    [Senate Hearing 111-294]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-294

    SECURING THE BORDERS AND AMERICA'S POINTS OF ENTRY: WHAT REMAINS TO BE
                                     DONE?

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
                          REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY

                                     of the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 20, 2009

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-111-25

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    55-033PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
    RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin       CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
    CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         JON KYL, Arizona
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
    RON WYDEN, Oregon
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
                Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                      Matt Miner, Republican Chief Counsel
                                     ------

           Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security

                     CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          JON KYL, Arizona
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    RON WYDEN, Oregon
                   Stephanie Marty, Democratic Chief Counsel
                  Matthew L. Johnson, Republican Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                       Page

    Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........     3
    Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
      York...........................................................     1
    Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama....     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Aguilar, David V., Chief, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs
      and Border Protection, Washington, D.C., and Winkowski, Thomas,
      Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S.
      Customs and Border Protection, Washington, D.C.................     9
    Foster, Chad, Mayor, Eagle Pass, Texas...........................    24
    Hayworth, J.D., former U.S. Representative, 5th District of
      Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona......................................    18
    Massey, Douglas, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs,
      Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey....................    25
    Torres, John P., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, U.S.
      Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, D.C...........     7
    Vale, Samuel F., president, Starr-Camargo Bridge Company, Rio
      Grande City, Texas.............................................    27
    Wiles, Richard, Sheriff, El Paso County, Texas, El Paso, Texas...    21

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    Responses of Richard Wiles to questions submitted by Senator
      Wyden..........................................................    35

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Kareem Shora,
      National Executive Director, prepared by Penn State
      University's Dickinson School of Law Center for Immigrants'
      Rights, Report.................................................    36
    Border Action Network/Accion Fronteriza, Tucson, Arizona, letter.    94
    Citizens for Border Solutions, Bisbee, Arizona, letter...........    96
    Foster, Chad, Mayor, Eagle Pass, Texas, statement................    98
    Frontera de Cristo Bi-National Border Ministry, Reverend Mark
      Adams, Coordinator, Douglas, Arizona, letter...................   101
    Hayworth, J.D., former U.S. Representative, 5th District of
      Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, statement and attachment............   102
    Massey, Douglas, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs,
      Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, statement and
      attachment.....................................................   119
    New York Times, May 15, 2009, article............................   131
    No More Deaths.org, Tucson, Arizona, statement...................   134
    Police Foundation, Washinton, D.C., statement....................   141
    Torres, John P., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, U.S.
      Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, D.C.,
      statement......................................................   149
    U.S.-Mexico Border and Immigration Task Force, Washington, D.C.:
        Acccountability, Community Security and Infrastructure on the
          U.S.-Mexico Border.........................................   164
        May 27, 2009, Letter.........................................   173
    Vale, Samuel F., President, Starr-Camargo Bridge Company, Rio
      Grande City, Texas, statement..................................   215
    Wiles, Richard, Sheriff, El Paso County, Texas, El Paso, Texas,
      statement and attachment.......................................   220
    Winkowski, Thomas, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field
      Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington,
      D.C., statement................................................   237

    SECURING THE BORDERS AND AMERICA'S POINTS OF ENTRY: WHAT REMAINS TO BE
                                     DONE?

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Subcommittee on Immigration,
                                 Refugees, and Border Security,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in
    room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Schumer, Whitehouse, Specter, Cornyn, and
    Sessions.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR
                       FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Chairman Schumer. The hearing will come to order, and I
    apologize for being a bit late. Let us get right started.
        Less than 3 weeks ago, I presided over a hearing of this
    Subcommittee entitled ``Comprehensive Immigration Reform in
    2009: Can We Do It and How? '' After listening to the
    bipartisan testimony from the expert panelists and after
    hearing from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle during
    and after the hearing, I became cautiously optimistic that we
    can pass strong, fair, practical, and effective immigration
    reform this year. At the very least, I am convinced we owe the
    American people our very best effort to try and fix what we all
    acknowledge is a broken immigration system. To that end, the
    Immigration Subcommittee will convene a series of hearings over
    the next few months entitled ``Road to Immigration Reform in
    2009: Clearing the Hurdles.''
        During these hearings the Subcommittee will directly
    address the most challenging issues that the American people
    and the various stakeholders want and need this Congress to
    resolve as part of a fair and practical immigration solution.
    My many conversations with the American people have convinced
    me that the vast majority of Americans are pro-legal
    immigration and anti-illegal immigration. But I ask my
    colleagues not to take my word for it. Instead, consider the
    recent poll numbers that support this conclusion.
        According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 61
    percent of Americans would support a program giving illegal
    immigrants living in the United States the right to live here
    legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. This
    number has risen by 11 points since December of 2007. But the
    same poll also reported that 74 percent of Americans think that
    the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal
    immigrants from coming into this country. This number has risen
    by 7 points since 2007.
        The mandate of the American people cannot be any clearer.
    They will support better immigration laws if they can be
    convinced that their Government is serious about drastically
    reducing the number of illegal immigrants entering the United
    States. Accordingly, the purpose of today's hearing is to
    determine how to further secure our borders and ports of entry
    so that we will not be back 10 or 20 years from now discussing
    the same issues we are discussing today if we pass immigration
    reform later this year. But before we begin answering this
    question, we need to set the record straight. The American
    people need to know that because of our efforts in Congress,
    our border is more secure today, considerably more secure, than
    it was when we began debating immigration reform in 2005.
        Between 2005 and 2009, a vast amount of progress has been
    made on the southern border, the northern border, and ports of
    entry. This progress includes the following: According to real-
    time data provided by the Department of Homeland Security, the
    number of people trying to illegally cross the southwest border
    has decreased by 27 percent compared to last year. This figure
    was compiled by the Border Patrol through border apprehension
    numbers. In addition, the Border Patrol tells us that at the
    end of fiscal year 2005, there were 11,106 Border Patrol
    agents. As of today, there are nearly 20,000 Border Patrol
    agents operating between the ports of entry. At the end of
    fiscal year 2005, only 241 miles of the southwest border were
    deemed to be under effective control by the U.S. Border Patrol.
    Today, the Border Patrol will tell us they are in effective
    control of 700 miles of the southwest border. And as of today,
    approximately 625 miles of border fence have been built, and
    the remaining 40 miles will soon be built after disputes with
    private property owners are resolved.
        Those are all new facts on the table as we begin to address
    immigration reform. And we will remove the chart briefly to
    make way for the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee,
    Senator Sessions. Thanks for coming, Jeff.
        On the enforcement side, ICE has implemented Border
    Enforcement Security Task Force teams that have made thousands
    of arrests of drug smugglers and of human smugglers. Finally,
    border personnel have implemented new technologies such as
    sensors, light towers, mobile night vision scopes, remote video
    surveillance systems, directional listening devices, data base
    systems, and unmanned aerial vehicles along the border. These
    new technology serve as force multipliers and allow Border
    Patrol to maintain control of larger segments of the border
    with fewer agents.
        All of these measures have contributed to what the New York
    Times reported on May 15, 2009, is ``an extraordinary decline
    in the number of Mexican immigrants going to the United
    States.'' And that was based on Mexican census data. The border
    experts in this hearing will show that the border is far more
    secure than it has ever been and, with our help, will be even
    more secure.
        It is important for the American people to know that all of
    these measures to secure our border were enacted with the
    approval of the vast majority of Congress and supported by the
    three of us here in a bipartisan way. Those of us who support
    immigration reform have shown our commitment to touch and
    serious border enforcement. You cannot have one without the
    other, in my opinion. But for years now, the opponents of
    immigration reform have continually promised that they will
    engage in conversation about immigration reform once Congress
    showed it was serious about securing the border. Our witnesses
    will confirm today that showing has clearly been made, and this
    chart--which is sort of blocked by the Chair, but it shows
    you--it is a very irascible chart.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Schumer. This is the border, southwest border, and
    as you can see, the vast majority--this is the Rio Grande River
    so we do not have a fence there. But from the western edge of
    the Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean, almost the whole border
    fence has been built. There are a few holes because of property
    owner negotiations, and those are going to be filled quickly.
    And that is 700-some-odd miles.
        So it is time to end the divisive and unhelpful rhetoric
    which claims that nothing has been done to secure the border.
    It is time to re-engage in the long promised yet long delayed
    conversation about how to best reform our broken immigration
    system, including doing even more than we have done. That is
    not off the table at all. It is just that we have made good
    progress. Many people have said secure the border first, and
    that is what we are, in a good process, doing. So it is now
    time for balanced, fair, and tough immigration reform.
        As the line-up of witnesses for today's hearing proves,
    this Committee is determined to solicit diverse points of view
    in order to achieve the best solutions possible to the various
    policy questions we must resolve as part of our immigration
    reform effort. All of these issues we will need to address as
    part of comprehensive immigration reform, and they are
    incredibly complex and multifaceted. No one person, no one
    viewpoint, no one discipline, or one political party will have
    all the answers. I at least am, therefore, committed to hearing
    from all who are willing to answer tough questions about
    whether their proposed solutions for immigration reform are
    practical, effective, and consistent with our values as a
    Nation of due process, rule of law, and inclusiveness toward
    those who come here legally.
        I am confident that our distinguished panel today will move
    us closer toward finding the best solution for securing our
    borders and ports of entry and look forward with great interest
    to your testimony. I thank all of you for coming.
        Now I am going to call on my colleague, the Ranking Member
    of this Subcommittee, Senator Cornyn, who aside from his long
    Rio Grande stretch has a piece of the border fence in his
    State.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
                                 TEXAS

        Senator Cornyn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank all the witnesses for joining us here today, particularly
    three of my constituents from Texas. Thank you for coming to
    explain the complexities that confront us when it comes to
    border security and the challenges of balancing not only
    security with legitimate concerns about trade which are
    mutually beneficial to the United States and our trading
    partners. We have, I think, a great set of witnesses.
        I apologize to the Chairman. He knows this as well as I do.
    We have a Finance Committee walk-through on health care reform
    which has left the station and is barreling down the track at a
    high rate of speed, so I am going to be shuttling back and
    forth. But I will make it back periodically to try to exchange
    views.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making border
    security the focus of this hearing. As you noted, Texas has a
    1,200-mile common border with Mexico, and I have the
    opportunity to visit the border region often, and I know that
    border security is much on the minds of my constituents along
    the border. But they also want to make sure that we pay
    attention to the mutually beneficial aspects of our trading
    relationship with Mexico and Canada. My constituents of Texas
    view NAFTA as a net plus for many, many reasons, and it is
    important that we preserve the proper balance and do both--
    encourage trade and also encourage and see that the Federal
    Government lives up to its responsibility when it comes to
    border security.
        Of course, this is a problem not just for the United States
    but also Mexico, too. Mexican authorities have told us that a
    vast majority of weapons they seize from criminals in Mexico
    are actually smuggled from the United States. I think it is no
    secret that weapons come from a variety of sources, including
    China, North Korea, and elsewhere, and some are stolen simply
    from stockpiles of the Mexican army by corrupt officials who
    move those into the hands of the cartels. But this is a problem
    not just with people coming north from Mexico. Border security
    is a problem about things going south, namely, weapons and bulk
    transfers of cash as part of massive money-laundering
    operations of the cartels and the like.
        I think it is important, too--and Mr. Torres I see is here
    from ICE--to recognize the administration's stated commitment--
    at least, that is what I read in the newspaper--to expand the
    current program started in the last administration of
    identifying violent criminals in custody of our sheriffs and
    police in various county and municipal jail facilities. We know
    that the people that suffer most from violence perpetrated by
    these criminals is, in fact, the Hispanic community and
    minority community itself, because many times these criminals
    realize they can assault, steal, and otherwise cheat members of
    the minority community who are here without a visa and perhaps
    have impunity because they are afraid to complain. So this is a
    very positive development in my view, and I am glad to read of
    ICE's and the administration's commitment to continuing and
    expanding this program.
        I mentioned NAFTA. Forty percent of our bilateral trade
    crosses through the port of Laredo, the largest inland land
    port in the United States. More than 12,000 trucks and 1,200
    rail cars cross the border at the port of Laredo each day. I
    think it is also in the vein I alluded to earlier, talking
    about legitimate trade and visits. We had a little bit of a
    challenge early on, Mr. Chairman, trying to treat our guests
    who were complying with our immigration laws the same if they
    came from Canada as opposed to coming from Mexico. Early on,
    working with then-Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, we
    were able to secure an extension of the so-called Visa Laser
    Program, a border-crossing card where Mexican individuals who
    have those cards are properly screened. I mean they are not a
    threat to the United States. They basically want to come here
    and buy our goods and services and help stimulate our economy.
    I think our goal should be ultimately to treat all of our
    guests who comply with our visa and immigration laws exactly
    the same, and I look forward to the time when we will treat our
    visitors from Canada and Mexico exactly the same when they are
    complying with all of our laws.
        I appreciate the chart showing the construction of what the
    Border Patrol likes to call ``tactical infrastructure,'' other
    people call ``fencing,'' and other people call ``the wall.''
    Depending on how close you get to the border, it becomes more
    and more controversial. But as I was telling Chief Aguilar, we
    have been able to work most notably in places like Hidalgo
    County with the county judge, Judge Salinas, and his team down
    there, Judge Cascos, in Cameron County and elsewhere to try to
    come up with win-win solutions. And, in fact, many private
    property owners have said they are worried about the increasing
    level of violence and intrusion across Mexico not from people
    who want to simply come to work, but violent criminals, people
    smuggling arms and smuggling drugs. And so they are concerned
    and are working in cooperation with our Border Patrol and law
    enforcement personnel as well.
        We need more Border Patrol agents. We have done a good job
    increasing that number, but rather than State and local
    officials having to carry that burden, I think we need more
    professional law enforcement officers, namely, Border Patrol
    and officials within DHS to help us provide a secure border.
    Then, of course, there is technology, which initially has
    proven to be somewhat disappointing, but which I hope can be
    improved to provide a virtual fence, not a wall, not
    necessarily a fence, not tactical infrastructure completely. We
    realize anything like that you build and if you do not have the
    people and the technology to work with it, it simply is not
    going to be a solution but, at least in the opinion of Border
    Patrol, is a tool that they can use in doing their job.
        Finally, let me just say I believe that the Federal
    Government's credibility is on the line. This to me was the
    reason why we were unsuccessful in dealing with immigration
    reform previously, because the American people simply did not
    believe us when we said we are serious about border security
    and had for so long done virtually nothing to deal with that
    problem. So they did not believe, and after the 1986 amnesty
    signed by Ronald Reagan, where the American people were told if
    you will accept an amnesty for 3 million people, we will really
    get serious about worksite enforcement and border security and
    the like. We saw the amnesty but no worksite enforcement, no
    border security, and so as the saying goes, ``Fool me once,
    shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' And the American
    people were not going to be fooled again.
        I do believe, as the Chairman has said, that we are off on
    a good start. I do think this is a subject as complex and as
    emotional as it can be. The order in which you talk about
    things is very important. When we talk about border security,
    tamper-proof identification, and workplace enforcement, I think
    that is the right order to talk about these things rather than
    start out talking about a pathway to citizenship for 20 million
    people at the beginning. The American people will not accept a
    pragmatic solution to the problems confronting folks who are
    here without their proper visa until we regain their
    confidence, and I think the only way we are going to regain
    their confidence is by showing them that we are serious about
    security measures, we are serious about the rule of law, and
    then I believe we can come up with a comprehensive solution
    that makes sense and the American people will embrace.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Schumer. Senator Sessions.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                               OF ALABAMA

        Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, it is great to be with you.
    This is an important hearing. I agree that progress has been
    made. I have been saying that for some time and not been using
    divisive rhetoric to say that nothing has been done. I have
    been saying that from the beginning I have believed that we can
    make the border a lawful place of entry into the United States,
    that we could eliminate lawlessness. We are making some good
    progress. The question is: Will we continue it as the number of
    illegal entrants go down and we have got more people per
    illegal entrant to catch the ones that are coming illegally? So
    it becomes a spiral in the right direction instead of a spiral
    in the wrong direction.
        I see some good things happening. I see some things that
    are troubling, and I look forward to the hearing. Thank you for
    having it.
        Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Ranking
    Member.
        Senator Sessions. We can dream.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Schumer. You are a bit aways.
        Okay. Moving right along here, I would like to introduce
    our panel. First, John P. Torres is the Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Operations for ICE. From November 2008 to May
    2009, he served as the Acting Assistant Secretary of Homeland
    Security for ICE. He has now been succeeded by John Morton,
    with whom I have had pleasant conversations and look forward to
    having him appear before this Committee once he gets up and
    running.
        In his present capacity, Mr. Torres is responsible for
    coordinating the efforts of the Federal Protective Service,
    National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit, National
    Incidence Response Unit, et cetera, et cetera.
        David Aguilar is the Chief of the United States Border
    Patrol, a position he assumed on July 1, 2004. As the Nation's
    highest ranking Border Patrol agent, Chief Aguilar addresses
    the enforcement efforts of more than 20,000 Border Patrol
    agents nationwide. Chief Aguilar brings to the job the
    knowledge and expertise gained from 30 years of service on the
    Border Patrol. We thank you for your service.
        And Thomas S. Winkowski is the Assistant Commissioner of
    the Office of Field Operations, the largest and most complex
    organization in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He
    oversees an operating budget of $3.2 billion, directs the
    activities of nearly 27,000 employees, and is responsible for
    operations at 20 major field offices, 327 ports of entry, 58
    Operational Container Security Initiative ports, and 15
    preclearance stations in Canada, Ireland, and the Caribbean.
        We welcome all three of you gentlemen. Your entire
    statements will be read in the record. We are asking you to
    keep yours to 5 minutes here. And I, like Senator Cornyn, the
    Finance Committee is discussing some very important parts of
    health care, including hospital funds for New York. So one of
    my colleagues may be coming here and may have to briefly sit in
    for me, but it does not express any lack of interest or the
    fact that I am familiar with the statements you have submitted.
        Mr. Torres.

      STATEMENT OF JOHN P. TORRES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
         OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Torres. Good morning, Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member
    Cornyn, and Senator Sessions. On behalf of Secretary Napolitano
    and Assistant Secretary John Morton----
        Chairman Schumer. Could you just pull the microphone a
    little closer?
        Mr. Torres. Sure.
        Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Torres.
        Mr. Torres. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss
    ICE's efforts and our role in securing the border through the
    investigation of our Nation's immigration and customs laws.
        As the primary investigative agency in the Department of
    Homeland Security, ICE protects our national security and
    upholds public safety by targeting transnationl criminal
    networks and terrorist organizations that might exploit
    potential vulnerabilities at the borders. Recognizing that
    partnerships are essential, ICE works closely with its domestic
    and foreign partners at the Federal, State, local, and tribal
    levels to create a seamless web of border enforcement and a
    united front to disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal
    organizations.
        While immigration enforcement is a key component of ICE's
    mission, we cannot and do not establish enforcement priorities
    in a stovepipe fashion. Instead, we target the organizations
    that exploit our legitimate trade, travel, and financial
    systems with all the enforcement authorities to ensure that
    cross-border crime is attacked from every possible angle.
    Indeed, the recent escalation of violence by the drug cartels
    and other criminal organizations just over our border with
    Mexico demonstrates this point in very stark terms. As
    Secretary Napolitano has recently testified, the violence in
    Mexico is not only an international threat; it is a homeland
    security issue in which all Americans have a stake. The cartels
    that the Mexican authorities are battling are the same criminal
    organizations that put drugs on our streets and use violence as
    a tool of their trade. Illegal money, drugs, and weapons flow
    both ways across the border and inextricably link the U.S. and
    Mexico in our efforts to combat the drug cartels. Our two
    countries share a nearly 2,000-mile border, billions of dollars
    in trade, a commitment to democracy, and the need to prevail
    against the transnational threats of organized crime. We, as a
    DHS family, are not in a wait-and-see mode. The violence along
    our southwest border requires a comprehensive and bilateral
    effort.
        Secretary Napolitano issued an Immigration and Border
    Security Action Directive in January of 2009 to focus on this
    violence and using the Department's wide-ranging authorities.
    Additionally, in March of this year, DHS announced several
    southwest border initiatives designed to crack down on the
    Mexican drug cartels through enhanced border security. The plan
    calls for additional personnel, increased intelligence
    capability, and better coordination with Federal, State, local,
    and Mexican law enforcement authorities to target illegal guns,
    drugs, and cash.
        In furthering that effort, we partner between the Federal,
    State, local, and tribal law enforcement in the border region,
    which is essential to securing our Nation against the threat of
    cartel violence. Law enforcement agencies at all levels of
    government have significant roles to play both in addressing
    the current border violence and in preparing for scenarios
    where violence in Mexico could further impact the United
    States. Law enforcement agencies at the State, local, and
    tribal level have long fought border violence and have deep
    operational knowledge of the border region. Confronting a
    multifaceted threat like border violence means that Federal
    agencies must constantly collaborate and coordinate and work
    together with our State and local partners by sharing
    information and resources.
        With that in mind, ICE established the Border Enforcement
    Security Task Forces back in 2006. They are led by ICE, but
    they work with a number of partners at the Federal, State, and
    local level, to include our partners here at CBP that are at
    the table. We work with DEA. FBI, ATF, U.S. Attorney's Offices,
    and local law enforcement agencies. Across the southwest
    border, the Mexican Government is committed to participate in
    the BEST task forces. In fact, five of those now have actual
    representation from the Mexican Government.
        The BEST model has been successful. With the help of our
    partners, we have been able to crack down on arms trafficking,
    human smuggling, bulk cash smuggling, narcotics smuggling, et
    cetera. As such, I would like to share with you a few of our
    successes: the discovery and repatriation by the El Paso BEST
    of one of Mexico's top ten fugitives; the arrest by the Laredo
    BEST of a weapons trafficker supplying cartels with assault
    rifles and a number of weapons used to murder a Mexican police
    officer by the name of Navarro Rincon and others; the arrest by
    the Laredo BEST of a member of the Mexican Mafia gang in
    possession of approximately 897 pounds of smuggled marijuana
    after he attempted to run over a Texas DPS, Department of
    Public Safety, officer; and also the arrest by our Los Angeles
    Seaport BEST of an arms trafficker and the seizure of 38
    military-style weapons.
        As such, due to this success, DHS and ICE have committed to
    adding more resources to the BEST. We have recently doubled the
    number of special agents assigned from 95 to 190, which greatly
    expands our ability to work with local law enforcement.
        We have also committed to working more closely with Mexican
    authorities. Assisting Mexico in our battle against drug
    violence and immigration violence requires strong coordination
    with Mexican law enforcement to ensure that Mexico and the U.S.
    are operating together in combating this transnational threat.
    ICE engages Mexican authorities on a number of levels in our
    joint efforts to combat border violence.
        We have a Border Liaison Officer Program, for example,
    where we designate a number of agents across the border to work
    closely with our Mexican partners and establish regular
    meetings and contacts. We recently quadrupled the number of
    those border liaison officers on the southwest border.
        We have also strengthened our coordination with the
    Government of Mexico by increasing our attache personnel in
    Mexico by sending additional special agents to Mexico City,
    Tijuana, Hermosillo, Ciudad Juarez, and Monterrey. Through our
    attache in Mexico City and associated sub-offices in Mexico,
    ICE assists in the efforts against transnational drug
    trafficking, weapons smuggling, bulk cash smuggling, and money-
    laundering syndicates in Mexico. Our attache personnel work on
    a daily basis with Mexican authorities to combat those
    transnational threats, and we have added additional officers,
    again, to all of those offices.
        We have also focused recently on the illegal weapons and
    bulk cash smuggling into Mexico. A larger number of weapons
    recovered in Mexico's drug war are smuggled illegally into
    Mexico from the United States. Clearly, stopping this flow is
    one of our top priorities.
        In June of 2008, ICE, CBP, and other Federal and State
    partners met down in Cuernavaca, Mexico, with our Mexican
    partners and agreed to add more resources in combination with
    ATF to focus on southbound weapons smuggling and work with the
    units down in Mexico.
        In summary, I do want to add that my complete statement
    also focuses on our efforts on immigration enforcement and
    record levels of that over the past couple of years, and we are
    committed to working with this Subcommittee to address those
    challenges, and we are happy to answer any of your questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Torres appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Schumer. Thank you very much, Mr. Torres.
        Chief Aguilar.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID V. AGUILAR, CHIEF, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL,
    U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, WASHINGTON, DC, AND THOMAS
    WINKOWSKI, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS,
           U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir, and good morning.
        Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, Senator Sessions,
    Senator Specter, it is an honor and a privilege to appear
    before you today. I am honored to be here with Assistant
    Commissioner Tom Winkowski, my good partner over at CBP, and
    another good partner, Deputy Assistant Secretary John Torres,
    who jointly we are very interested in what happens on the
    border and I think jointly we will give you a good picture of
    the successes that we have had and advances that we have had on
    the border.
        Senators, next week the Border Patrol will celebrate 85
    years of service, having been officially established by an act
    of Congress in 1924 on May 28th. Over the years that we have
    served in the Bureau of Immigration to the Departments of Labor
    and Justice and now within Customs and Border Protection in the
    Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol has served
    this Nation with honor and integrity. From a few hundred patrol
    inspectors, mounted inspectors, we have grown now to 18,945
    officers as we speak today. They are, of course, deployed
    throughout the norther border, southern border, and our
    maritime and coastal borders.
        The Border Patrol is charged, as you know, with the
    protection of the border between the ports of entry. We are
    guided in all of our efforts by a solid strategy, and I have to
    point out, Senators, that this is an all-threats strategy that
    takes into account not only illegal immigration, which is a big
    vulnerability and a poses a big threat to our borders, but it
    also takes into account narcotics, criminals, criminal aliens,
    and criminal organizations that sometimes believe that they can
    use our borders within impunity.
        With the proper mix of manpower, infrastructure, and
    technology, the Border Patrol is dedicated to achieving the
    goal of operational control. This comprehensive approach is
    critical as no one leg, no one component of our strategy can
    accomplish the mission alone. We are far better off now than we
    have ever been with respect to border security. I am confident
    that with our increased staffing, more tactical infrastructure,
    and integrated technology improvements we have established a
    solid anchor for gaining, maintaining, and expanding
    operational control of our borders.
        There is a transformation occurring on our borders. We are
    transforming the borders of the United States because of the
    application of our strategy and the tactical infrastructure of
    the personnel and the technology that is being added. The
    border regions, both northern and southern, have undergone
    drastic changes and transitions in the past 5 years. Clearly,
    the most prominent is the establishment of our tactical
    infrastructure and the stand- up of varying styles of fencing.
    With the support from Congress, we have now over 626 miles of
    fencing in place out of our total goal of 661 miles. We will
    accomplish that goal.
        This was not an arbitrary number that we reached. Our
    sector chief patrol agents are the field commanders for
    specific geographic areas around the country, and with the
    assistance of their staff, arrived at an achievable,
    sustainable, and economically beneficial need for tactical
    infrastructure that was designed by them. We continuously
    assess our progress and how we can improve it. But, clearly,
    what is now in place has absolutely provided a great benefit to
    our mission.
        In the Yuma Sector, for example, our apprehension rate has
    plummeted from over 138,000 apprehensions that we made in 2005
    to just over 8,000 in 2008, and that number continues to drop.
    Nationwide, we have seen a decrease from about 1.2 million
    apprehensions in 2005 to 723,000 in 2008. And to date, we have
    a 27-percent drop as compared to the same time period last
    year.
        Along the northern border, the most noticeable change has
    clearly been the increase in staffing. As I just mentioned, the
    Border Patrol has now grown to over 18,000 agents, of which
    there were over 1,700 agents assigned to the northern border.
    With increased staffing we have been able to expand our
    community outreach, conduct further operations, and develop
    deeper partnerships with the law enforcement community as a
    whole. The finest example of coordinate efforts is with our
    Canadian counterparts through the Integrated Border Enforcement
    (IBET) Teams.
        In today's 21st century world, the Border Patrol has sought
    to further utilize technology to assist in border security. A
    critical component of our strategy is technology and being able
    to effectively utilize the benefits that can be gained through
    those enhancements. With the development and adoption of new
    technologies such as infrared cameras, remote video
    surveillance, and unattended ground sensors, we have been
    further aided in our mission. With the advent of SBInet and the
    P-28 proof of concept, the Border Patrol took an enormous leap
    forward in our mission and mission capability.
        The border solution is not a simple solution. When it comes
    to border security and our agents, they are dedicated to
    performing our mission. We will continue to explore new
    technologies and reassess our operational needs to
    appropriately address the vulnerability gaps.
        The border is a dynamic environment, and we strive to meet
    the demands of today as well as the challenges of tomorrow.
        Thank you for the opportunity to describe our plans for
    border security and to highlight some of our progress to date.
    I look forward to any questions that you might have of us, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Messrs. Aguilar and Winkowski
    appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Chief, and I want to thank
    both of you for your testimony. Secretary Winkowski is here to
    answer questions, but as I understand it, Chief Aguilar's
    testimony subsumes yours. So we are going to go to questions.
        The first question I have is for all three witnesses, and I
    just want to set the record straight for the American people.
    First of all, I am going to ask you directly whether you agree
    or disagree with the following statement: ``The measures we
    have taken since 2005 to secure the border have been successful
    in significantly lowering the number of illegal immigrants
    seeking to unlawfully cross the border, including a 27-percent
    reduction this year.''
        Chief Aguilar, do you agree with that?
        Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely, sir.
        Chairman Schumer. Commissioner Winkowski.
        Mr. Winkowski. Yes.
        Chairman Schumer. Assistant Secretary Torres.
        Mr. Torres. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Schumer. Okay. Next question: Do you agree or
    disagree with the following statement: ``The U.S.-Mexico border
    is exponentially more secure today than it was in 2005 when we
    began discussing comprehensive immigration reform.''
        Chief Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. That is correct, sir. It is.
        Chairman Schumer. Commissioner Winkowski.
        Mr. Winkowski. Yes, I agree.
        Chairman Schumer. Assistant Secretary Torres
        Mr. Torres. Yes, sir, it is.
        Chairman Schumer. Okay. And I would note some of you came
    to office in the Obama administration and some in the Bush
    administration. This is not a partisan issue of any sort.
        Now I am going to read to you the main border provisions
    that were part of the McCain-Kennedy bill from 2006, which I
    think Senator Cornyn directly diagnosed it. The reason the bill
    failed is the American people did not have faith that there
    would not be a future wave of illegal immigrants if we passed
    that bill.
        First, here is what it was supposed to do: Develop a
    national strategy for border security that describes actions to
    achieve operational control over all borders and ports of
    entry; double the number of Border Patrol agents and increase
    the number of ICE agents by 200; establish initiatives with
    Canada, Mexico, and Central American countries to protect the
    border; deploy border technologies designed to serve as ``force
    multipliers'' to achieve greater operational control of the
    border; complete border fencing in the Yuma and Tucson,
    Arizona, Sectors; increase the number of helicopters and boats
    for us by the Border Patrol.
        Have all of these metrics been met? Chief Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Schumer. Do you agree, Secretary Torres?
        Mr. Torres. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Schumer. And Commissioner Winkowski?
        Mr. Winkowski. Yes.
        Chairman Schumer. Okay. So these are not law. I mean, they
    may be part of other laws, but this is what was laid out in the
    McCain-Kennedy bill, and it seems we have gone a good way for
    achieving it.
        OK, next question: There are people, blogs, cable
    television, radio, who raise the fear factor with the American
    people when they state that our southwest border will not be
    secure unless we build a wall across the entire length of the
    southwest border, that is, a 2,000-mile wall. So, in effect,
    what they are saying is you need a wall on the Rio Grande parts
    of the border, not just the landlocked parts of the border,
    where, as I said, except for 40 miles, that has been done, 700
    miles of fence.
        So do any of you agree that we need to build a fence on the
    rest of the border, the Rio Grande part of the border, to be
    secure, that that is essential for security?
        Chief Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. No, sir. The fence that has been designed and
    is in the progress of being built, the 661 miles, is what has
    been defined by the experts on the ground, the field
    commanders, as what is needed along with the continuing
    maturation of our personnel and the continued augmentation of
    technology that is on its way.
        Chairman Schumer. Has smuggling or illegal crossings across
    the Rio Grande decreases at a rate consistent with the rate we
    have heard overall, 27 percent?
        Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely, and in some cases, it is even
    higher, sir.
        Chairman Schumer. Even higher.
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Schumer. So we are doing pretty well by the river.
    We have the natural barrier, the river, I guess.
        Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely.
        Chairman Schumer. Okay. How about you, Secretary Torres?
    What do you think of this idea of building--that we need to
    build a fence along the 1,200 or so miles of the Rio Grande
    border?
        Mr. Torres. Well, I agree with our expert here, Chief
    Aguilar, and I see that in addition to the efforts of the
    Border Patrol some of the enforcement initiatives that we have
    undertaken in the interior of the country have also contributed
    to the decreases and the people attempting to be smuggled into
    the United States.
        Chairman Schumer. We are going to have hearings on that,
    too. Believe me, I feel that is the most important thing we can
    do. If you prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants,
    that will cut off the flow as effectively as anything, and we
    are going to explore that.
        Commissioner.
        Mr. Winkowski. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Chief Aguilar. I
    do think there is one thing we have to keep in mind that, as we
    close off between the ports of entry, the impact at the ports
    of entry. I think that is something that we need to keep an eye
    on.
        Chairman Schumer. And give me your analysis of how we are
    doing.
        Mr. Winkowski. Well, as we prevent people from coming
    between the ports of entry with our tactical infrastructure and
    our technology, they will seek other ways of coming into the
    country, such as through our ports of entry. And we have got to
    be prepared at our ports of entry--which we are--things such as
    the stimulus package that was recently passed, the $720 million
    to really work on our infrastructure, which is so sorely
    needed; the plus-up in staffing that we had; the upcoming
    implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative with
    machine-readable documents.
        Chairman Schumer. Have any of you noticed a change in the
    commitment to building the existing fence and following the
    law, both virtual and concrete? In the new administration, is
    there any diminution of enthusiasm for that, monies for that,
    et cetera?
        Mr. Aguilar. No, sir.
        Chairman Schumer. Chief, you have served under both
    administrations.
        Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely. No, sir. There is a continued----
        Chairman Schumer. Could you please pull your microphone
    forward?
        Mr. Aguilar. I apologize. No. Not only is there a continued
    interest, but there is also a continued testing of our thinking
    on the requirements. Once we have briefed, once we have
    identified the rationale, everybody is in agreement that we
    will continue to build the fence, we will continue to fund the
    technology requirements that we have identified.
        Chairman Schumer. Great. Okay. I want to thank our
    witnesses. I am going to turn over the chair to Senator Specter
    for a brief while, while I try to defend New York hospitals at
    the Finance Committee. And I will be back. I want to thank the
    witnesses for their testimony.
        I have complete confidence in handing the chair over to
    Senator Specter. He has far more experience than I do chairing
    these committees, but this will be the first time he is doing
    it from this side of the podium. Senator Specter.
        Senator Specter [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. I am very comfortable in the center.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Specter. Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Senator Specter, I am glad to be with
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, my good friend Chuck Schumer forgot a little of the
    history on the fence and how hard we had to battle and how hard
    I had to force votes, and then we would authorize the fence,
    and then the appropriations bill would have zero money in it
    for the fence, and the American people had to shut down the
    switchboards, and we finally got the message up here. So I do
    not think the politicians have in any way distinguished
    themselves, ourselves, in this matter.
        But I do agree that progress is being made, and I have
    always believed that was possible. The numbers are at least
    as--well, I will say it this way: Based on what we have done
    and what we could have done in addition and did not do, I guess
    we are making some pretty good progress on reducing the flow of
    immigration here. But about 3 years ago, we were arresting 1.1
    million and now it is about 700,000 some, which is still a lot.
    I mean, that is not a lawful border when you are arresting
    700,000 annually, and we are not there yet.
        Mr. Aguilar, with regard to the barriers, just for
    clarification, when we wrote this amendment, of course, we did
    not offer an amendment that would build a wall across the
    entire border. Somebody may call in to a talk show and say
    that, but that was not what those of us in Congress proposed.
    We proposed 700 miles.
        Now, what are vehicle barriers? And how are they different
    from fencing?
        Mr. Aguilar. Vehicle barriers are basically designed to
    keep vehicles, anything that has a carrying capacity, across
    our borders. They are very specific and very unique to
    geographical areas that lend themselves to vehicles or any kind
    of carrying capacity coming across. That is a type of defense
    that we need to have in those specific areas.
        Senator Sessions. But a pedestrian could get across that
    barrier.
        Mr. Aguilar. A pedestrian can get across that barrier, yes,
    sir. But by design and by implementation, they are placed where
    pedestrians are not as likely--there is always the possibility,
    but not as likely to try and penetrate that border on foot.
        Senator Sessions. Well, the Chairman says we have got 700
    miles of fencing. How many miles of fencing and how many miles
    of vehicle barriers do you have today?
        Mr. Aguilar. As we speak today, we have 626 miles that we
    have built. We will be accomplishing 661. The total number of
    miles, combination, that we will have in place at 661 will be
    116 miles total in California, 115 in Texas, 115 in New Mexico,
    and 313 in Arizona.
        Senator Sessions. How many of those are vehicle barriers
    and how many are fencing?
        Mr. Aguilar. I would have to get you those numbers, sir. I
    have them here. I will dig them up right now.
        Senator Sessions. Well, I think we just need to get that
    straight because the legislation called for fencing, which is
    better.
        Let us talk a little bit about the El Paso division. My
    staff has talked with some of the CBP folks there, and the
    fence has been built there. Would you agree--I guess, Mr.
    Aguilar, I would ask you--that El Paso has seen a dramatic
    reduction in apprehensions there from 122,000 in 2006 to 30,000
    in 2008?
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. Those numbers are correct.
        Senator Sessions. And I understand that crime in El Paso
    has dropped in general. Is that correct?
        Mr. Aguilar. That is correct. It has dropped, and El Paso,
    I believe, still remains as the third safest large city in the
    Nation.
        Senator Sessions. I think that is a remarkable achievement,
    Mr. Chairman. Part of securing the border there with the fence
    and increased Border Patrol officers and sophisticated use of
    technology, you have drawn that illegal entry way down and the
    crime rate has gone down, and El Paso is one of the third
    safest cities in America, according to the numbers I had.
        But you still, I understand, are averaging 48 apprehensions
    a day, but that is a lot better than 300 a couple of years ago.
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
        Senator Sessions. That is the basic trend you would see
    there, Mr. Aguilar?
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. And El Paso, just as a point of
    clarification, takes in not only El Paso proper and the
    surrounding areas, but also takes into account basically the
    entire State of New Mexico border also.
        Senator Sessions. Mr. Torres, isn't one way the thing that
    we can help our friends in Mexico--and I am really impressed
    with our efforts to step up their national security, to crack
    down on the organized gangs that even threaten the independence
    of the nation, and I think we should help. Isn't one good way
    we can help is to make a priority to prosecute the criminal
    gangs in our cities that are connected to these cartels in
    Mexico and when you do so, you draw up the sources of their
    money that flow back to these cartels in Mexico and give them
    the power that enables them to threaten the Government of
    Mexico?
        Mr. Torres. Yes, sir, Senator. In fact, over the past
    couple of years, we have implemented a couple of programs--two
    programs just targeted specifically at what you are talking
    about. One is our Operation Community Shield, which has
    resulted in over 11,000 gang members that we have arrested
    since 2005, a number of those of which we have prosecuted. But
    then we also have what is called Operation Repeat Offender that
    we focused along the southwest border, where we take people who
    have committed crimes that we have identified and screened in
    the States' prisons and jails along the southwest border.
    Actually, we do it nationwide, but a lot of the focus is on the
    southwest border. We take those people we identify who have
    committed a crime and who have also previously been deported,
    and we work with the U.S. Attorney's Office to prosecute them
    federally for re-entry after deportation statute. And,
    historically, they have been receiving close to--or being
    sentenced close to 3 to 5 years in prison. So, in effect, it
    takes them, just as you said, out of that theater of violence
    along the southwest border, so we are not just deporting them
    again so they can try to come back in and be encountered by a
    Border Patrol agent or someone at the port of entry.
        Senator Sessions. Yes, I think that is a real way to help
    them, because some of them move back and forth, and some just
    ship money back home to strengthen those cartels.
        I would just say with regard to the new administration, a
    number of things are being continued that are good, like
    Operation Streamline, and I would like to talk a little more
    about that. My time is up, but the President has denied
    requests for continuing----
        Senator Specter. Senator Sessions, if you want a little
    more time, go ahead.
        Senator Sessions. All right. Thank you. He has denied a
    request for additional National Guard troops there. The policy
    that seems to be working in the workplace, Mr. Torres, could be
    good if we primarily target the employers who knowingly
    participate in this. But also, when you do not remove those who
    have proven to be using false IDs and are here illegally, we
    are back to a catch-and-release policy. I think that sends an
    unwise message, and I do think that some of the actions have
    raised real questions in my mind about the commitment of the
    Department to State and local participation in this effort.
        And, finally, just to wrap up, on the question of Operation
    Streamline, I am seeing good numbers. This is where in certain
    sectors when the Border Patrol officers apprehend someone, they
    are actually prosecuted, maybe a week or two, whatever, in
    jail. They get a misdemeanor conviction if it is their first
    offense, which is different from just taking them right back to
    the border and sending them home, because they come back the
    next day.
        What I have seen in Del Rio, Mr. Aguilar, is that in 2005
    there were 68,000 apprehensions there. In 2008, after
    Streamline has been in place where they are routinely
    prosecuted, the apprehensions are 20,000, a 70-percent
    decrease. In Yuma, pre-Streamline there were 117,000
    apprehensions. After that, it dropped to 8,000, a 93-percent
    decrease. In Laredo, there was 56,000 in 2007, and 2008 is a
    partial. Streamline, it dropped to 46,000. And in Tucson, in
    2007 apprehensions were 379,000, and the numbers have dropped
    to 126--well, I do not have the full year on that, so that is
    2009 to date, 126,000, but it looks like a good reduction
    there.
        So do you believe that is having an impact on the decline
    of entries presumably?
        Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely. Where we have implemented
    Operation Streamline or Streamline-type operations as a part of
    our comprehensive approach, it is having a tremendous impact.
        I would like to just point out that the fundamentals of a
    border enforcement model are the ability of the Border Patrol
    to be able to detect, deter, identify, classify, and resolve
    any kind of cross-border illegal entry. The fence or the
    tactical infrastructure that we referred to does a lot of the
    deterrence. In addition to that, anything that gets past us,
    there has to be a consequence to it, of which Operation
    Streamline is part of our consequence package, if you will,
    that we bring to bear against anything that does get through
    even our enforcement model.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you.
        Thank you for being very kind to me, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
        Picking up on a thread on Senator Sessions' comments with
    respect to the drug problem--and the smuggling of arms is a big
    factor--do the Border Patrol improvements have any impact on
    the smuggling of weapons? That is obviously something which is
    given a lot of fire power, improve the capacity of the drug
    dealers to function, imperil the Mexican Government. Mr.
    Winkowski, we have not given you a speaking part yet. Would you
    care to respond to that?
        Mr. Winkowski. Yes, thank you, Senator. As you know, with
    part of our Southwest Border Initiative, we are conducting an
    assortment of outbound operations looking for weapons as well
    as bulk currency going south into Mexico. I can tell you we
    have had a lot of success from the standpoint of bulk currency
    seizing since March of this year, over $13 million going south.
        From the standpoint of weapons going south, we have had
    some seizures, but not military grade type of weapons. It has
    been more handguns and shotguns and personal use type of
    weapons. But we do have ongoing operations on a regularly
    occurring basis and a post and surge mode down on the southwest
    border.
        Senator Specter. What could be done, Commissioner
    Winkowski, on stopping the flow of those military weapons?
        Mr. Winkowski. I think there are a number of things that we
    could do. One is to continue doing what we are doing from the
    standpoint of post and surge. I think the other huge piece here
    is, you know, over in ICE from the standpoint of their ongoing
    investigations that they have ongoing in this particular issue.
        The other thing that we are working very hard on, you do
    have legitimate weapons that are going down south that are
    transiting, for example, the United States. They have all the
    proper State Department licenses and things of that nature, and
    we have been working very, very closely with Mr. Torres' staff
    on making sure that those weapons are reaching the right end
    users.
        So I think a combination of post and surge operations, the
    investigative side, and the monitoring of the end users side--
    --
        Senator Specter. Those legitimate weapons are not part of
    the problem?
        Mr. Winkowski. Pardon me?
        Senator Specter. Those legitimatized weapons are not part
    of the problem?
        Mr. Winkowski. Well, you know, from our standpoint, those
    weapons that are going down, perhaps transiting the United
    States, do have the proper licenses, and we do believe we have,
    you know, the proper safeguards in place, working with ICE, on
    who the end user is and making sure that it gets to the end
    user.
        Senator Specter. One final question. You see news reports
    from time to time about immigrants being smuggled into the
    United States in these large vans, so-called 16-wheelers. Have
    the precautions taken and improvements made so far been any
    help in monitoring that horrendous practices?
        Mr. Winkowski. Yes, at the ports of entry, with the
    technology that we have received from the Congress this fiscal
    year, the stimulus package, for example, $100 million in new
    money for technology, as well as in our fiscal year 2009
    budget, $30 million. That certainly is one step in the right
    direction.
        I know there are issues interior-wise with individuals that
    are in cargo containers that, you know, in some cases there are
    deaths that I know that the Chief and Mr. Torres have been
    dealing with.
        Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen.
    Senator Sessions has requested 30 seconds. You may start with
    30 seconds.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you.
        Mr. Aguilar, I have the number here from, I believe, your
    Department that there have been 323 miles of single-layer
    pedestrian fence, 302 miles of vehicle fence, and that is how
    you get the 626 number, and only 33 miles of the double-layered
    secondary fencing.
        Mr. Aguilar. That is correct.
        Senator Sessions. Does that sound correct?
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you.
        Senator Specter. Senator Sessions, you still have 7 seconds
    left.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Sessions. You have already indulged me enough, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Specter. You just used your time.
        Thank you very much, gentlemen.
        Senator Specter. We will now proceed to panel two:
    Congressman Hayworth, Sheriff Wiles, Mayor Foster, Professor
    Massey, and Mr. Vale. If you gentlemen would be seated, we are
    going to proceed.
        Our first witness is former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, a
    Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007,
    representing the 5th Congressional District of Arizona; author
    of the book, ``Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border
    Security, and the War on Terror.'' He now hosts an afternoon
    political radio show in Phoenix and serves as a consultant and
    motivational speaker.
        Thank you for coming back to Washington, Congressman
    Hayworth, and the floor is yours.

         STATEMENT OF HON. J.D. HAYWORTH, FORMER UNITED STATES
       REPRESENTATIVE, 5TH DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX, ARIZONA

        Mr. Hayworth. Senator Specter, thank you very much for this
    opportunity to testify, and I ask unanimous consent that my
    complete testimony be made a part of the record.
        Senator Specter. Without objection, it will be.
        Mr. Hayworth. Let me begin by highlighting two very popular
    words from the ``Washington Political Lexicon.'' The first is
    ``bipartisan.'' The second is ``comprehensive.'' In my opinion,
    the Federal Government's inability to secure our borders and
    enforce our immigration laws has been a bipartisan failure.
        First, the Bush administration and now the Obama
    administration have both expressed the desire for so-called
    comprehensive immigration reform. While the term
    ``comprehensive'' suggests complete or all-encompassing reform,
    the American people see it for what it is: amnesty for those
    who have entered our country illegally.
        When members of this body attempted to move such a piece of
    legislation in the summer of 2007, their constituents made it
    clear that they wanted no part of it. The Senate switchboard
    was overloaded, and the ill-advised legislation was abandoned.
        Yet here we are again, almost 2 years later, with this same
    ill-advised policy objective as this Committee's apparent goal.
    Why?
        Here is some genuine straight talk: because some
    Republicans want ``cheap labor'' and some Democrats want
    ``cheap votes.''
        Sadly, what has been shortchanged in this deficient
    political calculation is the border security--indeed, the
    national security--that our country so desperately needs.
        It was my honor to serve in the U.S. Congress for 12 years.
    I was here on September 11, 2001. Who would have thought that
    nearly 8 years following that fateful day, we as a Nation would
    still be dithering over something as elemental to our national
    defense as truly securing our borders?
        Certainly we have created new bureaucracies and enacted new
    laws. But if people are not obeying existing law because the
    Government is not adequately enforcing existing law, what makes
    us think that any new laws will make a difference?
        What results is a type of ``public policy schizophrenia,''
    all because official Washington views this as a political
    problem to be managed, when in reality it is a national
    security problem that must be solved.
        Two policy objectives indicate the gulf between the real
    and the ideal.
        First, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was signed into law by
    President Bush. It requires the construction of at least 700
    miles of double-layered fencing along our southern border with
    Mexico. But only about 200 miles of such fencing has actually
    been completed because the Department of Homeland Security has
    chosen to count old single-layered fencing and vehicle barriers
    as part of the new fence. Now smugglers are using collapsible
    ramps to drive over those vehicle barriers.
        Moreover, the Obama administration recently introduced the
    notion of a ``virtual fence,'' despite its initial test
    failures in my home State of Arizona. Perhaps the new round of
    testing can take place not in Arizona, but at 1600 Pennsylvania
    Avenue. Do you think the Secret Service would be willing to
    eliminate the ``real fence'' that surround the White House?
        And the irony here is that building a real border fence,
    with real protections, could create real jobs and would be a
    stimulus project that I believe would prove both popular and
    practical.
        Speaking of popularity in the workplace, the Los Angeles
    Times reported last week that the ``Federal Government's E-
    Verify program, which seeks to reduce the hiring of illegal
    immigrants, is becoming increasingly popular, with 1,000 new
    businesses signing up each week.''
        Despite this, critics on both the left and right find fault
    with the error rate of 4 percent, which means there is an
    accuracy rate of 96 percent, and Homeland Security Secretary
    Janet Napolitano said e-Verify is ``a cornerstone of workplace
    enforcement across the country.''
        Yet workplace enforcement is the second policy objective
    which prompts contradictory reactions.
        The February 24th sweep of an engine parts manufacturer in
    Bellingham, Washington, resulted in 28 arrests.
        In response, Secretary Napolitano complained that
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, failed to notify
    her of that raid in advance and announced an investigation into
    the communications policies of ICE.
        Those arrested were subsequently released, and Secretary
    Napolitano later refined her response, claiming that employers
    would now be the focus instead of illegal workers.
        But with those actions, Secretary Napolitano in essence
    publicly berated her Department's own agents for enforcing
    immigration law.
        And that brings us back full circle. Americans want our
    immigration laws enforced.
        A man from Phoenix addressed the matter squarely in an e-
    mail to me. His observation, and I quote: ``Wouldn't it make
    sense to first legislate and implement comprehensive border
    enforcement as well as comprehensive employee verification
    before we take on comprehensive immigration reform? ''
        Yes, that makes great sense. But, unfortunately, official
    Washington shows few signs of following common sense on this
    issue.
        Mr. Chairman, I have included the full text of Chapter 9 of
    my book ``Whatever It Takes'' in my complete testimony, and,
    again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to testify, and I will be glad to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hayworth appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Schumer [presiding]. Thank you, Congressman
    Hayworth, former Congressman.
        I am going to introduce the next four witnesses and ask
    them each to put their entire statements in the record and
    speak for 5 minutes each consecutively.
        Richard Wiles is the sheriff of El Paso County, Texas. He
    has held that position since 2007. Prior to that he served as
    Chief of Police of the city of El Paso. He is a member of the
    Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition, has 27 years of law
    enforcement experience, and manages over 1,400 employees.
        Do you want to add something, Senator Cornyn, since he is
    your constituent? We have a lot of your constituents here
    today?
        Senator Cornyn. We do. Thank you for that. These are people
    who know a lot about the border, and I am delighted they are
    here to share their expertise.
        I would just say, because I want to hear from them, that
    hopefully the sheriff can talk a little bit about the impact on
    local and State law enforcement officials of the Federal
    Government's failure to live up to its responsibilities, and
    the importance of providing both the financial support to
    border sheriffs and other law enforcement officials to help
    make up the burden. It is basically an unfunded mandate that
    the Federal Government has imposed on State and local officials
    as a result of the Federal Government's failure to deal with
    border security issues.
        But I am delighted to have him and the mayor here with us,
    and Sam Vale, my friend who is very active in the Border Trade
    Alliance and who can talk a lot about not just border security
    but also the importance to our economy of trade across our
    borders.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Schumer. Okay. And we have Chad Foster, as Senator
    Cornyn mentioned, mayor of Eagle Pass, the city of Eagle Pass,
    Texas, appointed by Governor Perry to the Texas Department of
    Transportation Border Trade Advisory Committee, chairman of the
    Texas Border Coalition, a member of the Alliance for Security
    and Trade, and co-chair of the Border 2012 Amistad District,
    and is a member of the Middle Rio Grande Regional Review
    Committee.
        Douglas Massey is the rare witness not from Texas. He is
    the Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs
    at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He specializes
    in the sociology of immigration, has published extensively on
    immigration through the southwest border. He is the author of
    two seminal books on immigration and population migration
    entitled ``Crossing the Border'' and ``Beyond Smoke and
    Mirrors.''
        And Samuel Vale--I do not have a little sheet here. Somehow
    it was left out. But maybe we can have Senator Cornyn make the
    introduction, and I will just ask unanimous consent that Samuel
    Vale's introduction be added to the record.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, I mentioned that Mr. Vale, Mr.
    Chairman, is very active in the Border Trade Alliance as a
    board member. He actually is president of the Rio Grande City
    Starr-Camargo Bridge Company, so he knows a lot about the ports
    of entry and the need for funding for infrastructure, including
    personnel to facilitate trade. And so I think rather than me go
    on, let us just hear from him.
        Chairman Schumer. OK, great. And also President of
    Telemundo 40, President of the Starr-Camargo Bridge Company,
    President of the Border Pacific Railroad Company. So he has a
    lot of experience.
        Gentlemen, each of your statements, like Congressman
    Hayworth's, will be read into the record. Sheriff Wiles, you
    can proceed.

    STATEMENT OF RICHARD WILES, SHERIFF, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS, EL
                              PASO, TEXAS

        Mr. Wiles. Thank you, Chairman Schumer and Ranking Member
    Cornyn. Good afternoon.
        First, just to clarify a previous statement made, El Paso
    is a large city, over 700,000 residents. It has been ranked one
    of the--either the second or third safest large city in the
    United States for the past 12 years, long before the new fence
    was built. So I just want to make that clear.
        We certainly look forward to comprehensive immigration
    reform. We believe it is needed. My concern is that we do not
    make a solution that one size fits all. We do not want to lump
    the problems together and address it with just one solution.
        From a law enforcement perspective, I see two issues.
    Illegal immigration and undocumented immigrants is one, and
    there seems to be a misperception in some communities across
    our country that people who illegally enter our country from
    Mexico do so for the purpose of engaging in criminal activity.
    And that could not be further from the truth. Members of the
    U.S. Border Patrol, without hesitation, will admit that the
    vast majority are here for economic reasons. In many respects,
    they enter illegally knowing that there are employers here that
    want and need their labor. It is as if we are waving them in
    with one hand and telling them to stop with the other.
        What should be the law enforcement response to illegal
    immigration in our local communities? I am not pro-illegal
    immigration. As a law enforcement officer, I respect the laws
    of our country and the necessity for them to be followed for an
    orderly and safe society. But immigration and immigration
    enforcement rest solely with the Federal Government and Federal
    agencies. And as you mentioned, Senator Cornyn, I believe the
    Federal Government has failed in that respect. And when the
    Government ignores its duties and obligations, unfortunately
    that burden sometimes does fall on State and local officials.
        In the past, there has been a discussion of local, county,
    and State law enforcement agencies ``assisting'' in the area of
    immigration enforcement. That is not good policy. While Chief
    of Police in El Paso, I was a member of the Major Cities Chiefs
    Association, which is comprised of the largest 64 law
    enforcement agencies in the United States and Canada. I was one
    of nine members of a subcommittee that ultimately made
    recommendations to the full association that were adopted in
    June 2006, and I have attached a copy of that report to my
    testimony for your review.
        The general recommendation is that local law enforcement
    should not be engaged in the enforcement of Federal immigration
    law. Although there are many reasons, I will concentrate on two
    main ones. First, we lack the resources. We can barely keep up
    with what our community expects us to do now. Second, local law
    enforcement depends on the cooperation of the community it
    serves to prevent and solve crimes. In fact, many local
    agencies spend large amounts of time, energy, and money--a lot
    of Federal grant money--developing relationships just for this
    purpose. The enforcement of Federal immigration laws by local
    law enforcement will undermine these efforts and impair
    cooperation and communication between local law enforcement and
    the communities they serve.
        Additionally, last year I attended a conference on local
    law enforcement and immigration enforcement put on by the
    Police Foundation in Washington D.C., which was well attended.
    The vast majority of agency heads at the conference agreed with
    the findings of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. The Police
    Foundation is actually scheduled to release a new report this
    afternoon discussing how local immigration enforcement
    challenges the public safety mission of law enforcement
    agencies. The report is titled ``The Role of Local Police:
    Striking a Balance Between Immigration Enforcement and Civil
    Liberties.''
        Federal agencies have the personnel, the training,
    equipment, and systems in place to handle immigration
    enforcement. If they are deficient in any of these areas, that
    is something for them to overcome, not a reason to put an
    additional burden on local, county, and State agencies which
    are already struggling to keep up with the demands they face.
        Which leads me to the second issue, and that is the unique
    criminal issues faced by law enforcement agencies in our border
    communities. Due to the demand all across our Nation, illegal
    drugs continue to flow north while money and weapons flow
    south. In addition, we must deal with human smuggling and
    border crime, which many times are offenses committed against
    undocumented immigrants, such as robbery, sexual assault,
    kidnapping, and even homicide.
        These acts clearly are within our jurisdiction and
    responsibility and take law enforcement resources away from our
    neighborhoods when we have to respond to them. But we
    understand we have an obligation to protect all persons within
    our borders, and we respond appropriately without regard to
    immigration status. Our purpose is to prevent crime and, when
    we fail to do that, to apprehend criminal offenders. But we
    also understand that when we arrest a drug smuggler, a drug
    seller, a human smuggler, or a rapist, it prevents drugs and
    crime from expanding into other areas of our country. In this
    regard, we are truly at the front lines using local resources
    to address a national problem.
        Our main concern is border and community security. Our
    position on immigration enforcement works, and it shows in the
    fact that we are an extremely safe community. And we want to
    remain one of the largest safe cities in the United States. We
    are growing and expanding, and we want to maintain the safety
    and security necessary for our citizens to be free from crime
    and the fear of crime. I believe that if we became involved in
    Federal immigration enforcement, that trust and respect we have
    with our community would fracture and fail. It would create a
    communication gap that would hamper our ability to continue our
    efforts in crime reduction.
        If the Federal Government needs the help of local law
    enforcement, it would be better concentrated on issues related
    to crime. We are already working with many Federal agencies on
    issues such as drug smuggling, weapons trafficking, gangs,
    vehicle thefts, et cetera. With the proper resources, we stand
    ready to assist our Federal and State partners on issues that
    are important to all of us and most certainly the communities
    we serve and represent. Ultimately, the entire Nation benefits
    when we are successful at stopping the flow of illegal drugs
    and preventing criminals from continuing to victimize our
    citizenry.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wiles appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Sheriff.
        Mayor Foster.

        STATEMENT OF HON. CHAD FOSTER, MAYOR, EAGLE PASS, TEXAS

        Mr. Foster. Yes, sir, thank you. Chairman Schumer, Ranking
    Member Cornyn, I am Chad Foster, again, the mayor of the city
    of Eagle Pass, Texas, and also the Chairman of the Texas Border
    Coalition. I am speaking today on behalf of 2.1 million
    citizens, American citizens, along the 17 counties on the Texas
    border, which encompasses 1,250 miles. Ours is a region of
    contrasts, exhibiting differences and similarities of language,
    culture, tradition, and economy.
        The multinational, multicultural nature of our communities
    on both sides of the international boundary gives our region a
    distinct sense of place.
        When the Senate last debated immigration reform, I recall
    the opponents of the bill saying that the borders had to be
    secured before any visas could be reformed or any effort made
    to legalize the status of the undocumented among us. As
    mentioned, these conditions have been met. Improvements and
    additions to our ports of entry, in my opinion, the land ports
    are now our weakest link. We need your help and we would
    appreciate it now.
        We are within sight of operational control of the border
    between the ports of entry, and that puts our ports under
    greater stress. According to the Government Accountability
    Office, we needed 4,000 new officers to secure the ports of
    entry before we placed the new emphasis on southbound checks to
    stop the trafficking of guns and cash. We needed $4 billion in
    infrastructure and technology. We need 1,600 more CBP officers,
    along with 400 canine units. We need the southbound operations
    to be controlled by CBP, which has training in dealing with the
    traveling public, and not Border Patrol, whose training with
    travelers is more confrontational. We need $130 million for 350
    new ICE investigators to work on firearms-trafficking and
    money-laundering investigations and $20 million for improved
    tactical field communications for CBP and ICE. We cannot afford
    to delay the $20 million that CBP needs to modernize its
    database used to identify potential criminals at the ports of
    entry or the $50 million for Operation Stonegarden to reimburse
    State and local law enforcement for their participation in
    border actions.
        The 9/11 terrorists came to the United States through ports
    of entry. Most undocumented immigrants enter the United States
    through ports of entry. Most of the illegal drugs entering our
    country come through ports of entry. No border wall will solve
    these problems. Illegal border crossing arrests at the Texas
    border have been falling for more than 3 years, without a wall,
    a great tribute to the deterrence of our Border Patrol and CBP
    officers. Arrests this year along the southern border are
    likely to be way below the nearly 1.6 million during the peak
    in 2000.
        In their headlong rush to achieve an arbitrary deadline to
    erect an ineffective wall, the Bush administration chose to
    abandon our Nation's laws that commit us to preserving our
    environment, our culture, our history and our religious
    liberties. We cannot afford to go down that path again--a path
    that waives all laws.
        The Chertoff waivers will affect the natural movement of
    animal species, including the larger mammals that are on the
    threatened or endangered species lists, and cause irreparable
    harm to the unique eco- and bio-systems located along the Rio
    Grande River. They provided 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
    liberties of our national fabric, guaranteed to the people of
    the United States under Articles I and II of the Constitution.
    We demand that Congress require the enforcement of our
    commitment to being a Nation of laws. We support the repeal of
    the unconstitutional waiver authority and urge the repeal of
    the Secure Fence Act in favor of measures that will provide our
    region with real security.
        The Texas Border Coalition wants to finish the job of
    securing the border by enacting immigration reform. We support
    an earned legalization program for the undocumented people who
    are in the U.S. today. We need an effective guest worker
    program to prevent the immigration policy and political
    failures from repeating themselves in another general
    immigration reform. We need more than a bill; we need that
    balance, the ideological and political continuum in Congress
    and the Nation.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Foster appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Mayor.
        Dr. Massey. We are going to try to move things along
    because we have a vote at about 11:45.

    STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS MASSEY, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AND PUBLIC
          AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Massey. Good morning, Senators. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify. I am a social scientist who has been
    studying immigration for three decades, and I co-direct a
    research project that has been in the field for more than 25
    years and generates the largest and most reliable source of
    data on the behavior of documented and undocumented migrants to
    the United States.
        During the 1970s the United States declared a War on Crime;
    during the 1980s it declared a War on Drugs; and in the 1990s
    it seemed to have declared a War on Immigrants. In my view,
    these policies had more to do with domestic politics than with
    the underlying realities of crime, drugs, or immigration, with
    negative consequences all around.
        In the case of immigration, the 1986 Immigration Reform and
    Control Act launched what proved to be a two-decade-long
    militarization of the Mexico-U.S. border. From 1980 to 2000,
    the number of Border Patrol agents increased 3.7 times, line
    watch hours rose by a factor of 6.5, the agency's budget
    increased by a factor of 12.
        Paradoxically, this militarization occurred as undocumented
    migration reached its peak and was beginning to move downward.
    It also unfolded as we were drawing closer to Mexico
    economically, by treaty agreeing to lower the barriers to
    cross-border movements of goods, capital, information,
    services, and certain classes of people.
        Between 1980 and 2000, total trade increased 9 times,
    business visitors by 7.4 times, treaty investors 10 times, and
    intracompany transferees 27 times. Somehow we seem to want to
    integrate all factor markets in North America except one, and
    to magically build a border that is impermeable to all flows
    except that of workers. This fundamental contradiction was not
    sustainable.
        Nonetheless, border enforcement accelerated during the
    1990s despite the fact that the rate of undocumented migration
    to the United States had been falling for several years. The
    1990s War on Immigrants was followed by the post-9/11 War on
    Terror, which quickly became conflated with immigration and
    identified with the Mexico-U.S. border, despite the fact that
    none of the hijackers entered from Mexico, that country has no
    Islamic terrorists cells, has no significant Muslim population,
    and by that point was experiencing a declining rate of
    undocumented migration. Border enforcement, nonetheless, rose
    exponentially after September 11th, with the Border Patrol
    budget increasing 95 times its 1980 level and the number of
    line watch hours rising 111 times. After 9/11, deportations
    also began a marked increase, rising from just 11,000 in 1980
    to some 350,000 in 2008, breaking old records last set during
    the era of mass deportations in the 1930s.
        As already noted, this massive increase in enforcement came
    during a time of North American economic integration and
    falling rates of undocumented migration and did not solve
    America's immigration problems. Although the probability of
    taking a first undocumented trip fell after 1990 and the
    likelihood of taking an additional trip fell after 2000, even
    more pronounced was the sharp decline in the rate of return
    migration. Between 1980 and 2005, the likelihood of returning
    to Mexico within 12 months of an undocumented entry fell by
    more than half.
        This shift in behavior occurred because the militarization
    of the border increased the costs of border crossing from $600
    to $2,200, while increasing the risk of death and injury, but
    had no effect on the probability of apprehension itself. Given
    the higher costs and risks of border crossing, fewer migrants
    left; but those who did leave still got across the border
    because the odds of apprehension did not rise. Once inside the
    United States, they hunkered down and stayed longer and in
    larger numbers to avoid experiencing the costs and risks of
    border crossing again. In sum, it was because of a decline in
    return migration and not an increase in entry from Mexico that
    the undocumented population ballooned during the 1990s.
        In the past 3 years, estimates suggest that the
    undocumented population has peaked and is beginning to trend
    downward. This development is no doubt partly because of the
    remarkable acceleration in border enforcement in the wake of 9/
    11 and the rise of mass internal deportations; but it also
    reflects the evaporation of labor demand in the United States.
    Nonetheless, rising enforcement and growing joblessness have
    not prompted a significant return of already settled migrants.
    As we have seen, the rates of departure have fallen to record
    low levels. At the same time, a quiet but massive increase in
    the availability of guest worker visas has provided a legal
    alternative to undocumented entry. According to official data,
    the number temporary legal workers entering from Mexico rose
    from 3,300 in 1980 to 361,000 in 2008.
        These data clearly indicate that Mexican immigration is not
    out of control. It rises and falls with labor demand, and if
    legitimate avenues for entry are available, migrants enter
    legally. The massive militarization of the border and
    resumption of mass deportations occurred despite the fact that
    rates of undocumented migration were falling, and the perverse
    consequence was that these actions lowered the rate of return
    migration among those already here.
        To solve our serious immigration problems, we need to
    undertake a program of legalization for those already resident
    in the country, and especially for the more than 3 million
    people who entered the country as minors and are guilty of no
    sin except obeying their parents. We also need to provide for
    the legal entry of Mexicans by increasing the number of
    permanent resident visas and guest worker permits to levels
    consistent with the needs of an integrated North American
    economy.
        Unfortunately, the current immigration crisis is very much
    one of our own making, reflecting bad policy choices in the
    past; but, fortunately, this means that with better policy
    choices we have the power to resolve the dilemma moving
    forward.
        Thank you for your time and attention.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Massey appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Schumer. Thank you for speeding your testimony but
    getting it all in.
        Mr. Vale.

     STATEMENT OF SAMUEL F. VALE, PRESIDENT, STARR-CAMARGO BRIDGE
                    COMPANY, RIO GRANDE CITY, TEXAS

        Mr. Vale. Thank you very much, Chairman Schumer and Ranking
    Member Cornyn and other distinguished members of the Committee,
    for the invitation to be here. My name is Sam Vale. In addition
    to owning and operating a private port of entry that the rent
    you pay could support all the others for 1,000 years, it is
    something we feel efficiencies at the ports are of utmost
    importance to our border security. The question that you are
    talking about today is something that we have been talking
    about for 30 years, and we will probably be talking about it
    for another 30 years. It is not new, and there is nothing
    static about the security on the border. It changes. It is
    different on the Canadian border. It is different on the
    Mexican border. It is different from port to port. The typical
    approach in Washington is one size fits all. That is not true.
    We are all different. We have got different traffic
    compositions, different people crossing for different purposes.
    So we feel that it is particularly important that we sit down
    and talk about these things on a port-by-port basis.
        We also find that there is a great failure to understand
    that the daily crosses at our ports of entry are primarily the
    same people. We have a significant portion of our border
    crossers that cross each and every day. And, by the way, we are
    also the people that generate sales taxes and property taxes,
    and we pay taxes to the IRS, and we make money for the
    Government. So the more we can do business, the more the
    Government gets to have money to spend on the things that are
    needed for other people in the Government.
        We do not really need to have another security program
    added to what we have until we go back and examine the
    effectiveness of what is there. However, the need for
    comprehensive immigration reform is an equal priority to
    security because the foundation of security is identifying
    people. How can you leave 20 million people out of a databank
    and think you are going to identify people? You have got to
    know who is there. You have got to know who enters and who
    leaves the country.
        Our partners in Canada and Mexico are the No. 1 people we
    sell goods and services to. Good grief, we want them to be able
    to buy our stuff.
        When you talk about southbound inspections on the southern
    border, CBP has never really had that as a priority. Now, if it
    is about weapons, why don't we have ATF down there in greater
    numbers. You do not need 100. You need 200. You need 100 doing
    nothing but intelligence gathering. By the look of a couple of
    you guys, you probably have read in the history books about
    World War II. What was the greatest source of intelligence? The
    partisans. We need more people. We need more intelligence. Our
    ATF people have the skills today to go out in the very short
    term and gather more intelligence so that the southbound
    inspections are based on real-time information, and then you
    add the computer models and all the toys and all the things
    that they like to put into this. It is really a critically
    important issue.
        We can also tell you that along the border, you want to
    export a gun? It does not have to look like a gun. It can be
    parts, a part going through California, a part going through
    Texas, a part going some other way. You can put them together
    pretty quickly. Just ask any of our Special Forces how they
    take them apart and put them together.
        So it is a complex process, and if they are crossing
    between our ports, bring stuff north, you would think they
    might want to take something south. It is kind of like what we
    do in trucking. You need a back haul. In any event, you get to
    something that you all did that was very good, the $720 million
    for stimulus package. Unfortunately, most of that was spent on
    small ports that do not carry a significant portion of the
    traffic. I am a small-port guy so I cannot say anything bad
    about small ports. But I can tell you this: Secretary
    Napolitano said that she completed the Mariposa port for $200
    million designed before we had a stimulus package. That was
    included in what she paid for.
        What we need is boots on the ground. What we need is a
    surge like we had in Iraq. We need a lot of people there. We
    need Border Patrol. We need officers. We need inspectors. We
    need agents. And if you want to talk about how getting north on
    the border is, ask ICE to design a way to come into the United
    States, and I bet you that half of their stuff gets through. So
    with fences, without fences, it is not a simple matter, and we
    have got to stop talking in Pollyanna ways. They have built a
    good fence in Arizona in the marine military bombing base.
    Current technology. It stopped everybody.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Vale appears as a submission
    for the record.]
        Chairman Schumer. Well, thank you, Mr. Vale. I want to
    thank all of our witnesses. We are going to try to get through
    the questions before the vote is called.
        First, I am going to ask the same question to all five
    panelists--and I would like yes or no answers, and then we will
    get into detail--that I asked the first panel.
        Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
    ``The measures that we have taken since 2005 to secure the
    border have been successful in significantly lowering the
    number of illegal immigrants seeking to unlawfully cross the
    border, including a 27-percent reduction this year'' ?
    Congressman Hayworth, yes or no.
        Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman----
        Chairman Schumer. Yes or no.
        Mr. Hayworth. Thank you for that kind reception. Somewhat.
        Chairman Schumer. Somewhat. OK, fair enough.
        Mr. Wiles. I agree with him.
        Chairman Schumer. Somewhat.
        Mr. Wiles. Yes. Which is rare.
        Mr. Foster. On the Texas border, I believe the
    apprehensions have fallen since 2005, 56 percent. What is
    watering those numbers down is the other borders, but, no, they
    have fallen.
        Chairman Schumer. But you do agree with the statement.
        Mr. Foster. Absolutely.
        Chairman Schumer. Dr. Massey.
        Mr. Massey. No.
        Chairman Schumer. You do not agree.
        Mr. Massey. No.
        Chairman Schumer. Okay. And Mr. Vale.
        Mr. Vale. No. It is about jobs being available.
        Chairman Schumer. Okay. You do not believe then that the--
    --
        Mr. Vale. I do not believe it was caused by our security
    measures. I think that is part of it, but not the controlling
    factor.
        Chairman Schumer. Got it. OK, good.
        The second question I have is--well, I think that answers
    it. Let me first go to Congressman Hayworth. You have testified
    that only 200 miles of border fence have been constructed. We
    heard the previous panel, who were the ones who were doing it,
    who say there is 626. Can you explain that discrepancy?
        Mr. Hayworth. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. In your absence, at
    the end of the testimony, Senator Sessions got the accurate
    figures. What is happening is there is a change and a
    redefinition, and you are no stranger to the legislative
    process. You know the intent of Congress sometimes changes with
    actual implementation.
        In terms of what was going on on the border, what has been
    counted by the Department of Homeland Security is not entire
    double-layered fencing, which was the original intent in the
    Secure Borders Act. We are counting single-layer old-style
    fencing, about 10 feet high. And more problematic, the vehicle
    barriers, again, sir, in your absence, it was explained that
    the vehicle barriers are not foolproof, that pedestrians can
    gain access, and also we have seen reporting and documentation
    that with the use of collapsible ramps----
        Chairman Schumer. But wait a second. You are saying it is
    not the fence you want, but there is 626 miles of a fence at
    least 10-foot high, one barrier. Is that true or false?
        Mr. Hayworth. No. That is not what I am saying. I am
    saying----
        Chairman Schumer. No, but is that true or false?
        Mr. Hayworth. Well, there is not 600 miles of single-layer
    fencing. What I have just said, sir, is that there is a
    combination of single-layer; the double-layered fencing the
    legislation called for; and some vehicle barriers. What I am
    also pointing out, sir, is one of the problem, Mr. Chairman----
        Chairman Schumer. But you said there is only 200 miles of
    fencing. We are getting into the definition of----
        Mr. Hayworth. Only 200 miles of double-layered fencing.
        Chairman Schumer. Okay. Is that what your testimony----
        Mr. Hayworth. Would you like to hear about----
        Chairman Schumer. Is that what your testimony said?
        Mr. Hayworth. What I am clarifying for you in the question
    time--and if you would like me to do it, I appreciate the
    courtesy of getting a chance to answer your question, sir. What
    I am saying to you, Mr. Chairman----
        Chairman Schumer. I am just trying to resolve a discrepancy
    here.
        Mr. Hayworth. Well, what I would say to you, sir, is this:
    Rhetorical discrepancies notwithstanding, the problem I am
    trying to report to you is what has been reported in the media
    in Arizona and nationally of the way that smugglers are
    defeating the barriers. And if they are defeating the barriers
    in terms of the so-called vehicle barriers with ramps, there
    are real problems.
        Chairman Schumer. That was not the question I asked you. I
    understand that you might feel we need more. I am just asking:
    Is there a fence, minimum 10-foot high, for the vast majority
    of the non-Rio Grande border? And the answer is yes. And, you
    know, if we are ever going to come to agreement here, we have
    to agree on the facts.
        Now, you can say, yes, there is, but it is not good enough,
    it is not stopping things, you do not agree with the 27-percent
    reduction, or it is due to something else. Those are all fair
    answers. But to simply put in your testimony that there is only
    200 miles of fence, most people, if they looked----
        Mr. Hayworth. Two hundreds miles----
        Chairman Schumer.--at the fence for the other 450 miles
    would say that is a pretty big fence. You may say it does not
    work for the following reasons, but let us try at least--I am
    trying here to stick to the facts.
        I want to ask you just one other question, Congressman.
    Then I am going to move on. I believe that Americans will
    accept a system, broadly defined, that is pro-legal immigration
    and anti-illegal immigration; in other words, if you could
    guarantee to people or make people feel very good--which,
    admittedly, we did not in the last bill; that is why it failed;
    I agree with Senator Cornyn's analysis--that we would stop the
    flow of future illegal immigrants, they would feel much better
    about a system of legal immigration. Do you agree or disagree
    with that? You can elaborate.
        Mr. Hayworth. Well, thank you, sir, very much. Mr.
    Chairman, I believe that part of the problem has come through
    the process that so-called comprehensive reform means a
    simultaneous border enforcement with an alteration of the
    status of those who have come here illegally. I think it is
    important--and I think we have seen this in terms of a variety
    of policies legislatively--that we work first with what is the
    crucial problem. The crucial problem is first securing the
    border. The second thing is having along with that accurate
    verification of employees and those who are here. And despite
    the diversity of viewpoints here, we have heard that. And then,
    and only then, can the debate about guest workers and the
    immigration reform that some desire move forward.
        So my word of caution and my perspective is secure the
    border first. Comprehensive employee ID.
        Chairman Schumer. Got it. And you would agree that, in your
    words, we have secured it better somewhat.
        Mr. Hayworth. Somewhat, but there is a long way to go, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Schumer. I understand. That is a value system. I
    mean, you might say we should not do anything on legal
    immigration until there is not a single illegal immigrant who
    crosses the border. It is all a value system, and you are in
    one place, and I respect that and appreciate it.
        Mayor Foster, do you think the border enforcement measures
    have played a role in making El Paso more secure?
        Mr. Foster. Well, again, the sheriff referenced El Paso. El
    Paso, with a population of over 700,000, has been the second or
    third----
        Chairman Schumer. Eagle Pass. I am sorry.
        Mr. Foster. Oh, Eagle Pass? Historically, Eagle Pass has
    been a very safe and tranquil city. We have had two murders in
    the last 10 years. We are basically a very quiet, safe border
    community. I am in Piedras Negras, our sister city, on a daily
    basis. Yes, we are very secure. But this has enhanced--but,
    again, the focus today is on our ports of entry.
        Chairman Schumer. And my last question to Sheriff Wiles.
    You said also that you thought we were somewhat effective in
    curtailing flows across the border. Could you elaborate on
    that?
        Mr. Wiles. Well, it is exactly what has been said by other
    members of the panel. Most of the issues that we deal with from
    a criminal aspect come right across the ports. Not to say that
    the Federal agents do not do the best job they can do, but the
    majority of drugs, criminals, individuals who will come over
    here to criminalize our citizens come right across the ports of
    entry.
        Chairman Schumer. Okay. My time has expired.
        Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Sheriff, let me follow up on that. Do you
    think the best solution to that is more Federal law enforcement
    officials at the ports of entry or better technology or data
    sharing? Or what do you think is the right solution?
        Mr. Wiles. Well, all three of those things, and I think
    there has been some commitment by the present administration to
    do just that. We are seeing additional Federal agents,
    especially in the area of ATF, thank goodness. We only had nine
    agents in El Paso until President Obama's administration
    committed to adding additional agents there, when we knew that
    many weapons--and we understand that not all of Mexico's
    problems with weapons are coming from the United States, but
    certainly there is a problem. There are weapons from the U.S.
    going into Mexico, and we do our best to work with the Federal
    agents to conduct southbound checks, to stop stolen cars,
    money, and weapons from going into Mexico. But we need the
    assistance of the Federal Government who has expertise in
    dealing with these issues at the appropriate levels of the
    Mexican and U.S. Federal Governments. And until we got that
    commitment, we did not have it.
        Senator Cornyn. And you heard me, I think, in my opening
    statement talk about the administration's commitment to
    continue and expand the ICE program of working with local
    sheriffs and police chiefs to screen the prisoner population at
    the local level for criminals who come in the country and
    perpetrate crimes, as you said, largely upon other immigrants.
    In other words, we are not talking about people come in without
    a visa.
        Mr. Wiles. Right.
        Senator Cornyn. We are talking about robbers, rapists,
    murderers. Do you support the expansion of that in the El Paso
    County Jail? And how do you think it is working so far?
        Mr. Wiles. Well, I think as long as it is targeted in that
    direction. We have a rather large county jail--it is two jails.
    It holds about 2,440 prisoners, and there are people coming in
    and out of there all the time, many of them for minor
    offenses--traffic offenses, public intoxication, things of that
    nature. And we do not want our time consumed with those types
    of issues. As long as it concentrated on those type of violent
    offenders that potentially could hurt our community, we
    definitely support that.
        Senator Cornyn. And if there is anything we can agree on, I
    hope we can agree on that. It sounds like just a common-sense
    approach to dealing with not the whole problem but part of the
    problem. And, indeed, as you said, these are the people who
    tend to prey on others in the immigrant community.
        Mr. Wiles. Right.
        Senator Cornyn. This is something we ought to be able to
    agree on.
        Mr. Wiles. Yes, sir. Well, nobody wants criminals here,
    whether they are our citizens or citizens from another country,
    victimizing people.
        Senator Cornyn. I wanted to ask Congressman Hayworth, what
    I confront when I come down to McAllen or El Paso or Eagle Pass
    is my constituents say, ``You know, we do not see the problem
    here in terms of terrorists coming across the border.'' But I
    want to just ask the question because of your experience in
    Congress and the information that you no doubt have had access
    to.
        We know that there are people that traverse Mexico that
    come from other countries because of the weak border Mexico has
    on its own southern border. Indeed, La Frontera recently
    reported that the Mexican authorities in Reynosa apprehended a
    dozen Iranians, among others, who had come up through Central
    America, through Mexico, and attempted to come into the United
    States. And then we know down in South America in the tri-
    border region, where there is a significant Lebanese
    population, that there is strong financial support for
    Hezbollah there. Is that part of your concern?
        Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cornyn, absolutely. And
    I would supplement that with a report last fall from the
    sheriff of Cochise County who told me of apprehending a number
    of Chinese illegals coming across. But there are obviously
    national security concerns, and, again, we are hearing diverse
    perspectives here, Senator, but different pieces of the puzzle.
    And while obviously the concentration from some on this panel
    has been ports of entry involving trade--what was the great
    saying from baseball? ``Hit'em where they ain't.'' When you
    have got a border as diverse and as large as ours, when you
    have people intent on crossing that border, there is an obvious
    security threat, and with that knowledge, that border security
    is ultimately national security. That is why what you are
    pointing out and other border sheriffs have pointed out is so
    important and must be preeminent in our policy decisions.
        Senator Cornyn. We seem to have a recurrent theme here in
    terms of Washington's perspective on the border that it is all
    the same; and my experience and observation, and certainly
    talking to several of my constituents in your home towns, is
    that it is not, and that it is quite varied. And, in fact, the
    Federal Government, while looking at the 30,000-foot level,
    said, for example, Mr. Vale, that $720 million was included for
    land port infrastructure, which is a good thing. But your
    testimony is that it is not directed toward the high-volume
    ports of entry. Congress cannot pat itself on the back, in
    other words, and say, ``Way to go. We sent money for
    infrastructure,'' when, in fact, there is such diversity and
    difference of conditions there along the border.
        Would you agree with that? I think you would, but would you
    respond to that?
        Mr. Vale. Yes, sir. Congress did a good job in sending the
    dollars. What the Congress did not do is watch how they spent
    it. And that is the big issue. It was not anything that was
    stimulus related. It is the kind of things that you could have
    done in your annual appropriations totally legitimately.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, I happen to agree with you, and
    things we should have done on an annual appropriations basis,
    because it is hard to see how stimulative that was, but they
    were necessary, and I am glad Congress took that step.
        Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity, and I
    know we have a vote that is winding down here, so I am going to
    go vote. But thanks to my constituents who are here. Thanks to
    the entire panel for coming and sharing your expertise and
    perspective.
        Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. I want to
    thank the panel. I had more questions, too, but we have a vote,
    and rather than keep everybody and detain them, we are going to
    leave the record open for 5 days, and we may submit written
    questions if you all wouldn't mind answering those. And I want
    to thank the panel for being here.
        As I said, we are going to do comprehensive hearings on
    every aspect, every difficult aspect of immigration reform,
    because I believe the American people want a solution. They
    just do not want one perspective. They want a comprehensive
    solution, and you have provided a multiple of perspectives for
    us that we have to take into account. So thank you all for
    being here, and thank you for your testimony.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Questions and answers and submissions for the record
    follow.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]