proposed fences placed adjacent to the Rio Grande on private lands
and federal lands will impact a wide variety of terrestrial wildlife in
Starr County. Starr County is located on the west side of the wildlife
corridor/refuge and is characterized by almost desert conditions. Many
of these species including white-tailed deer and javelina are dependent
on the river for water and would be effectively blocked or would have
to expend additional energy to reach the river or alternative water
sources.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley is unique in many ways and a major
geographic feature is the Rio Grande. From the Falcon Reservoir in the
west to the Gulf of Mexico the river and adjacent Lower Rio Grande
Valley National Wildlife Refuge/wildlife corridor is a convoluted river
course cover 275 river miles. Due to the nature of the river, it is
possible to enter the U.S. from Mexico from the north. Flood control
treaties with Mexico require that much of the proposed border fence be
place on or north of the IBWC levees. This creates an area of ``no
man's land'' between the fence and the international border. Thus, the
areas south of the fence will still have to be patrolled as usual by
Border Patrol since leaving these areas unattended will result in a
virtual ``take'' by criminals from Mexico. Subsequently, the fence
provides little or no relief in manpower requirements for security
purposes.
Because of the fence placement along IBWC levees which leave vast
areas of the U.S. behind the fence, the Lower Rio Grande Valley
National Wildlife Refuge is faced with new concerns related to safety
and security. Significant questions remain for refuge managers under
this scenario. It is unlikely that the refuge can continue to operate
safely south of the fence to carry-out its responsibilities for
protection, operations and management. The Refuge's fire division will
not be able to safely respond to wildfires south of the fence on refuge
and private lands to extinguish hundreds of wildfires each year due to
limited escape routes. Without additional refuge law enforcement
capacity, it is likely that these areas will turn into ``no
management'' zones and significant damage will occur to wildlife and
wildlife habitat.
The waiver invoked by Secretary Chertoff on April 1, 2008 waiving
28 Federal Acts including the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Endangered Species Act is additional evidence of an agency in crisis.
Thoughtfulness, logic, and (really) listening to the public it serves
have given way to the overpowering mandate of building hundreds of
miles of fence by a legislative deadline. The National Environmental
Policy Act was intended used to fully evaluate the impacts of a project
to the environment and provide the best course of action for all
(including national security). Instead, unneeded and unwarranted
impacts will be borne by communities and the environment at a heavy
cost (fiscal). Eleven years of managing thousands of acres of land
within the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and
coordinating Border Patrol activities on those lands lead me to believe
that there are viable alternatives to the border fence as proposed by
DHS that would eliminate or lessen the impacts to special places like
the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, wildlife corridor
and communities in the Valley.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me now turn to Ms. Laura
Peterson, Taxpayers for Common Sense, senior policy advisor.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF LAURA PETERSON, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, TAXPAYERS
FOR COMMON SENSE
Ms. Peterson. Good morning, Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman
Bordallo, distinguished Members of Congress, and thank you for
inviting me to testify today about the border wall. As you
said, I'm a senior policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common
Sense, a nonprofit, nonpartisan budget watchdog that serves as
an independent voice for American taxpayers. Our mission is to
expose and end wasteful and harmful spending and subsidies in
order to achieve a more responsible and efficient government
that operates within its means.
TCS supports the Federal government working with local
landowners and border communities to achieve sound, cost-
effective border control solutions that protect our nation.
Unfortunately, previous evidence shows that building a wall
across hundreds of miles of diverse borderland is not a good
investment for taxpayers.
The border wall as currently envisioned will cost billions
of dollars in construction and maintenance alone while failing
to adequately block the illegal entry of people and contraband
into the United States and exposing taxpayers to future
liabilities in the bargain.
We simply cannot afford to waste money on feel-good,
ineffective measures, in Homeland Security or anywhere else.
Our nation is in the midst of a financial crises, facing
economic recession, a $400 billion budget deficit, and $9
trillion in national debt, to name just a few of the
challenges. Yet the procedural shortcuts the border wall is
taking in the name of expediency virtually guarantees poor
spending decisions. High national security priorities do not
make less truth of the adage that ``haste makes waste.''
U.S. border control initiatives do not have a history of
cost effectiveness. For example, while the cost of arrests by
Border Patrol officers reportedly jumped from $300 in 1992 to
$1,700 in 2002, Department of Homeland Security statistics show
that the number of apprehensions during that time across the
border remained largely flat. Spending on border infrastructure
has jumped up dramatically in the past six years, from $6
million in 2002 to $647 million in 2007. Yet apprehensions
continue to hover around 100,000 per year.
Border Patrol officers have told Congress that while
fencing is most effective in urban areas, fencing in open areas
obstructs vision and consumes valuable manpower for maintenance
and repair. They also say these urban fences are only effective
when part of the mix that includes manpower, technology and
other resources.
The first fence built south of San Diego did little to stop
the flow of illegal border crossings until Operation Gatekeeper
increased the number of Border Patrol officers and other
resources, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Even so, that decrease is accompanied by the corresponding
increase in apprehensions in Arizona as migrants moved east.
The cost of building the fence rose from $12 million at its
inception to more than $127 million, or $10 million per mile,
at its projected completion. These costs cover construction
only, not acquisitions or maintenance. Maintenance is a
significant and frequently underestimated cost because these
fences are under constant attack. A four-man maintenance crew
is reportedly required to work full-time repairing the 15 to 20
holes ripped through the El Paso fence each day.
Attempts to create a high-tech virtual fence have also
consumed billions of taxpayer dollars in failed investment. The
U.S. Government spent nearly 3 billion on two failed virtual
fences between 1997 and 2006 before awarding a six-year
contract to Boeing to develop a national program called SBInet.
SBInet immediately became the focus of Congressional scrutiny
because of its reliance on contracting practices that have led
to severe cost and schedule overruns in previous contracts.
SBInet lived up to expectations. Shortly after the contract
was awarded, the DHS inspector general raised its project cost
estimate from 2 billion to nearly 30 billion. After several
missed deadlines DHS in February accepted completion of the
program's initial deployment along 28 miles of Arizona border,
paying over $20 million for this work, only to announce earlier
this month that it would scrap the effort and start over.
If these are the kinds of problems that arise in projects
planned and implemented over several years, think of the waste
that could result from rushing a project as costly and
complicated as the border wall. Yet that's exactly what waiving
these numerous laws under the REAL ID Act will do. Many of the
laws, especially the National Environmental Policy Act, require
an environmental review process which can protect taxpayers
from potentially serious and costly future liabilities. The
procedure is inherent and vital to the review process,
providing an important set of checks and balances on Federal
agencies and private actions without which the risk of waste,
fraud and abuse increases.
Waiving hazardous and waste laws such as the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act does nothing to prevent
environmental contamination that may result from wall
construction, but simply guarantees that the cost of cleanup
will be left to taxpayers.
Similarly, waiving wildlife protection laws does not
minimize potential harm to protected species, it just transfers
the cost to other private and public landowners. Landowners and
other residents along the border are violently opposed to the
current set of strategy. In the 2008 appropriations bill passed
earlier this year, Congress told DHS to submit an analysis for
each 15-mile segment of the border that compares approaches
based on factors such as cost and possible unintended effects
on communities. Though DHS has reportedly submitted the
analysis, the document has not been made public, nor has any
other document of what type of fence DHS plans to install at
specific locations. Support and intelligence from others is
valuable input and support crucial to any effective border
strategy.
We agree with lawmakers and the American public that
securing our border is a top national security priority.
However, the current border wall plan is more likely to siphon
precious resources away from that goal and pump money into an
expedient but ineffective, expensive and potentially damaging
project. This decision will affect every taxpayer from the
border of Minnesota to the border of Texas for years in the
future. Thank you again for allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Peterson follows:]
Statement of Laura Peterson, Senior Policy Analyst,
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify today on the
proposed southern border wall. I am a senior policy analyst at
Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan budget watchdog that serves
as an independent voice for American taxpayers. Our mission is to
expose and end wasteful and harmful spending and subsidies in order to
achieve a more responsible and efficient government that operates
within its means.
TCS supports the federal government working with local landowners
and border communities to achieve sound, cost-effective border control
solutions that protect our nation. Unfortunately, evidence indicates
that building a wall across hundreds of miles of diverse borderland is
not a good investment for taxpayers. The border wall as currently
envisioned by the Department of Homeland Security will cost billions of
dollars in construction and maintenance alone while failing to
adequately block the illegal entry of people and contraband into the
United States and exposing taxpayers to future liabilities in the
bargain.
We simply cannot afford to waste money on feel-good, ineffective
measures--in homeland security or anywhere else. Our overall budgetary
challenges are immense. Our nation is in the midst of fiscal crisis:
the economy is in a tailspin, we have a budget deficit of more than
$400 billion and our national debt tops $9 trillion. We spend hundreds
of billions each year just on interest payments to service that debt.
And that doesn't even consider the looming financial challenges of
Social Security and Medicare. We cannot afford to waste a dime, much
less billions of dollars. Yet the procedural shortcuts the border wall
strategy is taking in the name of speedy deployment virtually
guarantees poor spending decisions.
Border security is unquestionably a high national priority, but
that doesn't make Mother's adage that ``haste makes waste'' any less
true.
Big Bucks, Little Bang
U.S. border control initiatives have historically been exercises in
high expense and low effectiveness. The federal government has
appropriated $3.7 billion for border patrol construction since 1996 and
more than $1 billion on fence construction alone, according to the
Congressional Research Service. 1 The cost of making an
illegal-entry arrest jumped from $300 in 1992 to $1,700 in 2002,
according to one economist. 2 While the number of illegal
immigrants entering the United States is notoriously difficult to
quantify, border patrol statistics show that the number of
apprehensions remained relatively flat during the same period.
3 Investment in border infrastructure has increased by a
factor of 100 in the past six years from $6 million in 2002 to $647
million in 2007: Apprehensions, however, hovered around 100,000 per
year. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International
Border,'' Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2008
\2\ Douglas Massey, ``Backfire at the Border: Why Enforcement
Without Legalization Cannot Stop Migration,'' CATO Institute Center for
Trade Policy Studies, June 13, 2005
\3\ Department of Homeland Security 2006 Yearbook of Immigration
Statistics
\4\ ``Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International
Border,'' Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2008; Department
of Homeland Security 2006 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fence constructed along 14 miles of the San Diego border over
the past twenty years is often portrayed as proof of wall
effectiveness, but evidence for that claim is inconclusive at best. The
initial fence, constructed of 10-foot steel landing mats welded
together, did little to stanch the illegal flow of people across the
border: It was only the increase of border patrol manpower and
resources under Operation Gatekeeper in 1994 that made an impact, as
the Congressional Research Service notes. 5 And though
apprehensions in San Diego continued to decline over the next decade,
the decline was mirrored by a dramatic increase in illegal crossings in
Arizona as migrants moved further east. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International
Border,'' Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2008
\6\ ``Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International
Border,'' Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the San Diego project exposes the potentially budget-
busting pitfalls of fencing solutions. To increase its effectiveness,
the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA) authorized another two layers of fence construction in San
Diego at a total cost of $12 million. However, DHS now says the fence
will cost $127 million by the time it is completed--more than 10 times
the initial estimate. 7 In the final analysis, the San Diego
fence will cost more than $10 million per mile when maintenance costs
are included. Yet the fence was breached almost immediately: CBP
officers have found numerous tunnels--some fortified with concrete
flooring and electricity--running underneath the fence to San Diego
county that have consumed significant financial and labor resources to
seal. 8 Maintenance costs have also far exceeded estimates
for the San Diego fence as well as installations in Nogales, Arizona
and El Paso, Texas. In El Paso, a four-main maintenance crew is
required to weld and fill the 15-20 holes ripped through the fence each
day. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ DHS FY2006 and 2007 budget justifications, as cited by CRS
\8\ http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm
\9\ Alicia A. Caldwell, ``Fixing Holes in the Border Fence is a
Never Ending Task for U.S. Agents,'' Associated Press, August 8, 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2006 Secure Fence Act directed DHS to construct 850 miles of
fencing along the 2,000 miles of the southwestern U.S. border, which
Congress reduced to 700 by language in the 2008 consolidated
appropriations bill. The 2008 bill also gave the Secretary of Homeland
Security wide latitude in determining the type of fencing to install
along various portions of the border, stating that he does not have to
use any particular deterrent if he decides it isn't optimal for gaining
``operational control.'' 10 Further, Congress withheld
border security funding until DHS submitted an expenditure plan and an
analysis of each 15-mile border segment that compares approaches based
on factors such as cost and ``possible unintended effects on
communities.'' 11 Though DHS has reportedly submitted the
analysis, the document has not been made public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ PL 110-161, sec. 564, Div E, Title II
\11\ PL 110-161, sec. 564, Div E, Title V
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, DHS has not presented taxpayers with any cost estimates to
date. Some baseline costs can be estimated using the price of fencing
materials. Three types of fencing are currently under consideration:
landing mat fencing, which utilizes steel airplane landing mats welded
together; bollard fencing, consisting of concrete-filled metal tubes;
and Sandia fencing, a 10-foot steel mesh fence topped with an angled
panel. Landing mat fencing costs around $400,000 per mile to install
and $15,000 per mile to maintain; Sandia fencing, $800,000 per mile to
install and $7,000 to maintain; and bollard fencing, $2 to $4 million
per mile to install and $1,000 to $15,000 to maintain (depending on
style). Sandia fencing has so far only been used to backstop primary
fencing on 10 miles of the San Diego border, so would likely be an
additional rather than primary fencing cost.
Other costs include funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, which
provides engineering expertise, construction management and machinery
under a memorandum of understanding with DHS Customs and Border
Protection (CBP). The Corps of Engineers received roughly $40 million
from the Department of Defense for this purpose over the past decade.
12 Though some fence installation labor has been provided by
state National Guard troops at no expense to CBP, labor has also been
provided by the military, the U.S. Border Patrol, and private
contractors, as was the case with the San Diego border fence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International
Border,'' Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the cost of the San Diego fence as a baseline, simple
multiplication produces the oft-cited price of $7 billion for the 700
miles required under the Secure Fence Act. The Corps of Engineers has
estimated that maintaining the fence over 25 years would range from
$16.4 million to $70 million per mile, though that figure would be
increased by breaches such as tunneling. The Corps estimate also does
not include the costs of acquiring land or labor, which could be
substantial if private contractors are retained. The Congressional
Budget Office has estimated border fencing at $3 million per mile for
construction and an additional 15 percent, or $450,000, for maintenance
per year. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International
Border,'' Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures only address the costs of physical fencing, however,
not the fiscal sinkhole that is the ``virtual fence.'' Previous DHS
attempts to establish high-tech virtual fences have been fraught with
problems. In 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service deployed
more than 10,000 sensors and 200 camera towers along the northern and
southern borders under a program called the Integrated Surveillance
Intelligence System (ISIS). Unfortunately, the databases installed to
analyze information from the cameras and sensors were never integrated,
meaning they couldn't share information. Further, the cameras broke
down in bad weather and were difficult and expensive to maintain.
14 These problems were not helped by the fact that the
General Services Administration, tasked with managing the camera
component, conducted ``inadequate contractor oversight, insufficient
competition, and incorrect contracting actions.'' 15 ISIS
moved to DHS after its creation in 2002 and was incorporated two years
later into America's Shield Program (ASI) after an investment of more
than $340 million. 16 ASI also suffered from poor management
and integration with DHS, costing taxpayers $2.5 billion before it was
absorbed by the Secure Border Initiative in 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Border Security: Key Unresolved Issues Justify Reevaluation
of Border Surveillance Technology Program,'' GAO report 06-295,
February 22, 2006 pg 29
\15\ ``Border Security: Key Unresolved Issues Justify Reevaluation
of Border Surveillance Technology Program,'' GAO report 06-295,
February 22, 2006
\16\ ``Border Security: Key Unresolved Issues Justify Reevaluation
of Border Surveillance Technology Program,'' GAO report 06-295,
February 22, 2006 pg 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That year, the Secure Border Initiative launched the operational
successor to ISIS and ASI, another networked system of cameras, sensors
and unmanned vehicles called SBInet. SBInet became the subject of
Congressional scrutiny from the moment the six-year contract was
awarded to Boeing in September 2006 because of its reliance on
contracting practices that have led to severe cost and schedule
overruns in other DHS and DoD contracts. Representative Henry Waxman
(D-CA) held a hearing on SBInet in February of this year at which he
revealed that two-thirds of the individuals that designed the SBInet
acquisition plan were contractors, and that the parties evaluating the
bids were outsourced as well. DHS blamed chronic shortfalls in
procurement personnel as justification for contracting out acquisition
and oversight capacities.
SBInet lived up to expectations: Shortly after the contract was
awarded, the DHS inspector general raised its estimate for the
project's cost from $2 billion to as high as $30 billion. Boeing missed
its June 2007 deadline to deliver the contract's first task order to
secure 28 miles of the Arizona border, saying coordination of the
numerous technologies was proving more difficult than anticipated.
Though DHS accepted the ``Project 28'' task order in February, paying
Boeing its $20 million fee, it announced just last week that it will
scrap the SBInet installation there and start over.
Cut Corners Now, Increase Costs Later
The REAL-ID Act in 2005 authorized the DHS Secretary to waive any
federal law in order to expedite border fence construction. Since then,
DHS has waived more than 30 laws to proceed with construction in San
Diego, Arizona and southern Texas. Laws waived include the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, along with several laws protecting historic
monuments, antiquities and Native American lands.
Many of these laws--specifically NEPA--require an environmental
review process which, in both intent and practice, can protect
taxpayers from potentially serious and costly future liabilities. By
identifying environmental impacts and assessing reasonable
alternatives, NEPA's process brings potential project costs to light
and explores potential solutions. Waiving hazardous waste management
and cleanup laws like RCRA and CERCLA does nothing to prevent possible
environmental contamination that may take place (or be discovered) in
the course of construction. Rather, waiving hazardous waste laws simply
guarantees that the costs of any clean-up would be left to the
taxpayers, letting the responsible private parties off the hook.
Similarly, waiving wildlife management laws does not minimize
potential harms to habitat or protected species. There may be a short-
term savings in the form of deferred mitigation costs, but those
burdens would simply be transferred to other public and private land
owners. And in the absence of a NEPA environmental assessment, those
costs will be hidden. Waivers also devalue the millions of dollars the
federal government has invested in wildlife refuges. Finally, with
their inherent review procedures, environmental laws provide an
important set of checks and balances to federal agency and private
action. Doing away with those review processes in their entirety
increases the chances of waste, fraud and abuse.
Smart Solutions
CBP officers have told Congress that fences are only effective as
part of a ``mix'' that includes manpower, technology and other
resources. 17 In fact, patrolmen have testified that while
fencing is most effective in urban areas, it is actually
counterproductive in open borderlands because it obstructs vision and
requires significant maintenance and repair. 18 They also
noted that a cogent immigration policy should be part of this mix: A
border patrol chief told the House Homeland Security Committee in 2006
that he was ``frustrated by the fact that we look to border security
(for solutions) when there is, in fact, a deeper issue at hand.''
19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Fencing the Border'' hearing before the House Homeland
Security Committee, July 20 2006
\18\ ``Fencing the Border'' hearing before the House Homeland
Security Committee, July 20 2006
\19\ ``Fencing the Border'' hearing before the House Homeland
Security Committee, July 20 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support and intelligence from local residents is another valuable
resource, one that the current wall proposal does not adequately
develop. Here in Texas, owners of land gained through Spanish land
grants and handed down over generations reportedly face the possibility
of walls in their backyard, while golf courses and luxury housing
developments just miles away remain untouched. 20 It's hard
to know just what the DHS approach to fencing options is since the
agency has not made its analysis for each segment of the border public,
which would allow residents to see plans for their neighborhoods and
contribute potentially valuable input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2688&print=true
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American voters and lawmakers clearly agree that preventing
potentially harmful people and contraband from entering America's
borders is a top national security priority. However, the current
border fence plan is more likely to siphon precious resources away from
that goal and pump money into an expedient but ineffective, expensive
and potentially damaging project. The stakes are too high to line our
border with expensive sugar pills.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. And let me now ask Mr.
Zack Taylor, supervisory Border Patrol agent, retired, for his
testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF ZACK TAYLOR, SUPERVISORY BORDER PATROL AGENT
(RETIRED)
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairmen Grijalva, Bordallo, Ranking
Member Tancredo, Members of Congress. My name is George Zachary
Taylor and I graduated from the University of Florida with a
degree in wildlife ecology. I consider myself to be a natural
resources conservationist. I'm a charter member of the National
Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. My association
speaks for laws, rules and regulations that will benefit
America, and we speak against any law, rule or legislation that
is contrary to the interest of all Americans. In this case,
specifically House of Representatives 2593.
I was a Border Patrol agent for 26 years in the United
States Border Patrol from 1976 to 2003, the first 12 years as a
field agent along the Rio Grande River at Brownsville and
McAllen, Texas. I worked at the Santa Ana refuges, the Bentsen
State Park in South Texas. My principal duties were the
detection and apprehension of drug and alien smugglers and
training new agents to do that. I spent 14 years as a field
supervisor and Border Patrol agent at the Nogales Border Patrol
station. The Tucson sector Nogales Border Patrol station was
and still is the most active drug and alien smuggling corridor
into the United States.
My principal duties were the detection and apprehension of
drug and alien smugglers. Almost all of my patrol time there
was on public land along the U.S. and Mexican border.
From my present home in Rio Rico, Arizona, I look south
into Sonora, Mexico; southwest into the Pajarita Wilderness and
the proposed Pajarita Wilderness Extension; west and northwest
to the proposed Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness; and north into
the Santa Rita Mountains Wilderness. I am bound on all sides by
public land or Mexico. I worked all of these places in the
United States for 14 years until I retired in 2003.
The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers
strongly urge all Americans to come together as a country, a
nation and as one people to fully understand and effectively
deal with the serious threat to our public safety and national
security from our southern border. We must protect America
first.
In Arizona we have seen wilderness areas and proposed
wilderness areas turned into killing grounds as well as major
drug and alien smuggling routes. Public land adjacent to these
wilderness are trashed by illegal aliens to the extent they
resemble landfills. The evidence of multiple robberies and
rapes are commonplace. Local law enforcement is virtually
powerless against the gangs that freely roam these public
lands.
Aliens infected with highly contagious diseases enter the
United States across our southern border daily and are not
screened for those diseases even if they are apprehended.
Organized gangs such as MS-13 are now common in the United
States. The violence of such gangs and their drug--their drug
trade bring with them is causing gang-related violence and
suffering in every corner of America. It threatens the very
fabric of our society. At present drug-related violence is
destroying Mexico as we speak.
It is along our southern border that terrorists have
entered the United States and have been apprehended. We do not
know who, how many, or where they are from because we only
apprehend a relatively small fraction of all persons that cross
our borders illegally. A large percentage of the wildfires
along the Arizona-Mexican border are human caused. Some are
intentionally set as diversions for other illegal activities.
Firefighters have been shot at while responding to fighting
fires along these trafficking corridors.
Arizona has experienced the positive effects of fencing
parts of the Arizona border. Law enforcement officers have been
shot and killed by smugglers and narcotraffickers in national
monuments and proposed wilderness areas. Agents that I had
trained and supervised have been shot at, shot and killed in
the Nogales area.
No, one type of fence does not fit all terrains and
situations. However, we have seen dramatic reductions in crime
and violence on the United States side where the appropriate
fence has been erected, maintained and patrolled. I'm here to
warn the wonderful people of Texas that there are some among us
that want to make it easier for the terrorists,
narcotraffickers, gang members, and the disease-ridden to come
into the United States illegally. Please see this wolf in
sheep's clothing for what it is, a horrendous threat to our
public safety and national security. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
Statement of George Zachary Taylor,
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers
Public and private lands along the United States-Mexico Border,
between the ports of entry, have been a point of entry and exit for
criminals since the Official Border was laid out over one hundred years
ago. If everyone in the world did not engage in criminal activity and
respected our laws, a secure border would not be absolutely necessary.
Such is not the case and we live in an increasingly dangerous world.
We are a nation of free people. We are daily engaged in our own
pursuit of happiness and therefore we do not keep up with the constant
changes that are taking place along our land borders or the legislation
that affects them. The urgent need to secure our borders as soon as
possible has never been so clear. Proof that many among us do not
respect and understand this present need is as close as your local
newspaper or news outlet.
I must point out that all of the information in this report is
available to anyone that reads the newspapers, listens to the current
news and pays attention to current events. The failure of the media to
accurately report these facts appears to be an intentional failure to
report the truth.
Congress authorized the Department of Homeland Security to build a
border fence along America's southern border. Intermittent sections of
this fence have been erected in various places on the border. Where
this fencing is designed to conform to the terrain and natural land
features for the purpose of stopping or severely deterring people and
vehicles to enter the United States illegally, it has been very
successful. If the fence is carelessly constructed or a purpose other
than maximum effectiveness is followed, the fencing will be less
effective. We do not represent that any fence will completely stop all
illegal traffic. No fence will make the United States totally secure.
However, without a maximum efficiency fence erected and maintained
where practical we are at greater risk.
Congress is considering several Legislative Bills affecting the
U.S. Mexico border that will certainly make America less safe. These
two Bills are H.R. 3287, The Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act, and
H.R. 2593, The Border Conservation and Security Act of 2007. A third
action is the current movement to nullify the previously authorized
waivers for Homeland Security to build the border fence. Congressmen
that claim to protect America and then turn around and knowingly
support official action and legislation that will make America less
safe should not be in office. We must have elected officials that place
American security first.
The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers is
calling upon all Americans in every state, territory and outlying
possession to come together and demand that Congress secure our land
borders and make our country a safer place for us to live and raise our
families. In the following pages we will lay out the facts as they
presently are and ask you to consider the facts in making your future
decisions concerning the fence and legislation that would make America
less safe.
The primary duty of today's Border Patrol is to detect and
apprehend terrorists. The ideal is to stop them at the border, before
they come into the United States. We know that terrorists enter the
United States across the Mexican border. Located at Sierra Vista,
Arizona, is a Top Secret U.S. Army Intelligence School called Fort
Huachuca. On February 12, 2008, two persons living in Sierra Vista,
were stopped at Patagonia, Arizona, by the local Constable. Both were
determined to be of middle eastern descent and both were on the
National Terrorist Watch List. They were driving to Nogales, Arizona,
to bond out their associate that had crossed illegally into the United
States the night before and was apprehended by the Border Patrol.
(http://nogalesinternational.com/articles/2008/02/26/news/news8.prt)
I personally interviewed three Syrian Citizens that had entered the
United States illegally and one subsequently claimed to me that he was
a terrorist who was coming to the United States to engage in terrorism.
These persons entered the United States illegally from Mexico near
Nogales, Arizona, and were apprehended by Nogales Border Patrol Agents.
In 2006 approximately 10% of the illegal aliens apprehended by the
U.S. Border Patrol had criminal records. In 2007 the U.S. Border Patrol
apprehended 876,700 illegal aliens, 144,000, or 16.4% had criminal
records. Of the 144,000 that had criminal histories, 11,706 were for
Dangerous Drugs. Ninety-nine percent of the meth produced in Mexico
crosses the Mexican border into the United States. Ninety percent of
the cocaine consumed in the United States crosses the Mexican border.
Mexico is the largest supplier of marijuana to the United States and
the bulk of this marijuana crosses the Mexican border into the United
States. No one knows for certain how many illegal aliens or terrorists
successfully enter the United States that are not detected or
apprehended. We must conclude that we do not come any where near
catching them all under the conditions that presently exist at the
border. During my tenure as a Field Supervisory Border Patrol Agent at
Nogales, Arizona, 1988-2003, I studied this aspect of the Immigration
problem. My evaluation of the situation indicated that we were indeed
fortunate to apprehend as much as 10% of the total traffic on any given
day. On some days we would apprehend over 3,000 at Nogales. I continue
to live in the Nogales area and I am certain that a very significant
percentage is still making it into the interior of the United States,
undetected. Arizona in particular needs all of the tools available to
stem this flow. An effective Border Fence is one of those tools.
Organized illegal alien Gangs trafficking in illegal drugs are a
significant percentage of the violent crime associated with the selling
of dangerous drugs in the United States. The exact extent of the
problem is unknown. In March 2008, Mexico estimates that the MS-13 Gang
in Central America number 100,000 members, 63% of whom are Mexican
citizens. The United States estimates for the MS-13 Gang, mostly in Los
Angeles County, California, at 30,000 members, 56% of them are Mexican
Citizens. These MS-13 gang members, and members of several other gangs,
likely cross the Mexican border illegally without interruption to their
enterprise. These combined numbers are roughly the number of U.S.
troops currently deployed to Iraq. This is according to an Associated
Press Article in the Arizona Daily Star April 3, 2008. I have recently
received yet unconfirmed information that MS13 is setting up shop on
Mount Vernon Avenue in Pentagon City and that they have taken over the
gang turf in Santa Barbara, California. We will have to wait and see
what develops because no one seems to be working to effectively prevent
the expansion and replication of their influence in the United States.
The Arizona Daily Star reports that for the first three months of
2008, homicides are up approximately 100% in the City of Tucson, which
does not include greater Pima County.
Organized Gangs, believed to be predominately illegal aliens,
operate out of the Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona, areas. These gangs
stage kidnappings of illegal alien smuggling loads from alien
smugglers. They have engaged in running gun battles on back roads and
on the Interstate Highways. They also wait for drug mules and alien
smuggling loads on the mountain trails of the proposed Tumacacori
Wilderness Area and in the Santa Rita Mountains Wilderness areas. Their
method of operation is extremely violent. Tiny Santa Cruz County
Arizona alone has had 30 such shooting incidents in the past two years.
Numerous illegal aliens have been shot and killed and many illegal
aliens have been shot and wounded by these heavily armed gangs
operating up to 60 or more miles inside the United States.
(http://nogalesinternational.com/articles/2008/01/22/news/
news12.prt)
(http://www.gvnews.com/articles/2007/04/19/news/news02.prt)
Congressmen that seek to pass legislation to confer Wilderness
status on the Tumacacori Highlands and on other public lands on or near
the Mexican border are not acting in America's best interest. Only the
terrorist and smuggler will significantly benefit from the passage of
H.R. 2593 and H.R. 3287. This legislation is an impediment to Law
Enforcement efforts at the border.
Illegal aliens shot by bandits and illegal aliens injured in
vehicle accidents incur significant unrecoverable expense to local
Arizona hospitals and overload the capacity of the hospitals to treat
patients. The return from the United States government on this
Federally mandated care is reported to be fifteen cents on the dollar.
Therefore, the costs must be passed on to U.S. Citizens in increased
costs when they visit these hospitals. This practice has caused
hospitals to close their doors completely.
(http://azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/230998)
(http://.kold.com/global/story.asp?s=8131193&ClientType=Printable)
(http://azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/233584)
There is also the increasing incidence of contagious diseases
brought into the United States by illegal aliens that sneak across the
Mexican border daily. To name a few, hepatitis, measles, cholera,
tuberculosis, drug resistant tuberculosis, and various STD's. What is
disturbing is that a significant number of infected illegal aliens work
in food processing centers in the U.S. (http://www.judicialwatch.org/
blog/another-illegal-immigrant-spreads-tuberculosis)
Numerous reported Rape Trees have been identified in and near the
current Pajarita Wilderness and the proposed Pajarita Wilderness
Extension near the U.S. Mexico border. Rape Trees mark the location
where drug and alien smugglers habitually sexually assault and rape
illegal alien females that are being brought into the United States
across the Mexican border. These locations are marked by the
perpetrators who prominently display and hang the brassiers and
underwear of their victims on a particular tree. I visited one such
reported tree on March 27, 2008, and noticed 30 sets of women's panties
and 11 brassiers near the location of the suspect tree. A local rancher
near Arivaca, Arizona, reports 14 rape trees on his ranch and he
estimates that 7 are currently active. These Rape Tree trails begin at
the Mexican border and many travel through the Pajarita Wilderness and
the proposed Pajarita Wilderness Expansion (H.R. 2593) before entering
the proposed Tumacacori Wilderness area, outlined in H.R. 3287.
Law Enforcement Officers are killed by illegal aliens who are
engaging in criminal activities after they have crossed the Mexican
border illegally. Border Patrol Agent Alexander Kirpnick was shot and
killed by a drug smuggler in Potrero Canyon west of the Meadow Hills
Golf Course in June 1998. Two Border Patrol Agents were shot and
wounded by smugglers east of Nogales, Arizona, in June 2005. Last year
Phoenix Police Officer Nick Erfle was shot and killed by an illegal
alien gang member. In August 2002 at Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument in Arizona, Park Ranger Kris Eggle was shot and killed by
narco traffickers. (http://www.nps.gov/orpi/historyculture/kris.htm)
This was after environmental groups insisted that Border Patrol Agents
stay out of the area because of damage they were doing to the
environment. The illegal alien traffic habitat damage that followed the
Border Patrol's departure was far more severe than that caused by Law
Enforcement Patrols.
I worked the Rio Grande River area near McAllen, Texas, from 1979-
1988. I saw first hand in the Santa Ana Refuges and in Bentsen State
Park the way illegal aliens and smugglers defile Parks and Refuges. I
heard testimony by Mark South on November 17, 2007, at a Congressional
Hearing in Washington, D.C., concerning H.R. 2593 and H.R. 3287, where
he described having worked for the Forest Service to establish hiking
trails in the Santa Rita Mountains and those Wilderness designated
areas, only to return as a Wildland firefighter later to view the
trashing and destruction wrought by illegal aliens and smugglers on
those trails, and to fight the fires they had caused. Such has been my
experience. When a Wilderness or Refuge area is established near the
border, the criminal element moves in and trashes it because the
restrictive Wilderness or Refuge status accorded to these lands
effectively prevents all law enforcement from effectively working the
area. In other words, the Refuge or Wilderness designation actually
serves to put the environment at greater risk of being seriously
damaged and defaced. Law Enforcement must have common, unrestricted,
free access to all lands near the U.S. Border. By near I mean at least
50 miles because that is ordinary walking distance for illegal aliens
and drug smugglers traveling on foot. I have seen and heard evidence or
aliens who walked from the Mexican border north bound to pick up
locations that are north of Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 in Southern
Arizona.
Organized Mexican Drug Traffickers from Mexico are sent throughout
the world to engage in the illegal drug trade. Major cartels operating
in Mexico are presently challenging the government of Mexico and the
Mexican Army for control of Mexico. There have been over 4,000 drug
related assassinations reported in Mexico for 2006-2007. This number is
under reported, by how much we do not know. Estimates run at least 25%
of these crimes are never reported. Why? The mortality rate for Mexican
Journalists is extremely high. Therefore they are loathe to report
anything they are ``advised'' not to report.
In fact the Gulf Drug Cartel recently recruited their Narco
Terrorists, called Zetas, by placing a banner near a Mexican Army post
in Tamaulipas, Mexico. The accompanying Newspaper Article said they
were particularly interested in Merida trained soldiers and policemen.
The Merida Initiative is a 1.4 billion dollar program financed by the
United States Government to train Mexican Soldiers and Police by U.S.
Special Forces and other U.S. Agencies in our latest border security
and protection techniques. The Drug Cartels then seek to hire these
U.S. trained personnel to ply the drug trade would wide. These Zetas
then become American Law Enforcements adversaries at the border and in
the interior of the United States. Take a look at the job benefits
offered to these trained soldiers and policemen. The Gulf Cartel is
right up there with General Motors in benefits provided. (http://
www.tamaulipasenlinea.com/)
It is no wonder that in April 2008, the United Nations found that
Mexico ranked number one in the category of ``violent crime'' in the
use of firearms and excessive violence. Mexico was so designated this
over less developed countries such as Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela.
(El Imparcial, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, 04/23/08.) This finding by
the United Nations may explain the belated response by the United
States Department of State which issued a Travelers Warning Mexico, on
April 14, 2008. Belated because this current level of violence has been
ongoing for several years, apparently unnoticed by the Department of
State until the United Nations called their attention to the problem.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_3028.html
In southern Arizona we are experiencing increased incidences of
wildfire from two primary sources. The first source is illegal aliens
that cross into the United States illegally and start fires through
carelessness. The second source is from illegal aliens engaged in other
criminal enterprises that start wildfires to create a diversion so they
can smuggle things into or out of the United States. Wildland
Firefighters have encountered gun fire on several occasions when going
out on a wildfire along the Mexican border. The fire approach rule now
includes a mandatory armed escort before going out on a wildfire along
the Mexican border and in the proposed Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness
area. As a matter of fact, on 04/20/08 as I sit here typing this report
I can see and smell the smoke from a wildfire that is presently burning
in the Pajarita Wilderness area, southwest of and in sight of my home.
(http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/mailstory-clickthru/235272.php) This fire
is human caused and began in a very remote canyon near the Mexican
border and quite distant from any road. The fire is in the Pajarita
Wilderness Area. The firefighters on the fire line report extensive
illegal alien and drug smuggling trails throughout the area. Today, 04/
23/08, I see another Wildfire burning on the highest reaches of the
Tumacacori Mountains, north of Hells Gate, which is in the proposed
Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Area proposed by H.R. 3287. This is
near the location that the armed bandits operate out of when preying on
illegal aliens and drug smugglers, especially in the Aliso Springs Area
near Tubac, Arizona.
As I travel around the United States I talk to Americans about the
Mexican Border situation. The subject simply comes up when they find
out I am retired from the Border Patrol. In particular I talk with
people that visit the Mexican Border here near Nogales and friends that
live away from the border keep me up to speed on their thinking on
border issues. This information really became clarified and focused
during the debate about the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Bill proposed by Congress last year. From nearly every state in
the Union I have heard about the negative personal experiences that
American Citizens have had with illegal aliens. If the citizen has not
personally had a negative experience, then they know someone that has
and they do not want to become victims themselves. A somewhat humorous
example that comes to mind was related by a family from Maine that owns
blueberry ground. They said that they hired illegal aliens to harvest
the blueberries on their land. After a few days they noticed that in
the surrounding towns illegal aliens were selling blueberries door to
door and set up blueberry stands at prominent road intersections. Quite
by accident they discovered that the illegal aliens that they had hired
to harvest their blueberries were skimming and hiding blueberries on
their ground, then coming back at night and retrieving those
blueberries for their families to sell during the day while they were
harvesting their blueberries for pay. They fired the illegal aliens and
hired high school students to finish picking their blueberries.
Even tiny Rhode Island, thousands of miles from the Mexican Border
is taking steps to curtain their illegal Immigration problems.
http://www.projo.com/news/pdf/2008/0327_immigrationorder.pdf
Most illegal alien stories usually are much more serious. I read
about a serial rapist in Phoenix, Arizona, that specialized in young
school girls on their way to morning school bus stops. I am sure we all
read about the Railroad Rapist that terrorized the Southwest for
months. Stories of illegal aliens involved in home invasion robberies
and in fatal vehicle accidents that frequently involve other illegal
activity including drugs and alcohol are common. No person or family in
the United States is safe from the potential harm caused by illegal
aliens.
http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222_illegals_report.shtml
Americans know this, particularly Americans that live away from the
immediate border area. They are angry and they are focusing their anger
on the politicians both local and national that have sat by and not
demanded that our Immigration laws be enforced. They view these
politicians as to source of the problem, not the illegal alien.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me begin--and hopefully some
quick responses so that all the members have an opportunity.
Mr. McClung, you know, I guess some people would argue that
because your organization opposes the wall, that somehow you're
one of these open border kind of organizations that doesn't
care about enforcing those laws and don't care about--that all
you care about is a secure work force for the people that you
represent. And that's--some people might categorize that that
way. And your opposition to the wall is based on.
Mr. McClung. Well, if we're categorized that way, it's by
people who don't understand either agriculture or farmers. For
the most part, farmers are a conservative political bloc. They
are very patriotic but they also are intent on having things
done well and done economically when possible. So let me make
it very clear, no farmer that I know of or have talked to is
opposed to border security. We all want border security, it's
just doing it is--in as smart a fashion as possible.
And then let me--I'm glad you asked about the desire for
cheap labor because that always comes up in this sort of thing.
There is no question that if you're an unskilled farm laborer
from Mexico or anyplace else, you're probably not going to get
rich in this country harvesting lettuce or whatever it is, but
you are going to be paid the minimum wage or well better.
The national average for farm labor that I saw the other
day is about 9.50 an hour. It's different from place to place,
but that's the national average. That's not a great deal of
money. We all know that. But it is a lot more than a lot of
people are able to make elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Merritt, we've got this
either/or proposition, and maybe you can help answer that. The
either/or proposition is, you know, destroying the habitat is--
impacting negatively a habitat or wildlife corridor, et cetera,
that's a bad thing. But stopping illegal entrants is just a
much more important issue. So that must have the priority. And
how do you see this either/or proposition? Do you have to give
up one to get the other or----
Mr. Merritt. You know, this is based on 11 years in the
Valley working with Border Patrol agents and supervising on a
daily basis that I believe and I think a lot of my colleagues
believe that there are alternatives. And I think, you know, the
major point that we have as Fish and Wildlife Service employees
or land managers is that some of the fencing placement just
made no sense to us in terms of its effectiveness.
Now, I'm not a border security expert, but I've been there
11 years and worked with these people and talked to the field
agents, and some of the fence placements were--disallows
movement of wildlife--and I'm not talking about urban areas,
urban--wildlife moving past urban areas, rural areas is just
nonsensical to us and probably not a good expenditure of money
either, as was alluded to by my colleague here.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Peterson, explain a little bit
more how you've--how the compliance with laws such as NEPA that
you mentioned can actually result in cost savings, you
mentioned that, in the long-term.
Ms. Peterson. Well, NEPA and several of the other laws that
I mentioned have an environmental impact process and that
process involves examination of alternatives and--which often
include cost estimates and can also bring up potential impacts
that the costs can then be mapped out too. And it also helps
give sort of an indication of----
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Taylor--let me extend my time
just a little bit. Mr. Taylor, from your experience as a Border
Patrol agent--and I think you kind of mentioned bits of this in
your testimony--do all people who come across illegally do so
because they either have a contagious disease or have a
criminal record, therefore, they can't obtain a visa legally?
And can anybody with a clean record who pays 100 bucks get a
visa to enter the U.S. within three years?
Mr. Taylor. They can apply for a nonimmigrant visa, and
most of the people that do apply get a hearing with a consulate
officer, which is actually outside of what Immigration does.
Mr. Grijalva. And I assume by your answer that it is
contagious-disease carrying people and criminals that are the
primary focus that are coming across, right?
Mr. Taylor. That is what is the current concern,
Congressman. In Tucson, there have been outbreaks, two
recently, as you know, in Tucson with measles, one with an
alien from Switzerland. And there has been another outbreak or
rather a reported incident of tuberculosis.
Mr. Grijalva. You mention, sir, your extensive experience.
You were here in the Rio Grande Valley, part of this sector,
then you went to the Tucson sector. Can you explain the
circumstances on how and why you moved?
Mr. Taylor. Promotion.
Mr. Grijalva. Straight promotion? OK. Let me now turn to
the Chairwoman Bordallo for any questions she may have.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question here for Mr. Merritt. There is wide consensus
within the scientific community that preserving the functions
of key wildlife migration corridors across the U.S.-Mexico
border is critical to the future ecological health of the
borderlands, especially in light of the need to ensure that
species can adapt to climate change. Now, in your opinion, has
the Department of Homeland Security done an adequate job of
identifying these key wildlife corridors? And, second, can you
describe how, if at all, DHS has worked with you and other Fish
and Wildlife Service biologists to redesign project segments
crossing refuge system lands to protect functioning migratory
corridors?
Mr. Merritt. I'll try to answer the first one. This
particular area wildlife corridor which includes the refuge and
private lands and nongovernment agency owned lands is of
particular value because so much of the property--as I said, 95
percent of the habitat has been lost on the north side, and if
you look at satellite maps in Mexico, it's probably up to 98
percent. There is very little habitat left. It's a natural
funnel for migratory birds to come from North America and South
America and all sorts--and this area is a major stopover for
millions of migratory birds.
An example would be probably hawks that come in during the
summertime. In Santa Ana it's not uncommon to have 80,000
broad-winged hawks lighting within the Santa Ana National
Wildlife Refuge as a rest stop. There are no other habitat
areas around.
Ms. Bordallo. And in your professional opinion, are there
ways to ensure border security without compromising those lands
set aside for wildlife?
Mr. Merritt. I believe that there are ways to do this if we
went through the NEPA process like we ought to do in a
thoughtful way and looked at the alternatives, that a good
decision would be made. Unfortunately, the schedule did not
permit a good decision in my opinion.
Ms. Bordallo. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, thank all
three panels. This is our final panel and some of us are
leaving here to go back to Washington, but I just want to thank
all the participants on the panel and also to let you know that
it is a very, very important issue to members of the U.S.
Congress. Otherwise, you wouldn't see eight Members of Congress
here at a field hearing. So, again, thank you very much and to
the University here also for their hospitality.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me turn to our
Ranking Member, Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor, has it been your experience that the
preservation of wildlife habitat is endangered by the actions
taken by people coming across the border at areas where they,
of course, have less to worry about in terms of border
protection, border security? Would that not be--I'll put it
this way. Would wildlife areas, national wildlife areas, be
more or less alluring to the person who's coming across the
border who does not want to get caught? If you're looking at
that border, where would that path be for you?
Mr. Taylor. It's been my experience--and, Mr. Tancredo,
thank you for the question--that they're going to go where
they're going to be most successful, and where they'll be most
successful is where the terrain permits them to evade detection
and where the border patrol presence would be diminished.
Mr. Tancredo. And would that Border Patrol presence be
diminished in a wildlife--in a wilderness area, in particular,
wildlife?
Mr. Taylor. By definition of the '64 Act, it would greatly
diminish access.
Mr. Tancredo. So if we are truly concerned about the
protection of the wildlife and the wilderness areas, would we
not--is it not logical for us to then try to do something to
prevent entrance into that area by people who are going to
spoil it?
Mr. Taylor. Yes, both from the destruction--actual
destruction of habitat and the spoiling of the area visually
both.
Mr. Tancredo. I recall it was part of the report I remember
sometime ago about the difficulty that the Border Patrol was
having getting into the wildlife or wilderness areas because,
of course, they were protected, and the fact is that illegal
aliens do not care about that protection. Therefore, they seek
those places out. But we were--it's very difficult for the
Border Patrol to actually patrol the area. They have to either
use--go in by horseback--by that time, of course, people are
gone--or they are sometimes parachuted in, if I'm not mistaken.
But the other problem with using horses is that the horses have
to be quarantined for two weeks so that they make sure that
nothing they ate would eventually go through them and end up
hurting the grass or something of that nature.
Mr. Taylor. There are all types of restrictions on
wilderness areas. And depending on the sensitivity of the
habitat in a particular area, it has things that people are
specifically interested in preventing. And if it is a plant
that is transmitted by a seed--which certain grasses in the
cactus monuments, they actually pay people to go out and take
these plants out before they bloom each year. And a horse, of
course, eating grass will transmit that particular seed.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you. Ms. Peterson, has your
organization done any work at all trying to estimate the cost
to the American taxpayer of maintaining the illegal alien
community in this country? Has it looked at that at all?
Ms. Peterson. No, it has not.
Mr. Tancredo. A number of organizations have, a number of
reports are out there which specifically indicate that it runs
into the hundreds of billions. One I saw was a trillion dollars
over 10 years that are potential costs that we incur--taxpayers
of this country incur--as a result of the infrastructural cost
for the illegal immigrant population in this country, both
certainly health care, educational expenses, and the like. So
it's everything has to be gauged in on that basis as to exactly
what it is that--I mean, the amount of money that it would cost
us to try and prevent the action in the first place as opposed
to what it costs if we do nothing at all.
Now, everybody has said today, you know--I think almost
everyone on the panel, with rare exceptions, has agreed that
borders are important. There are a couple of people who
suggested--or at least one--who said that to her and many of
her friends they were not, that it didn't matter, borders
didn't really exist for them. I would suggest that that's not a
unique impression for a lot of people in and around this area,
that borders don't matter.
But let me just suggest to us all that this is not a
problem that is faced only by the people in this particular
area. They are impacted dramatically by it, undeniably, but so
is the rest of the United States of America, and as Members of
Congress we have a responsibility and we have a duty to do what
we can to protect and defend the Nation as a whole.
And so it extends to looking at the borders and seeing what
we can do, even though, you know, there are people in the area
that may disagree with the implementation, you have to--as I
say, our responsibility is something else. It's broader than
that. And we have to come to the realization, the
understanding, that there are people here who really don't
believe borders are important, especially the border between
Mexico and the United States. They wish it didn't exist, and in
their minds it really doesn't. But for the rest of us and for
the security of the Nation as a whole, we have to take into
consideration the fact that there are much bigger issues at
play here than someone's multicultural attitude toward borders.
And that's all that I suggest that we all do when we look at
this.
This is a very serious issue, and if you don't like a fence
between Mexico--if you don't want a fence between the city and
Mexico, I suggest that you build this fence around the northern
part of your city.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman, and now I'd like to
recognize the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your
allowing us to participate and thank the witnesses, and I agree
with my colleagues in thanking the university and everybody for
their time. There are certain things that kind of stand out in
my mind and I may ask some of these answers to be given to us
in writing for the record because of time constraints, because
I have several of them. But to Mr. Merritt, in your testimony
you alluded to the fact that the general public was being
advised that no decisions were being made yet about the areas--
I'm sorry, the areas where the fence was going to be
established, yet the consultants were already hired, there were
maps already drawn, locales identified, and if I'm correct on
my assumption, you found out about it through the newspaper?
Mr. Merritt. What we did find out about was that there was
fencing planned for Texas through the newspaper, and we tried
to follow up on that on our own in terms of contacting DHS
locally to confirm.
Mrs. Napolitano. But was the public advised after the fact?
Mr. Merritt. It's really hard for me to say in terms of the
public. You know, it first came out in the Roma newspaper,
which doesn't have a lot of distribution, and I think that from
then on the papers really jumped on that and there was a lot of
discussion in terms of what is really happening. And really the
Border Patrol answer that I recall is that ``We haven't made
any decisions yet,'' and that's what we went through for months
as Fish and Wildlife Service employees.
Mrs. Napolitano. But was it evident that the plans had
already been drawn, consultants hired and things were on the
way?
Mr. Merritt. I'm not absolutely sure when consultants were
hired, but we were provided maps right away after we had the
first meeting.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. To Mr. McClung, how severe do
you think the economic impact might be to the--might be of the
decision to cut local farmers off from their water source?
Mr. McClung. Well, if, in fact, we're cut off from water
and land, it's going to be extremely severe. It's difficult to
tell because we're not sure where they're going to build those
structures and we don't--more importantly, we don't know
exactly what kind of access will be provided in those
structures. And so it's hard to give you an accurate answer. I
will say this. Increasingly the produce industry in Texas is
moving to Mexico and part of it is labor. And if we are
impacted in terms of labor, then that trend will continue and
will amplify.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Taylor, you were stating about being
able to apply for a visa to be able to cross the border
legally. I can assure you that--and I don't speak for the rest
of my colleagues, but my biggest case load is immigration,
caseload on people whose visas are not--that they applied for
years are still waiting for them or that they have problems
trying to be able to effectively be able to cross the border.
FBI's known priority has been terrorism, not immigration
assistance. So that to me is unfortunate that you do say that
because that has not been the case, at least from the vantage
point of my case workers.
Ms. Peterson, were you asked to be part of the dialogue on
being able to have input as to the fence, or any of you, Mr.
McClung, and you, Ms. Peterson?
Ms. Peterson. No, although we don't have--our organization
has membership down here in this region, but we're Washington-
based, but, no, we were not asked.
Mr. McClung. Not only were we not asked for the most part,
but when we tried to contact the Border Patrol, go in and talk
to the Border Patrol, they turned us down. They didn't know
what to say and were afraid to say much of anything.
Mrs. Napolitano. And, Mr. Merritt, in case of fire--and you
did allude to the fact that it would be hard to get through to
be able to fight fires--were a majority of those fires caused
by illegal immigrants, or were they naturally occurring fires.
Mr. Merritt. Generally those fires are not naturally
occurring in the area. We don't have much lightning strikes
here. It's really hard to say. We have had a variety of reasons
for the 300 or so fires that we have on the refuge every year.
Some of them are man-caused, some of them are embers from
across Mexico blowing over, sometimes it's people burning
garbage. It just seems a variety of reasons, no real primary
reason for those fires.
As far as the Fish and Wildlife Service goes, it has the
biggest firefighting capability in the Valley and helps out all
the communities. And being behind a fence in terms of trying to
fight a fire is a safety matter that we are concerned about.
Mrs. Napolitano. Then we shouldn't be blaming it all on
undocumented immigrants.
Mr. Merritt. I would not say so, in my experience.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Thank you, panel. Thank
you again and that's it for me.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thanks for this
hearing, and I want to thank our guests. We've had three
panels, and I think we've had--one thing about it, for you
folks that think you didn't get your day in court, you
certainly had it today with lots of coverage and you've had a
chance to talk about your issues.
Let me go over a couple of things that I think are
important. First, Ms. Peterson, I was--I wrote the law that
mandated the double border fence--actually, triple border fence
for that smugglers' corridor in San Diego. And I--you know,
facts are stubborn things. I've got to keep bringing them back
to you.
We had 202,000 arrests before we built that fence. We had
300 drug drive-throughs a month on average. We had an average
of 12 murders on the border a year, hundreds of rapes, hundreds
of assaults. It was so bad that we had a plainclothes police
unit from San Diego City who would go down dressed as illegal
aliens and wait to be attacked by the border gangs, many of
whom were armed with automatic weapons.
Fact for you: When we built it, we went down from 202,000
arrests to 9,000, more than a 90 percent decrease. We
eliminated all 300 drug drive-throughs per month. We took the
average murder rate from 12 a year, all by border gangs, down
to zero. And by FBI statistics, the crime rate in the county of
San Diego after we built the border fence went down by 56
percent. And the cost of building the border fence, the hard
cost of actually putting in the cement and the fence posts and
the panels and building the fence--in fact, the double fence,
because we only needed to build two. I met with the Clinton
administration and said, ``We don't want to build all three. We
don't think we need it.'' I said, ``I'll tell you what, we'll
leave it on the books, and if we don't need the third layer, we
won't build it.'' We never needed it because it worked very
effectively.
The price we got--and it's still a cost that's quoted by
contractors because we had the Association of General
Contractors meet and testify in Congress as to what they would
charge--was about $3 million a mile for those 9 miles of border
fence that we built. Now, you said it's actually been 100
million. It hasn't been $100 million to build the border fence.
Now, we delayed building the fence--and in a way you've made my
case. We delayed building the fence across the Smugglers Gulch
for 12 years because of lawsuits, because of a concern that the
gnatcatcher would not fly over a 10-foot high fence. And if you
take that and extrapolate that across the Southwest, it's easy
to understand why the Department of Homeland Security said,
``We'll never build this fence if we don't have a waiver
process that's available to us.'' And that's why Congress
overwhelmingly approved the waiver.
And the second fact that you've got--that you've erred on
here is this. You said that Operation Gatekeeper is what
brought down the smuggling. The border fence was a part and
parcel of Operation Gatekeeper. That was the fence that we
attached the gate to. And we actually were able to reduce the
number of Border Patrolmen--and if you'll go back and check
your numbers, you'll see that we have fewer Border Patrolmen
attached to the fence sector today than we had before we built
the fence because the fence leverages your personnel. Because
when you put in a high-speed road where a Border Patrolman can
be there in 60 seconds from a mile away upon notice, then you
don't need as many people on that border.
So in terms of human suffering, in terms of bringing down
the crime rate, in terms of having an environment where the
average person can go down sometime just before dark and not be
afraid for their safety, we've made--we've made great advances.
And I want to give you the statistics for Yuma, because we
may have another hearing and you may want to bring up these
numbers again: 138,000 arrests in the sector that we fenced
before we fenced it; 3,800 after we fenced it. That's a decline
of more than 95 percent. So, you know what, Mr. Chairman, this
has been a good hearing because the theme has been we all agree
we need to have a controlled border. The problem is that nobody
has brought up a better alternative than the fence and the
fence has been proven to work very well, we've established, in
San Diego and the Yuma sector.
And there is a very strong humanitarian segment to this.
Because as I mentioned, my brother puts out water for the folks
that would otherwise die of thirst in the desert. And 400
people a year die of dehydration and thirst who are allowed to
go across that open border, pushed across by the coyotes and by
the guides who tell them that the road is a mile to the north
and in many cases it's 20 miles to the north. And those people
expire in the desert sands of Arizona, New Mexico, California
and Texas. Their lives are worth something more than the
statistics that the so-called Taxpayers for Common Sense have
leaked out.
Along with another cost, the cost of the 250,000 criminal
aliens who are presently incarcerated in Federal, state and
local penitentiaries and jails is $3 billion a year. According
to the costs submitted by the contractors, that would pay for a
thousand miles of border fence if you eliminated that
incarceration cost for one year. That's another cost that has
to be balanced against the cost of not having any border fence.
Mr. Chairman, I think we've had an excellent discussion,
but I think it's clear that we all agree as Americans that we
have to control our border, we have to know who is coming in.
And I think one of the points we haven't brought in is that we
have the biggest front door in the world where people knock on
that door and come in by the millions every year. And what the
border fence will do is require people who want to come into
this country to knock on the front door.
And the last point that I need to make to our friends
concerned about wildlife, there is not a single water fowl
species that can't negotiate that border fence. There is no
acclaimed biologist who says that somehow you're going to
interrupt migration patterns by building the border fence.
The major game species in Texas is white-tail deer, and all
biologists say that most white-tail deer live in an area for
their entire life of about 1 or 2 square miles. They're not
migratory and they're not crossing that river on a rapid basis.
And, you know, Texas ranchers have thousands of miles of high-
fenced areas to keep their game in. That has not kept Texas
from being a great state for wildlife.
So I think there is a compelling reason to build this
border fence, for humanitarian reasons, for natural security
reasons, and criminal justice reasons. And, Mr. Chairman, I
think it's time to get on with it.
Mr. Grijalva. Ms. Peterson, I'll give you a chance to
respond.
Ms. Peterson. Yes, it's very quick. I just wanted to
address Congressman Hunter. Clearly there are many different
ways to measure effectiveness. Immigration statistics are
notoriously hard to quantify. I just wanted to point out that
the numbers we used were DHS annual immigration statistics that
showed apprehensions across the entire border, not one
particular sector such as San Diego, et cetera.
Obviously, often there are locations where the numbers do
decrease when infrastructure is put in place, but then they can
increase in other areas, which is the point I made. That said,
we do not dispute the fact that certain types of fencing may be
effective in certain contexts, as with the presence of Border
Patrol, as other people have pointed out here today. But that
is all the more reason to ensure that the location and the
deployment of tactical infrastructure follows a conscientious,
fair and transparent process that allows the most cost-
effective choices to be made in the best ways.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Reyes.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, with all
due respect to my colleague from California, I did say that
there is a better alternative to the fence. Let's invest that
money in hiring Border Patrol agents, Border Patrol agents that
can be professional, be well-trained, be responsive and work
within the community that they live in. Now, I think that's a
much better alternative than to just blindly put up 1,000 miles
or 2,000 miles of fence or wall, whichever way you describe it.
I was interested--I think it was Mr. Tancredo that talked
about--talked to Mr. Taylor about the issue of a fence in the
wildlife area. He did--am I to interpret that wildlife
thrives--would thrive if we put that fence in the wildlife area
of the border?
Mr. Taylor. Excuse me, Congressman Reyes. I think his
question was about in the wilderness areas.
Mr. Reyes. Yeah, in the wilderness area.
Mr. Taylor. OK. What we've seen is that in particular in
the Pajarita Wilderness that now exists in Arizona, is that
when we excluded--closed the roads and excluded people from
going in and having common access, we also kept the Border
Patrol from going in. And as the absence of the Border Patrol
became more known, then the criminal element moved in and
started focusing their operations out of that area.
Mr. Reyes. But, then again, for the record, the fence does
not necessarily preserve the wildlife area any better than no
fence.
Mr. Taylor. Well, there literally is very little or no
fence there now. What exists is a three-strand barbed wire.
Mr. Reyes. And, Ms. Peterson, just, again, for the record,
there are a number of studies, some of which prove that aliens
do benefit our economy, that aliens that are here in an
undocumented status do pay taxes, and they certainly pay sales
taxes and things like that. So it's not all a one-sided issue.
And certainly we know that--it's been documented that in
the construction industry where undocumented aliens build
these--what they call McMansions that some people live in, that
they benefit the--that particular industry. And in Arizona
where they passed some laws last year that were very anti-
immigrant, now they're screaming to allow--for the Federal
government to allow the state to be able to administer a guest
worker program. So some people want cheap labor, but they want
fencing and all these other things.
I wanted to--Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk a little bit
about--because I'm assuming that the written statements are
inserted in the record?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, they are.
Mr. Reyes. I wanted to talk to Mr. Taylor, and in the
interest of full disclosure, Mr. Taylor worked for me when I
was chief here in this sector and he filed a number of
complaints against me. But I was interested--I was interested
in knowing----
Mr. Hunter. That shows good judgment.
Mr. Reyes. Pardon me.
Mr. Hunter. I said that shows good judgment.
Mr. Reyes. Well, we'll see. You say, Mr. Taylor, that we
know that terrorists came to the United States across the
Mexican border. How do we know that?
Mr. Taylor. In my testimony that I submitted, there is a
newspaper article from the Nogales International. I believe
it's dated this year. And the situation in that case was there
were two Middle Eastern aliens living in Sierra Vista. Sierra
Vista is----
Mr. Reyes. They were undocumented.
Mr. Taylor. We don't know. I'll get to the point.
Mr. Reyes. If you're of Middle Eastern descent, you're a
terrorist.
Mr. Taylor. And these people were traveling from Sierra
Vista to Nogales. And what the newspaper article said was that
they were coming to pick up one of their associates who had
crossed the border illegally.
Mr. Reyes. Well, let me--because my time is almost up here.
You said--you also say in your written statement that you
personally interviewed three Syrian citizens that had entered
the United States illegally and one subsequently claimed to you
that he was a terrorist and was coming to the United States to
engage in terrorism. When did that happen.
Mr. Taylor. I don't remember the exact date. It was around
2000, 2001.
Mr. Reyes. 2000? And what happened to those three
individuals.
Mr. Taylor. The two were I think given hearings as a female
and a minor female child, and the male who made the terrorists
declarations turned over to the FBI in Tucson.
Mr. Reyes. And I find that interesting, Mr. Chairman,
because in talking to the head of the DHS intelligence, there
is no such case that's been recorded on the southern border.
And, by the way, all of the documented cases of terrorists have
come through the Canadian border. I know this because I sit as
the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
So I think particularly in Mr. Taylor's written testimony,
there are a lot of areas that we need to do some more work in
and do some follow-up in lieu of the fact that this is all
testimony under oath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I gather that you must have
extended an invitation for an official from DHS to testify at
this hearing. But, apparently, either they're unwilling or they
never got the invitation or whatever.
Mr. Grijalva. We did.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But I would respectfully request that we
continue this line, the two Subcommittees doing this, and I
would respectfully request that we do continue this hearing
with officials from the Department of Homeland Security when we
get back to Washington. Second, I just wanted a couple of
questions of Mr. McClung.
As the CEO of the Texas Produce Association for the record,
how many farmers and ranchers do you have as members of this
association.
Mr. McClung. Well, we're all--we're all farmers and
shippers because its no ranchers.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is it just in Brownsville or the whole
State of Texas.
Mr. McClung. The State of Texas, and it is primarily the
shippers that I represent and there are about 350 of them.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You're talking about--what is the
approximate dollar value of the members of the Texas Produce
Association economically? What does this bring into the
treasury of the State of Texas in terms of your participation.
Mr. McClung. Well, not--I can try and find you more
comprehensive numbers, but it's not an easy question to answer.
The citrus industry alone is generally considered about 150
million a year in the Rio Grande Valley. The vegetable industry
is something larger than that, but it is very difficult--if you
want any more----
Mr. Faleomavaega. And the cattle industry, is that also
part of the----
Mr. McClung. The cattle industry, no, sir. That's the
cattlemen. But we do cover--over half the imports are from
Mexico these days, and those numbers aren't included.
Mr. Faleomavaega. One of the sore points of the whole thing
about immigration reform, Mr. McClung, is the whole question of
employers taking up undocumented workers. And another line of
questioning to you, sir, about how many documented workers are
involved in the State of Texas that help farmers in this
produce industry here.
Mr. McClung. We know--have been very public that on a
national level, about 70 percent of our field labor is
undocumented. That's not just Texas, but I think Texas is
pretty representative in those numbers. I do want to emphasize,
however, that under U.S. law, if a potential employee comes to
you as an employer and has papers--he may have bought them down
the street--but you can't question those papers without
violating his civil rights. So I won't pretend that there are
not times when that's a convenient access to labor.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My point I wanted to share with you, Mr.
McClung, is here is a major organization of--a composite of all
the produce farmers that are involved in this industry and yet
the Department of Homeland Security has never saw fit to even
conduct any consultation with an important organization such as
yours.
Mr. McClung. Deny us access, in fact.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So not even discuss any questions of
water rights, questions of ownership of private property. None
of these issues were ever discussed by way of consultation with
your office.
Mr. McClung. I can't tell you that DHS may or may not have
talked to individual landowners that I'm not aware of, but
beyond that, no.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I wanted to ask Mr. Merritt just one
question. In terms of the 37--I keep going back to these 37
Federal statutes, some 50 years old, a couple 100 years old,
and yet we just turn around and give Mr. Chertoff, a nonelected
official, the absolute right to waive these laws so that these
fences can be built. Do you consider that, in your capacity as
a former senior employee of the Fish and Wildlife Service--
there are at least four or five Federal statutes involved here
that deal with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and you're saying
that you were never given any consultations in terms of what
Mr. Schultz has shared with us earlier. It took nine months for
the Department of Interior just to give agreement to some 30
Federal statutes the Department of Interior has jurisdiction
over and just waive it and just say that it was OK.
Mr. Merritt. Well, I think I would like to answer that in
a----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Positive way.
Mr. Merritt. Well, I'd like to reduce it down to a
situation that I dealt with and that had to do with the Refuge
Administration Act, which is a problem, the problem being that
we had a law that said--I mean, as a refuge manager of 30
years, I knew the border fence wasn't going to be appropriate
nor compatible on a national wildlife refuge. And it took that
long for the agency finally to send a letter--decide to send a
letter to DHS saying we would like to have a waiver.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My time is up. I'm sorry, Ms. Peterson
and Mr. Taylor. But, Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank members
of the panel for their excellent presentations, and, again, to
thank our good colleague Mr. Ortiz and Dr. Garcia for allowing
us to come and visit this beautiful town of Brownsville. Thank
you again.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me now turn to the
gentleman from the district we're in, Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like for us
to--my question is for Mr. McClung. Now, for years, you know
that when we go through a drought we're very dependent on the
treaty that we've had with Mexico, the Treaty of Guadalupe. And
sometimes it causes problems because they don't pay their water
bill. Now, what's going to happen when we build that wall and
we give the river and the water to the Mexicans? Has the
Department of Homeland Security told you that you will continue
to be able to get some water from the river, or are we going to
have to go back and consult to see where we stand on the
Guadalupe Treaty? Have they talked to you about this, or maybe
you, Mr. Merritt? Where do we stand.
Mr. McClung. Sir, they have never talked--come to us or
directly talked to us about it. There have been some things
said by Mr. Chertoff and others about the fact that they don't
intend to make it difficult for us to get the water or the land
access, but, frankly, we can't see how you can have both. It
just isn't possible in our minds.
Mr. Ortiz. And that's of deep concern to me because, you
know, it will have a tremendous impact on our economy. Now,
we've heard that if they do build the wall, that they're going
to provide a gate so that those people who have many amounts of
acre land can use the gate to go and farm on the other side of
the gate which would happen to be now on the Mexican side. Have
they told you if they do that who is going to have the key to
open that gate?
Mr. McClung. Well, actually, the most recent version is--
and these gates, by the way, will have to be very large because
some farm equipment is big. The--what they are saying they're
going to do is put these gates in and then they're going to
issue remote controls, garage door openers essentially. And one
can imagine how long it will be before some of those remote
controls go missing or the guys on the other side figure out
the frequencies.
Then they also, because of wildlife, are going to put ports
in the gates, doggy doors in the gates, and--ocelot doors.
It is frankly, Mr. Ortiz, it is some poor engineer's
solution whose back is against the wall literally in this case
when there is no good solution.
Mr. Ortiz. You know, and I have received information from
landowners that the Department of Homeland Security is offering
well-below-market-price value for their land. And I even had a
farmer who's got a small plot, who has a waterfront river, who
was offered something like 36 cents per square foot. And I
think they finally settled for a dollar a square foot. Now,
these are some of the people that have talked to us. Are you
familiar with this talk going on?
Mr. McClung. I am familiar with farmers selling their land
along the river to the Federal government for various purposes,
and there is always a dispute about fair market value. The
government's version and the private landowner's version are
not necessarily the same, and, to be honest about it, probably
the answer is in between.
Mr. Ortiz. And when they do that, there's farmers who have
hundreds of acres of lands, there's others who have 3 or 4
acres of land, and when you put a gate or you put a wall, you
know, that diminishes the market value of that 3- or 4-acre
farm.
Mr. McClung. That is the primary concern that I have, is
what happens to the value of the thousands of acres that lie
between the river and the--and where they plan to put the gate.
Mr. Ortiz. You know, and my good friend Mr. Hunter was
describing a few moments ago that we need to know who is coming
into this country. And this is why we have been pushing for a
comprehensive immigration bill, because we have been told that
we have 12 million undocumented workers or undocumented or
illegal, whatever you want to call them, in the United States.
We already know that under the Other Than Mexican policy that
we had, thousands and thousands of them came into our country.
One thing that the comprehensive immigration bill does is
that there is some steps before you can qualify to become a
American citizen or to be here legally. You have to follow
those steps and you cannot be a criminal, you have to pay your
taxes, and you have to be a citizen and so on and so forth. But
this will allow these people to come out from the shadows and
say ``I've been here 10, 15 years and I want to become a
citizen.'' Those that mean to harm our country would not come
out.
Mr. McClung. The national agricultural community--not just
fruits and vegetables but across the board in this country--has
said repeatedly and for a long while that there is a much
better answer than a wall. It is comprehensive immigration
reform. That is it.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much. Not only are we--we won't be
able to get water, but even the little animals won't be able to
get water if we build that fence, so we're in a hell of a
shape, my friends. But I think what we're trying to do here is
to put a bandage tape on a serious wound, and I don't think
that talking about building this wall is going to answer the
problems. It's going to be very costly. We are involved in two
wars right now. We're spending $13 billion a month and, you
know, when we spend taxpayers' money, this is very, very sacred
money that we spend.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Chairman Bordallo and
all my good friends and my colleagues here. I think this has
been a very, very good hearing. I think that we understand at
least better the problem that we have and we know that the wall
is not going to answer this problem. So, Mr. Chairman, thank
you for the time. Thank you so much.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And let me before we adjourn this
meeting thank all the witnesses--very much appreciate it--and
all our panels, and in following the admonishment of the good
bishop, that this discussion that we're having has to be a
dialogue about solutions, not a diatribe about political
grandstanding. It has to be--it's difficult work, it's complex
work, and we're not going to accomplish it by demonizing or
dehumanizing people. We're not going to accomplish it by
marginalizing these communities.
And the waiver impacts that we talked about today are
serious issues. We have environmental impact, social impact,
security impact, economic impact, cultural and historic impact.
And the reality is that these waivers above that are a very,
very dangerous precedent for the American people.
We're talking about the rule of law; we're talking about 36
laws being waived; we're talking about--37--thank you--civil
liberties, private property protection; and we're talking about
promoting--profiling was part of this discussion; we're talking
about second-class communities that we are having to deal with.
What community--when you waive the Clean Water Act, is
there a community out there that--whose residents deserve less
than clean water for their consumption? Of course not. So as we
go forward on this issue--and we will--it is not about how we
are going to allow a free flow of unauthorized people into this
country. We all on this panel understand that we are a
sovereign nation and we need to protect that nation. But we
also have to understand that we're on the border. We are part
of a unique, different and entirely--an entire community that
is very much part of this country. And being part of this
country, it deserves to be treated with respect, with
consultation, and with process. In going forward with the
legislation in repealing that waiver, we hope that we will
follow the gentleman's advice, bring DHS to the table, have
them explain many of the questions that couldn't be answered
today. Let me thank all of you and let me adjourn the meeting.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, the Subcommittees were adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by John S.C. Herron,
Director of Conservation Programs, The Nature Conservancy of
Texas, follows:]
Statement of John S. C. Herron, Director of Conservation Programs,
The Nature Conservancy of Texas
I am writing on behalf of the Texas Chapter of the Nature
Conservancy to comment on the proposal by Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S.
Border Patrol to construct fence and wall segments along the Texas--
Mexico border. Our organization is opposed to the proposed border wall
as outlined for the Lower Rio Grande Valley. We are opposed to the wall
both as a conservation organization that has worked in creating the
wildlife corridor and as a private landowner of over 1,300 acres of
native habitat in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) that will be
directly impacted by the proposed border wall. We believe there are
alternatives to a border fence that are not receiving adequate
consideration; alternatives that will provide increased border security
while also protecting the critical remaining native habitat in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley.
The Nature Conservancy shares the public concerns about border
security, illegal immigration, and contraband smuggling, but the
installation of the wall segments in the Lower Rio Grande Valley will
begin the unraveling of a unique wildlife corridor found nowhere else
in North America. We feel the National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) process was an opportunity to have fully explored alternatives
to the fence as proposed, and would have considered minimizing the
associated impacts to the environment and endangered species. Building
fences and walls through preserves and wildlife refuges in rural areas
seems inconsistent to the stated needs for a fence or wall and
therefore appears to be an unnecessary expense as well as an avoidable
destruction of habitat.
We also want to express our concern that the border fence
initiative has put local Border Patrol agents in a very difficult
position that has undermined the excellent relations they've had with
local residents. For many months, agents were sent out to talk with
landowners, but were not given or allowed to convey the proper
information or to answer many questions. Meanwhile, these same agents
are trying to do their job and keep up their relationships with local
landowners. The ``consultation'' process was frustrating and was not a
two-way exchange. There was no indication that our input or questions
from the ground had any bearing as to what type or the placement of the
wall to be constructed. And it is clear that the proposed levee walls
and fences will have significant adverse impact on wildlife, rare
species, and the environment in the region, with no guarantees that
these impacts will be minimized or mitigated.
Details of The Nature Conservancy's contact and communication with
Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security follows.
The Conservancy first learned about the proposed construction of a
border fence along the U.S. Mexico border in the LRGV through a small
article in a local newspaper in April 2007. Our staff in South Texas
called the Fort Brown Station in Brownsville, TX to inquire about the
fence and if it would affect our two preserves in the LRGV. No one at
the station could give us any information in regards to the fence. In
subsequent months, we kept hearing more and more about the proposed
border fence and again our staff contacted the Fort Brown Station.
In June 2007, local Border Patrol agents visited staff living at
Southmost Preserve in Cameron County and came to the office to hear any
concerns we may have about the proposed wall. Our questions spanned
from will the wall affect our property; will we have access to our
property and the river; will the wall cut off our water supply from the
canal draining south; what mitigation will be allowed for wildlife to
pass through the fence, how will the wall affect our property value,
etc. We also asked what alternatives to the wall had been discussed or
reviewed. Border Patrol agents did not answer our questions but wrote
down our concerns and told us they would be compiled and sent up to DHS
in Washington, DC. We were told that they would let us know as they
were told from headquarters. Border Patrol agents indicated they were
in the dark as much as we were, as this was an initiative from
headquarters in D.C.
By late summer 2007 the rumors of the border wall had been in
various articles in the newspapers and a map showing the wall segment
locations was published. Border Patrol agents called us to tell us not
to believe what was printed in the paper that there were no official
maps as to where the border wall was to be constructed. In August we
received an official request for right-of-entry survey to our Chihuahua
Woods Preserve in Hidalgo County. The request asked for unfettered
access to the preserve to conduct installation of border security
infrastructure. This was the first notification we had that the border
wall may affect Chihuahua Woods Preserve. We respectfully declined the
request under the terms proposed by CBP. A Border Patrol Agent told me
that they figured we would not allow access to do surveys for the wall,
and therefore had not sent us an official letter requesting access.
In September 2007, a Border Patrol Agent called to request access
to our Southmost Preserve to show their engineers the ``lay of the
land.'' When we requested a seat on the tour we were told that there
was no room and that the tour was only for DHS, their contractors and
USACOE. We granted access to the levee road, but not the rest of the
preserve.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the border wall was
released in October 2007. The EIS showed the layout of the all the
segments of the border wall and this was the first official
notification that our property would be directly impacted by the wall
and that the wall would be located north of the levee and not along the
Rio Grande. In December 2007, CBP officially sent the Conservancy a
letter requesting right-of-entry or face condemnation to survey the
property.
During fall and winter, we had been requesting a meeting with the
agents or engineers who could actually discuss with the Conservancy the
plans for the border wall, its location, if any alternatives had been
discussed, where wildlife portals could be developed, and discuss how
irrigation or drainage canals would be affected. We were requesting
this locally and through our Government Relations staff in Arlington,
VA at DHS level.
In January 2008, we were finally granted a meeting at Southmost
Preserve where several local high ranking Border Patrol agents
attended. However, they were unable to provide any details that
addressed our questions. They told us they had noted our concerns
before and that the engineers were looking into suggestions we made.
In late April 2008, high ranking DHS personnel visited the property
and informed us that USCAOE will be contacting us to request to conduct
an appraisal and an offer will be forthcoming. We asked if they could
answer questions in regards to access, irrigation and drainage issues,
safety concerns and habitat protection. They mentioned they were still
being reviewed. This past week, we have received some indication that
the engineers and DHS are considering our suggestions concerning gates
and access openings in the fence, but we remain uncertain what the
final completed project will look like. We remain uncertain what
impacts construction and potential condemnation will have on our
ability to manage and conserve our lands and preserve.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Sandra Purohit,
Government Relations, Defenders of Wildlife, follows:]
Comments submitted for the record by Sandra Purohit,
Government Relations, Defenders of Wildlife
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record on
this important issue. Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife is a
national not-for-profit conservation organization that has over 1
million members and supporters across the nation and is dedicated to
the protection and restoration of native animals and plants in their
natural communities. With offices throughout the United States as well
as in Canada and Mexico, we work to protect and restore North America's
native wildlife, safeguard habitat, resolve conflicts, work across
international borders and educate and mobilize the public.
We are gravely concerned about the impacts that border walls are
having and will continue to have on wildlife, including threatened and
endangered species, and on protected habitats and public lands along
the border. We are also dismayed and deeply concerned at how
construction has moved forward.
Defenders has a long history of proactive work on public lands and
wildlife conservation in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands region, and has
led the conservation community's efforts to promote alternatives to
border wall construction that will better ensure border security while
also protecting our irreplaceable natural and cultural resources. For
example, Defenders' 2005 report On the Line: The Impacts of Immigration
Policy on Wildlife and Habitat in the Arizona Borderlands, was the
first to comprehensively address the environmental consequences of our
nation's failed border security and immigration policies. Several of
that report's recommendations, including a call for increased funding
for borderland environmental programs and mitigation and early
coordination with affected communities, have been included in recent
federal legislation. In addition, Defenders has co-sponsored two major
symposiums to bring together a broad range of stakeholders, including
agency wildlife experts and managers, academic experts, policymakers,
scientists, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials in an
attempt to identify and address the most critical ecological issues
arising from the intensive effects of undocumented immigration and
associated enforcement efforts. Throughout our history of advocacy on
this complex and important issue, our bottom-line message has been
clear: border security and environmental protection are complementary
goals that can and must be much better integrated than they are today.
To achieve these goals, however, requires the leadership of
Congress. Unfortunately, as exemplified by laws such as the Secure
Fence Act and the unprecedented waiver provisions of section 102 of the
REAL ID Act, Congress has pursued a politically-motivated and
ineffectual ``border security only'' legislative strategy rather than
comprehensively addressing the underlying forces driving undocumented
immigration. Indeed, levels of undocumented immigration have
consistently risen during the past 15 years, despite a massive
expenditure of public funds, the addition of thousands of Border Patrol
agents and deployment of associated off-road vehicles, helicopters, and
other vehicles, and the construction of border walls, roads, and
barriers. Despite this failure, many Members of Congress continue to
resist attempts to meaningfully address the issues of border security
and immigration, or to rethink the proposed massive construction of
border walls across much of the southern border. Ultimately, it is the
residents and businesses of borderlands communities, the irreplaceable
tapestry of protected federal, state, and private lands, and the unique
and magnificent wildlife of the borderlands region that will pay the
price for this collective failure of leadership and vision.
But Congress is not solely to blame. The Bush administration and
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff have a tremendous amount of discretion
and have chosen of their own volition to dismiss both direct and
indirect impacts of ``walls and waivers'' at a regional scale. And, by
and large, the agency has chosen not to consult with and heed the
advice of those who know the area the best and will be impacted the
most. The agency has chosen not to consider and analyze viable
alternatives to walls (e.g. increased Border Patrol agents, remote
surveillance, removal of concealing invasive vegetation, etc.).
Instead, on five occasions in less than three years, Secretary Chertoff
has needlessly invoked the REAL ID to waive numerous laws intended to
protect wildlife and protected lands, clean air and water, historic and
cultural sites, Native American sacred sites and burial grounds, and
public health and safety, in order to ``expedite'' border wall
construction. The result has been poor public process, unanticipated
problems, disgruntled communities, lawsuits, escalating financial and
ecological costs and unnecessary impacts to vital habitat.
We appreciate that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and
Public Lands of the House Natural Resources Committee has held a field
hearing on this important topic and hope that our testimony will detail
the specific impacts from border wall construction under DHS as well as
the basis for our concerns regarding the REAL ID waiver and its use.
PART I: IMPACTS OF BORDER WALLS
Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Fish, Wildlife, and Plants
Defenders of Wildlife, in conjunction with a broad cross-section of
stakeholders including FWS, NPS, Department of Defense, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), and scientists with the University of Arizona,
Arizona State University, Conservation Biology Institute and other
institutions, have recently identified some of the most critical
wildlife migration routes, including those utilized by the only known
jaguars in the United States, and compiled the results into a
publication entitled Stakeholder Recommendations. Four out of five of
these corridors would be blocked and permanently fragmented if DHS
proceeds with construction of border walls along areas previously
outlined in the Secure Fence Act (see Figure 1).
More generally, much of the borderlands area is situated in
ecologically-complex areas at the intersection of major ecosystems. For
example, in the ``sky islands'' region of southern Arizona and New
Mexico, subtropical ecosystems predominant in Mexico and Central
America overlaps with temperate ecosystems characteristic of the U.S.
Rocky Mountains region, resulting in high concentrations of endemic
species (species found only in this region) and important north/south
trending wildlife corridors. In addition, DOI lands in the borderland
region provide critical habitat to large numbers of imperiled wildlife,
fish, and plants. According to FWS, the Arizona borderlands region
alone contains nearly 40 threatened, endangered, and other special
status species. The imperiled species along the borderlands region
range from tiny fish, such as the beautiful shiner and Sonoran chub, to
large, wide-ranging mammals such as desert bighorn sheep, ocelot,
Sonoran pronghorn and jaguar (see Table 1). Significant disruptions to
this habitat could quickly result in the extirpation of certain species
from the United States. There is also concern such extensive ground
disturbance will provide footholds for exotic and invasive plants to
establish and spread, negatively affecting native flora and fauna and
requiring costly efforts to attempt to control their spread.
Impacts to Protected Federal Lands
From the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge in San Diego,
California, to the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge in
southern Texas, the borderlands region encompasses numerous protected
federal lands administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI). In
all, approximately a quarter of our nation's nearly 2,000 mile long
border with Mexico is comprised of federal lands, including National
Parks and Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, and other protected
areas. The total rises to nearly a third of the southern border when
tribal lands, administered in trust for Indian Nations by DOI, are
included (See Figure 2). The direct and indirect impacts border walls
and other security infrastructure raise major concerns for these
protected lands.
Border Walls Have Direct and Lasting Impacts on Protected Lands
Border Walls and the patrol roads that accompany them dramatically
alter the landscape. They also physically fragment once-contiguous
wildlife habitat (see Figures 3 and 4). The deleterious impacts of
anthropogenic habitat fragmentation upon biodiversity is well-
documented in the scientific literature, especially from the burgeoning
fields of Wildlife Biology, Conservation Biology and Landscape Ecology.
In addition to habitat fragmentation, building border patrol roads and
walls will result in clearing extensive acreages of native vegetation,
disturbed and compacted soils, accelerated erosion and disrupted
hydrologic function.
As Refuge Manager Mitch Ellis stated in his formal determination
that the border wall was not an appropriate use for the wildlife
refuge: ``It is now clear that the barrier proposed by CBP is
inconsistent with Service policy and is likely detrimental to the
refuge's natural and cultural resources.'' (emphasis added)
Border Walls Negatively Impact Protected Land Management and Tourism
In some circumstances, the construction of border fences and walls
will inhibit access to, and thus the management of, protected public
lands and private nature preserves. Numerous tracts of the Lower Rio
Grande Wildlife Refuge would be located south of the proposed levee-
wall, limiting managerial access for important resource management
activities. The Sabal Palm Nature Reserve, managed by the Audubon
Society, would be located entirely south of the proposed levee-wall,
raising questions regarding manager access, public safety, perception
and education (See Figures 6 and 7). As a result, managers anticipate
if wall construction proceeds as proposed, the operations of the Sabal
Palm Sanctuary will likely be closed down. Serious concerns have been
raised by land managers regarding the wall restricting their ability to
safely respond to and manage important ecological processes such as
fire. In addition, there are concerns walls will have a negative impact
upon the ecotourism industry, which is driven in large part by the
existence of, and accessibility to, numerous wildlife refuges and
nature preserves.
Border Walls Funnel Activity and Additional Impacts to Remote Wildland
Areas:
Pedestrian fences are not impermeable barriers for humans. While
disturbances from illegal border activity may be lessened in the area
immediately next to the north side of a border wall, we anticipate this
``benefit'' will drop off quickly further to the north and may in fact
be worsened in areas to the east and west of the wall segments.
Wildlands will still be impacted by people who have climbed over,
tunneled under, or walked around the wall. The impacts from this
funneling-effect are well documented.
Increased border infrastructure in urban areas within California
and Texas, for example, have driven illegal activity and associated
impacts into the remote and largely unpopulated desert areas of the
border. Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, and even protected areas far from the immediate
border area, such as Ironwood Forest National Monument, are all
currently experiencing unprecedented resource damage to soils,
vegetation, waters, and wildlife. Similarly, while border walls in
Arizona went up, levels of undocumented immigration and drug smuggling
have skyrocketed in the ``boot heel'' area of New Mexico's borderlands,
threatening several unique Wilderness Study Areas administered by the
Bureau of Land Management.
Wildlife Managers are raising concerns about this effect. The
effects of the newly constructed wall on patterns of illegal entry
across Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge have not yet been
documented. However, the Final Environmental Assessment, the Section 7
Consultation (for jaguar, lesser long-nosed bat and Kearny's Blue
Star), and the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Manager's
Appropriate Use Determination all note the potential for illegal foot
traffic, trash and concomitant problems to be re-routed around the
fence into adjacent mountain ranges and sensitive habitats.
The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Manager, Mitch Ellis,
publicly expressed his concern about this type of impact, stating:
``The refuge is also concerned with potential impacts to the Arivaca
Creek Management Unit should smuggling traffic to the east of the
barrier escalate. The riparian habitat in Arivaca Creek is extremely
valuable for migratory birds and other wildlife''. Based in part on
this impact, Mitch Ellis also made a formal determination that the
border wall was ``incompatible'' with the wildlife refuge.
Border walls funnel additional illegal traffic and enforcement
activities into remote sensitive areas where sharp increases of human-
induced disturbance is impacting important wildlife habitat. Where
border walls are crossing protected areas, they do not prevent people
from impacting protected lands once they have walked around, climbed
over or tunneled under the wall.
A number of border wall proponents suggest that border walls are a
good option because they might address the negative environmental
impacts currently associated with illegal border activity. The impacts
of illegal border crossings are substantive and legitimate concerns,
however, responding to one set of impacts by creating a new set is not
problem solving, it's problem shifting. At a regional scale, walls are
adding dramatic ecological disturbances to already injured ecosystems;
they are also failing to address the root of the problems at hand and
in some situations are making existing impacts worse.
Impacts to Cooperative Bi-national Conservation Efforts and Treaty
Obligations
We are deeply concerned that border security infrastructure will
have long-term negative implications for numerous bi-national
conservation planning, restoration and wildlife management efforts as
well as international treaties and our neighborly relations with
Mexico.
In recognition of our shared natural resources, land managers and
others within DOI have led efforts to engage Mexico in cooperative
management of protected lands, as well as the wildlife that utilizes
habitat on both sides of the border. For example, under the U.S.-Mexico
Sister Park Partnership, NPS and Mexico's National Commission on
Natural and Protected Areas have designated seven ``sister parks''
along and in the vicinity of the southern borderland region. As stated
by NPS, such collaboration ``is necessary to address many domestic
conservation issues, including migratory, shared, and invasive species,
border park operations and security, shared cultural resources, and
trans-boundary pollution.'' Border Walls are a symbolic and practical
obstruction to such constructive and cooperative efforts.
The proposed border wall threatens to slice through multiple
sections of a major multi-million dollar effort by the FWS to protect
and restore a continuous wildlife corridor astride the Lower Rio Grande
Valley. FWS has spent decades and upwards of $90million dollars piecing
together 115 parcels of land in an effort to develop this wildlife
corridor to connect wildlife populations in Mexico and the US. It is
estimated that the border wall will divide this corridor in 11
different places.
Similarly, a fence along the border in southern Arizona and New
Mexico threatens to undermine long-standing bi-national efforts to
conserve and maintain habitat connectivity for wide ranging species
such as jaguar, cougar, ocelot, black bear, Mexican wolf, desert
bighorn sheep, pygmy owls, mule deer, white-tailed deer and numerous
others.
For some of these species the majority of the surviving population
lives in Mexico. The viability of threatened species in the U.S. is
strengthened by dispersal from source populations south of the border.
Such critical dispersal events are not possible through a border wall.
In addition, the U.S. has important treaty obligations with Mexico.
The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that border
infrastructure projects do not violate these important international
agreements.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty
with Mexico and Canada prohibits anyone from pursuing, hunting, taking,
capturing, or killing of identified bird species, or attempting to do
so. Several borderland areas administered by DOI, including Tijuana
Slough and Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge, contain
unparalleled habitat for hundreds of migratory bird species. Again,
such species may be threatened by border security infrastructure and
operations. To our knowledge, there has been no oversight of this
issue.
The 1970 Boundary Treaty. The Treaty of November 23, 1970
resolved boundary differences between Mexico and the United States, and
provided for maintaining the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the
international boundary. Activities in one country which impact water
flows on other are also covered by the treaty. This is significant
because the levee-wall proposal put forth by DHS for Hidalgo County may
have international implications under this treaty. Again, to our
knowledge there has been no oversight of this issue.
Border security infrastructure will have long-term negative
implications for wildlife, protected lands, numerous bi-national
conservation planning, restoration and wildlife management efforts and
international treaties.
PART II: Impacts Of The Real ID Act Waiver and Secretary Chertoff's
Authority.
The REAL ID Act and the Impact of a Government Above the Law:
The United States of America is a nation of laws. By and large,
these laws have been crafted by the government to protect the
fundamental rights, safety and environment of its citizens. Many of
these laws recognize the importance of due process; they allow for
public involvement in government decision making to ensure that those
impacted by decisions will have a voice in how those decisions are
made. This ensures that government has the information it needs, and
has carefully evaluated multiple alternatives in order to make
informed, rational decisions before it drastically impinges on private
rights, public safety, and natural resources. But, under section 102 of
Real ID Act, the DHS Secretary can waive any and all laws in the
construction of border infrastructure. Below is a description of the
imperfect process by which REAL ID Act waiver came about and an
explanation of why the authority is unconstitutional
The Background and Unconstitutional Nature of the Real Id Act Waiver
Introduced in the House of Representatives by former Judiciary
Chairman James Sensenbrenner on January 26, 2005, the REAL ID Act of
2005 (H.R. 418) was signed into law by President Bush on May 11, 2005.
Section 102 of the REAL ID Act amended section 102 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(``IIRIRA'') to provide the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'')
Secretary authority to ``waive all legal requirements'' that he
determines, in his ``sole discretion,'' are ``necessary to ensure
expeditious construction'' of the barriers and roads authorized under
the IIRIRA. See Sec. 102(c)(1) of Pub. L. No. 109-13; 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1103 Note.
Despite significant controversy associated with the section 102
waiver provisions and other aspects of the legislation relating to
immigration and asylum, the REAL ID Act was passed without any
Committee consideration or hearings in either Chamber of Congress, and
without having ever been introduced, considered, or debated by the
Senate. In the limited floor debate on the REAL ID Act in the House of
Representatives, one member noted the breathtaking scope of the waiver
authority provided to the DHS Secretary, and the lack of meaningful
Congressional consideration of that provision:
The REAL ID Act contains a provision that would provide the
Secretary of Homeland Security with authority to waive all laws
he deems necessary for the expeditious construction of the
barriers authorized to be constructed by section 102 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act
of 1996, IIRIRA. To my knowledge, a waiver this broad is
unprecedented. It would waive all laws, including laws
protecting civil rights; laws protecting the health and safety
of workers; laws, such as the Davis-Bacon Act, which are
intended to ensure that construction workers on federally-
funded projects are paid the prevailing wage; environmental
laws; and laws respecting sacred burial grounds.
151 Cong. Rec. H459 (daily ed. Feb. 9. 2005) (statement of Rep.
Jackson-Lee) (emphasis added).
Subsequent to its passage in the House as a stand-alone bill, and
before any Senate Committees had considered or held hearings on its
provisions, the House added H.R. 418 as an unrelated legislative
``rider'' to H.R. 1268, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill
allocating $82 billion to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tsunami
relief in southeast Asia, and other purposes. P.L. No. 109-13. By
attaching the REAL ID Act to H.R. 1268, the House leadership
successfully gambled that even if Senate members were troubled by their
lack of opportunity to consider the legislation, they would not let
those concerns derail the Senate's approval of H.R. 1268, which as an
emergency funding bill for war and humanitarian relief efforts, was
considered a ``must-pass'' piece of legislation. See Congressional
Quarterly, Senator Feinstein Expresses Concern About REAL ID Act in
Supplemental Appropriations Bill. On May 10, 2005 the Senate cleared
H.R. 1268 by a vote of 100-0.
Despite the lack of close Congressional consideration or meaningful
debate, the scope of the REAL ID Act's waiver provision is
unprecedented in our Nation's history. See Congressional Research
Service (``CRS'') Congressional Dist. Memo., Sec. 102 of H.R. 418,
Waiver of Laws Necessary for Improvement of Barriers at Borders,
Stephen R. Vina and Todd Tatelman (Feb. 9, 2005). Previous statutory
waivers have almost without exception involved Congress directly
waiving laws itself, or instructing the President or another officer to
waive particular provisions (usually provisions of the same law
containing the waiver) if certain circumstances occur. Congress has
thus itself made the determination to waive the application of
particular provisions of law in these instances.
In contrast, section 102 of the REAL ID Act provides the DHS
Secretary with a roving commission to repeal, in his sole discretion,
laws that would otherwise regulate and restrain his own conduct.
Section 102 is thus not a mere delegation of broad policy
responsibility that can be defended by pointing to some ``intelligible
principle'' guiding the Executive Branch in its implementation. Rather,
it is the transfer of an inherently legislative power to the DHS
Secretary--the power to repeal standing laws in his sole discretion. In
addition, the waiver provision departs from past Congressional practice
and Constitutional constraints in its elimination of any judicial
review with the exception of Constitutional challenges, thus precluding
any independent review of whether the DHS Secretary has only waived
thus laws ``necessary'' for the expeditious construction of border
walls.
Compounding this absence of meaningful review, the REAL ID Act also
eliminates the right to appeal decisions to the Federal Court of
Appeals, providing a discretionary writ of certiorari as the only
possible avenue for review of District Court decisions. This
unrestricted and unprecedented grant of legislative authority, combined
with the absence of meaningful judicial review and oversight, is an
inescapable violation of both Article I and Article II of the
Constitution.
Secretary Chertoff's Misuse of Authority
Under the Secure Fence Act, Congress has mandated the construction
of some 700 miles of border fencing. But how, where and when it chooses
to build those miles are now within the agencies' discretion.
DHS has always had discretion as to which laws it waives and which
it chooses to comply with and of course the agency has the authority to
abide by the law if it so chooses. Recent changes in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008, (PL 110-161,Sec 546) have provided DHS with
additional flexibility as to where and when to build. No longer
required to build in specific locations, DHS must focus construction
``where fencing would be most practical and effective'' (PL 110-161,Sec
546). Congress also gave the Secretary the authority to change the
number of miles that need to be built by the end of the year.
Specifically, the current language calls for construction by December
31, 2008 of ``370 miles, or other mileage determined by the
Secretary...'' (emphasis added) (PL 110-161,Sec 546).
With these changes, DHS has the authority, the flexibility and the
time to consider viable alternatives and to fully inform his decision
making by complying with study requirements under the law. In addition,
the Consolidated Appropriations Act explicitly directs that DHS does
not have discretion to bypass consultation. In fact, the language
states ``the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with ``local
governments, Indian tribes, and property owners in the United States to
minimize the impact on the environment, culture, commerce, and quality
of life for the communities and residents located near the sites at
which such fencing is to be constructed.'' (PL 110-161,Sec 546). As
local government officials, Native American tribal leaders, and
property owners all attested to during oral testimony before the
committee on April 28, 2008, DHS has moved full steam ahead with
discretionary construction but has failed to meet its obligation to
consult.
The following is a timeline of DHS activities since the passage of
the REAL ID Act of 2005 and Secure Fence Act of 2007. This timeline
includes just a handful of ``collateral impacts'' on communities and
the environment that have occurred as a result of DHS's rush to waive
laws, and its failure to consult and consider alternatives.
January, 2007--DHS discards National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
After NEPA analysis finds a vehicle barrier is the
preferred border infrastructure for the Barry M. Goldwater Range in
Arizona, DHS ignores the findings and waives NEPA, the Endangered
Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Clean Water Act, and others
laws to move ahead with building the wall.
July-August, 2007--DHS Denies Public Participation
DHS's Environmental Assessments of the impact of the
border wall on San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area and Buenos
Aires National Wildlife Refuge are completed with no public comment
period.
DHS ignores Tohono O'odham Nation concerns about five
cultural sites in the path of the proposed wall and issues a finding of
``no significant impact'' despite threats to protected lands,
endangered species, historical and cultural resources.
October, 2007--DHS Bulldozes Protected Area After Request to Stay
Construction is Filed
Environmental groups file a request to stay construction
of the border wall within San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area
until an adequate Environmental Impact Statement can be completed
pursuant to NEPA.
Bulldozing starts the very next day, a Saturday. (See
Figure 2)
September-October, 2007--DHS Dismisses Environmental Impacts and Waives
19 Laws to Push Construction.
Two citizen groups sue DHS for violating NEPA at San
Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in Arizona.
A federal judge grants a temporary restraining order
which confirms the government had rushed its decision and failed to
meet its legal obligations under NEPA.
DHS waives NEPA and 18 other laws, construction resumes
immediately.
September-November 2007--DHS Forces Construction of Wall Determined to
be Incompatible with Wildlife Refuge.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manager of Buenos
Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona determines the border wall is
``inconsistent with Service policy and is likely detrimental to the
refuge's natural and cultural resources.''
FWS is forced to decide between yielding ownership of
Refuge land DHS wants for its walls, in exchange for an as-yet
unidentified small land parcel, or facing the REAL-ID waiver and
getting the wall but nothing else. FWS agrees to the land transfer.
Before the land transfer is complete, DHS begins wall
construction (See Figure 3).
April-December, 2007--DHS Ignores Citizens Concerns in Texas and
Threatens Refuge Habitat and Tourism.
Texans raise strong concerns about the elimination of
access to their irrigation source, the Rio Grande, the taking of
private property, environmental and economic damage, and DHS's refusal
to consider alternatives to border wall construction
Tourism and wildlife are threatened on three national
wildlife refuges in Texas, where the border wall will slice through at
least 14 refuge tracts, fragmenting or eliminating habitat for numerous
endangered or threatened species.
January, 2008--DHS Delivers Ultimatum to Citizens in Texas
DHS brings ex parte (i.e. without the owners of the
property present) condemnation actions against Texas landowners who do
not cooperate with agency surveys.
February, 2008--DHS Ignores National Park Service Request
DHS denies requests by the National Park Service to
shorten a proposed border wall on the Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument by 90 feet to spare important columnar cacti and Sonoran
desert tortoise habitat on Monument Hill.
April, 2008--DHS Announces Border-wide Waiver
DHS Waives 35 Environmental, Health and Safety Laws
across nearly 500 Miles of the border to avoid legal compliance and
expedite fence and levee-wall construction projects (See Figure 1).
DHS claims that it intends to comply with the intent of
environmental laws it waived. DHS then proceeds to brush aside ongoing
public processes and evaluation of alternatives required by the
National Environmental Policy Act.
DHS fails to appear before a congressional hearing
regarding the impacts of border walls and waivers.
In less than three years, Secretary Chertoff has invoked the REAL
ID waiver authority on five occasions, to waive a broad variety of laws
intended to protect wildlife and endangered species, clean air and
water, historic and cultural sites, Native American sacred sites and
burial grounds, and public health and safety. With each successive
waiver, Secretary Chertoff has targeted more laws--many with no clear
relation to proposed border wall construction. The most recent waiver
signed by Secretary Chertoff on April 1st, 2008 waived 35 different
federal laws across 470 miles--nearly a quarter of the U.S. southern
border area. The laws waived included the Safe Drinking Water Act,
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,
Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. No
explanation was provided as to how these laws were chosen or why DHS
needed to waive such fundamental protections for the construction of
the border wall.
There are significant and substantive effects to waiving laws and
bypassing process and forcing construction without adequate
consultation. In addition to the specific impacts to wildlife and
public lands outlined in Part I of this testimony, there is also the
opportunity cost of win-win solutions never developed or implemented.
Conclusion
In its current rush to bypass the law in pursuit of arbitrary
deadlines DHS has failed to properly analyze both direct and indirect
impacts of ``walls and waivers'' at a regional scale. It has not
adequately considered viable alternatives and they have failed to
consult with those who know the most about the area and those who will
be bear the brunt of the impacts of DHS decisions. The result of this
type of uniformed and rash decision making has and will continue to
result in greater environmental impacts, unanticipated problems,
disgruntled communities and escalating financial and ecological costs.
Unfortunately, we fear we are only beginning to understand the far-
reaching collateral impacts from walls and waivers upon our
communities, precious natural areas and wildlife. As a country, we can
and must to better.
Defenders of Wildlife is doing what it can. We currently have a
petition for certiorari pending before the Supreme Court to challenge
the unchecked and unreviewable authority to waive any law as provided
for under REAL ID. But much of the devastation from construction will
already have happened by the time the Supreme Court is able to respond.
It is incumbent on Congress to remedy its error in passing this
dangerous and plainly unconstitutional provision in the first instance.
The Congressional mandate for consultation needs to be enforced and
DHS needs to be explicitly directed to consider viable alternatives to
border infrastructure. In addition, the rule of law needs to be
returned to the U.S. Citizens along the border in the form of a Repeal
of the REAL ID waiver; Defenders of Wildlife supports Rep. Grijalva's
proposal in H.R. 2593 to address this issue and we urge this Committee
to take every action in its power to repeal section 102 of the REAL ID
Act.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1959.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1959.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1959.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1959.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1959.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1959.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1959.009
[A List of documents retained in the Committee's official
files follows:]
Abolt, Steve, President, 7th U.S. Infantry Living History
Association, Letter submitted for the record
Alamo Inn, American Birding Association, Audubon Society
of Western Pennsylvania, Coastal
Habitat Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, et al.,
Statement submitted for the record
Bartholomew, Wayne, Executive director, Frontera Audubon
Society, Letter submitted for the record
Chapman, Karen, Water & Wildlife Analyst, Environmental
Defense Fund, Statement submitted for the record
Dewar, Ruth F., Ed.D., Pacific Palisades, California,
Letter submitted for the record
Irwin, Dorothy N., Nye Plantation, Brownsville, Texas,
Letter submitted for the record
Lopez, Genaro, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of
Texas at Brownsville, Letter submitted for the record
Lucio, Robert and Lucio, Diana, Ft. Brown Memorial Golf
Course, Letter submitted for the record
Madrid, Ruby and Enrique, Redford, Texas, Letter
submitted for the record
McKnight, Barbara, Austin, Texas, Letter submitted for
the record
Melton, Mary Ann, Mary Ann's View Nature Photography,
Statement submitted for the record
Merrill, Sarah Bishop, M.S., Ph.D., Recording Clerk, Rio
Grande Valley Friends Meeting (Quakers). Also member, Sierra Club,
National Energy Committee, and Lone Star Chapter, Letter submitted for
the record
Millard, Ann V., Edinburg, Texas, Letter submitted for
the record
Moore, Wayne, Brownsville, Texas, Letter submitted for
the record
Nicol, Scott, No Border Wall Coalition, Statement
submitted for the record
Payne, Richard H., Ph.D., President and CEO, American
Birding Association, Letter submitted for the record
Payne, Richard H., Ph.D., President & CEO, American
Birding Association, Letter submitted for the record
Perez, Betty, Brownsville, Texas, Letter submitted for
the record
Platt, Kamala, M.F.A., Ph.D., Edinburg, Texas, Letter
submitted for the record
Plitt, Walter E., III, Chairman, Palo Alto National Park
Committee, Letter submitted for the record
Roberts, S. Gary, President, Concerned Citizens Against
the Border Wall, Letter submitted for the record
Schwarz, Kurt R., Conservation Chair, Howard County Bird
Club, Letter submitted for the record
Schwarz, Kurt R., Conservation Chair, Howard County
(Maryland) Bird Club, Letter submitted for the record
Tamez, Eloisa G., RN, Ph.D., FAAN, San Benito, Texas,
Letter submitted for the record
Thompson, Susan, Penitas, Texas, Letter submitted for the
record
Whittle, John A., Secretary, Golden Triangle Audubon
Society, Letter submitted for the record