[Senate Hearing 115-295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-295
FENCING ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
APRIL 4, 2017
----------
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-015 WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
STEVE DAINES, Montana KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
Brooke N. Ericson, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
Michelle D. Woods, U.S. Government Accountability Office Detailee
Servando H. Gonzales, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detailee
Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
Stacia M. Cardille, Minority Chief Counsel
J. Jackson Eaton, Minority Senior Counsel
Joel F. Walsh, Minority Professional Staff Member
Timothy J. Brennan, Minority National Institute of Standards and
Technology Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Bonni E. Dinerstein, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Johnson.............................................. 1
Senator McCaskill............................................ 2
Senator Lankford............................................. 18
Senator Carper............................................... 20
Senator Heitkamp............................................. 24
Senator Harris............................................... 27
Senator Hoeven............................................... 30
Senator Daines............................................... 34
Prepared statements:
Senator Johnson.............................................. 41
Senator McCaskill............................................ 42
WITNESSES
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
David V. Aguilar, Former Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.. 5
Ronald S. Colburn, Former Deputy Chief of U.S. Border Patrol at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 8
Terence M. Garrett, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Public Affairs
and Security Studies Department, The University of Texas Rio
Grande Valley.................................................. 10
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Aguilar, David V.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Colburn, Ronald S.:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Garrett, Terence M., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 56
APPENDIX
Majority Staff Report............................................ 76
Minority Staff Report............................................ 181
Howard Buffett statement referenced by Senator Heitkamp.......... 188
Tohono O'odham Nation statement referenced by Senator Heitkamp... 192
Gangs Beyond Borders report referenced by Senator Harris......... 195
Statements submitted for the Record:
Gerald Dickinson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of
Pittsburgh School of Law................................... 309
National Immigration Forum................................... 314
Texas Civil Rights Project................................... 321
Patricia Elena Vidaurri, Land Owner and Citizen of the United
States of America.......................................... 325
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
Mr. Aguilar.................................................. 327
Mr. Colburn.................................................. 332
Dr. Garrett.................................................. 335
FENCING ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Hoeven,
Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan,
and Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order. I want to welcome the witnesses. Thank you for your
testimony. I am looking forward to your oral testimony and
answering a lot of the questions we are going to have.
This hearing is obviously called, ``Fencing Along the
Southwest Border.'' I ask Unanimous Consent (UC) for my written
statement to be entered into the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do want to relay a couple of quotes that were in my
written testimony.
One came from Secretary John Kelly. When Secretary Kelly
testified before this Committee in January, he said, ``the
number one threat to the Nation is that we do not have control
of our borders. Without control, every other kind of threat--
drugs, illegal immigrants, counterfeit manufactured goods and
pharmaceuticals, diseases, terrorists, and the list goes on--
can enter at will, and it does.''
Further, Chief Morgan, the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol
(USBP) under President Obama, testified before this Committee
in November 2016 that fencing does work and that we need more
of it.
I was in Israel shortly before Christmas, and we inspected
their fence along their Southern Border--143 miles--and they
constructed it in about 2 years at a total cost of about $2.9
million per mile. According to Israeli officials, they cut
their illegal immigrant crossings from 16,000 to 18. So, again,
I think there is ample evidence that fencing, when put in the
right places and when it is properly designed, absolutely
works.
The purpose of this hearing, though, is to lay out the
reality. We obviously have limited resources. President Trump
has issued a couple of Executive Orders (EOs). The Border
Security and Immigration Enforcement Executive Order instructs
the Administration to take all appropriate steps to plan,
design, and construct a physical wall, to identify and plan for
long-term funding requirements, and release a study on security
of the border within 180 days.
Now, what I am focusing on with that is the planning,
designing, identifying, and releasing a study on border
security within 180 days. To me, Congress has a real role here,
and the purpose of this hearing is to lay out the reality--take
a look at where fencing will work and what is the best type of
fencing. When I was in Israel, talking to Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, he told me that there are three problems
with fencing: tunnels, tunnels, and tunnels.
So, it is not a panacea. It requires a layered approach.
But, this is our 22nd hearing on securing our border. This is a
top priority of this Committee. I am hoping every Member on
this Committee realizes that there is real risk--there is real
danger in not having a secure border. And, we have held
hearings about some of the victims of people coming to this
country illegally, because we do not have a secure border.
So, I hope we can agree that we do need to provide far
greater border security. We have to make that commitment to do
it. But, I also hope we can agree that, while there are a lot
of different opinions, there are a lot of challenges to
building that border security--to building walls and to
building fences--and that is really kind of what this hearing
is all about--is to kind of lay out the reality and discuss
those challenges, so we can have informed public policy, in
terms of what we need to do to secure our border.
So, with that, I will turn it over to my Ranking Member,
Senator McCaskill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL\1\
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me
publicly apologize to the witnesses, to the Chairman, and to
the Committee for being tardy this morning. That is rude, and I
apologize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no one on this Committee--and I do not think there
is anyone in the Senate or in America--that does not want our
borders to be secure. I think we can all agree on that.
But, the other interesting point is, I have not met
anyone--either a Border Patrol Agent (BPA) or a fellow Member
of Congress, who actually have said that they think the most
effective way to do that is to build a continuous concrete wall
along the entirety of the Southern Border. I have not met
anyone who says that is the best use of our resources, in terms
of securing our border, and the only one who keeps talking
about it is President Trump. And, I want to point out that
while this hearing is called ``Fencing Along the Southwest
Border,'' you never hear President Trump talk about the
efficacy of fencing. You never hear President Trump indicate in
his Executive Orders or anywhere else that he wants to look at
this in a complex, holistic fashion to figure out what is the
combination of things we need to do. Is it more resources at
the ports of entry (POEs)? Is it more resources, in terms of
Border Patrol? Is it more resources, in terms of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? Is it more
technology? Is it some sections of wall and maybe some sections
of fencing?
I think all of us are open to a variety of ways, and I
think the thing we should be doing is listening to the people
who are tasked with securing the border, and they are the first
ones to tell you that it makes no sense to do a continuous wall
along our Southern Border.
So, with that beginning, I think it is important, at this
hearing, that we stay focused on a couple of basics. What is
the wall that the President is proposing going to look like?
What is it going to cost? How is Mexico going to reimburse the
American taxpayers for the billions of dollars they are being
asked to spend on the wall?
Since the beginning of this Congress, the Committee has
conducted ongoing oversight of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and its plans to construct a concrete border
wall. I have asked my staff to report to this Committee and the
taxpayers on the results of our oversight of the wall to date.
Based on information provided by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) officials to Committee staff, the wall that
President Trump has promised could cost nearly $70 billion.
That works out to more than $200 for every man, woman, and
child in the United States of America. I am not sure that is a
cost the American taxpayer is willing to bear, especially when
they were told that Mexico would be paying for the wall--not
the American people.
The Department has told us that they plan to use funds
intended to acquire remote video surveillance for the
prototypes of the concrete wall. The $20 million they are using
to do the prototypes came out of the very fund that all of the
Border Patrol Agents told me they needed more of. In fact, it
was to buy the remote video surveillance equipment that they
proudly showed me they had put together themselves, which
allowed them to see a more broad area along the Rio Grande
River and allowed them to be more effective in catching the
smugglers that were bringing people across the river illegally.
When I asked Border Patrol agents over and over again,
``What do you need?'', they told me they needed technology and,
yes, some additional fencing--and I think the Chairman and I
agree that some additional fencing or wall may be appropriate.
But, they definitely said that they needed technology more than
they needed additional wall. And so, it is ironic that the
prototype for the wall is coming out of the very fund that they
say they need the most.
And, what about the big question that I would like to spend
some time on today: the cost of acquiring the land that is
going to be needed to build the wall. Two-thirds of the U.S.-
Mexico border is private and State-owned land. Some of this
land has been in people's families for generations.
I am not sure everyone realizes what a time-consuming
process this would be. According to CBP, along one stretch of
the border--mostly in South Texas--400 land acquisitions were
needed to build some of the border fencing and security that is
in place now. Of those 400 acquisitions, they had to file 330
condemnation lawsuits--eminent domain--which, by the way, you
say that word in rural Missouri, and you better run, because
somebody is going to have their shotgun out. It is really
controversial for the government to be seizing land, and that
is what this is about--the government seizing private land.
Over three hundred condemnation lawsuits were filed. Most
of them were filed in and around 2008. And, of those 330
condemnation cases, more than 90 of them are still pending
today--nearly a decade later. This is not going to be quick. It
is not going to be easy--and it is going to be very expensive.
According to CBP, the government spent $78 million on land
acquisition for the existing fencing--and those were the
parcels that were the easiest to acquire. Going to people who
do not have a lot of money and trying to buy them off--that is
the easy part. The harder part is convincing people that own
thousands of acres of expensive farmland--and what that means
to them.
Nobody can tell me how much it is going to cost to seize
all of the land that will have to be seized to build what
President Trump has promised the American people. It is going
to take $21 million or more just to resolve the pending cases
left over from 2008.
In the course of prepping for this hearing, we talked to a
lot of different landowners in South Texas, who were not happy
about how they were treated by the government back when
existing fencing was built a decade ago. One of these people is
a gentleman from Brownsville, Texas, whose family runs a
farming operation in the area. He had the misfortune of living
in a house that was too close to the Rio Grande River, which is
the international border. In some cases, there is a mile or two
of land between where fencing was built and the river, and that
is how this man's house--and some of the most fertile land in
the world--ended up on the wrong side of the fence.
When the government came knocking on his door, this
Brownsville farmer was offered just a few thousand dollars for
the narrow strip of land where an 18-foot-tall fence would
eventually be built. He was not offered any money for the
dozens of acres of farmland that would be trapped between the
fence and the Rio Grande River. When he went to take out a loan
on his valuable land to send his three girls to college, the
bank told him that his farmland was now worthless and they
would not lend him any money for his children's education.
The horrible part of this story is, not only does he have
to pass through a gate every time to go home--it is an 18-foot
fence--he has to go through a gate just to go to the house.
Think how isolated you would feel.
But, here is the worst part: A few weeks ago, the house
caught on fire. The Brownsville farmer told my staff that the
fire marshal could not get through the fence to save his house
from the flames, and it burnt to the ground--even though he had
been promised that local emergency services would have the code
to the gate. So, he lost the value of his land and now he has
lost his home, because of the fence or the wall.
Regardless of how you feel about President Trump's wall,
Mr. Chairman, that is not how we should treat people that are
landowners in this country. American families need to be
treated with dignity and respect and need to be fairly
compensated for any land that is taken from them.
I will be the first one to tell you that we need to enforce
the immigration laws that we have on the books and provide DHS
officials with the tools and resources they need to secure the
border. And, maybe, that means they need some portions of a
wall built in some places. But, if we are going to pay to build
this thing, we need to be honest about some of the true costs
to the American people. Let us start, today, by speaking
frankly about how much it is going to cost, how difficult it
will be to acquire the land, how long that will take, and the
impacts on the American landowners along the border--and
whether all of those costs justify the benefit that we will
receive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
As I mentioned, there will be challenges. By the way, those
cases that were unresolved--92 of those are because we could
not identify who the owners are. So, yes, there are all kinds
of challenges, which is what the purpose of this hearing is: to
lay out these realities.
The tradition of this Committee is to swear in witnesses,
so if you will all rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear
that the testimony you will give before this Committee will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you, God?
Mr. Aguilar. I do.
Mr. Colburn. I do.
Mr. Garrett. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Our first witness is David Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar is a former
Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Mr.
Aguilar served as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol from 2004 to
2010 and as Acting Commissioner of CBP from 2011 to 2012. Mr.
Aguilar.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID V. AGUILAR,\1\ FORMER ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Aguilar. Good morning. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member McCaskill, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I
am honored to appear before you today to testify on issues
associated with securing the Southern Border of the United
States, to include what has obviously taken center stage in the
ongoing border security discussion: construction of a physical
wall along the Southwest Border, what I will refer to mostly as
``infrastructure'' required along the Southwest Border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar appears in the Appendix
on page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony is informed by my 35-year career as a Border
Enforcement Officer and Department of Homeland Security
Executive. I served as an agent in multiple Border Patrol
sectors, including as the Chief of the Tucson Sector at the
time when unlawful entries into the United States across our
border with Mexico were at an all-time high.
My views also reflect my experience as the former Acting
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Deputy
Commissioner of CBP, and the National Chief of the United
States Border Patrol. It was during my tenure as National Chief
that we developed and implemented our Nation's first-ever
National Southwest Border Strategy, doubled the size of the
Border Patrol, constructed over 650 miles of border
infrastructure, and initiated the organized application of
technology along the entirety of the Southwest Border with
Mexico.
Maintaining a safe and secure environment along the U.S.-
Mexico border is absolutely critical. A safe and orderly border
that is predicated on the strong rule of law deprives criminal
organizations, drug cartels, and criminal individuals the
opportunity to thrive. It is absolutely important. It also
provides a solid foundation for trade and economic development
between Mexico and the United States as well as provides for
improved security and quality of life in our border communities
and throughout our Nation.
Illegal border crossings have dropped dramatically. Our
border communities are some of the safest cities and
communities in the United States. Trade between our two nations
is thriving. The barriers and infrastructure built and expanded
between 2005 and 2011 along the border absolutely played a
large part in the enhanced control of the Southwest Border.
Now, we have done much to secure the border, but there is still
much more to do.
Borders are dynamic--significant challenges remain and new
ones are developing. Drug trafficking into the United States is
still a major problem, as is the illegal flow of bulk cash and
firearms to Mexico from the United States. These criminal
activities are the principal causes of the violence that has
afflicted Mexico.
Border fences, walls, and tactical infrastructure are
absolutely a definitive part of the border security solution.
Those of us with firsthand knowledge and security experience at
the U.S.-Mexico border understand that infrastructure,
technology, and personnel are critical aspects of the solution
that will ensure enhanced control over the entire border.
Walls, fences, and vehicle barriers are an integral part of a
border enforcement system. Their purpose is to impede, deter,
and slow down the illegal flow of people and vehicles across
our land borders between the ports of entry. Properly designed,
properly placed, and supported, this type of physical
infrastructure creates an environment which enhances the Border
Patrol's enforcement capabilities and its efforts to detect,
deter, identify, classify, respond to, and resolve illegal
border activity.
There is no restriction that would bar DHS from
constructing additional fencing or other barriers along the
border, provided that the Secretary concludes such construction
is necessary to achieve control of the border.
Congress has also provided the Secretary broad authority to
waive ``all legal requirements'' that may impede construction
of border barriers and roads.
Many issues will have to be taken into account: federally
protected lands, private lands, Native American lands, and
environmental concerns. But, it is important to note that there
is nothing more destructive to environmentally sensitive land
and quiet communities than the uncontrolled illegal flow of
people, smugglers, vehicles, and criminal organizations. The
placement of fences and deterrent infrastructure in previously
uncontrolled parts of the border has actually allowed for the
rejuvenation of areas that had previously been devastated due
to heavy illegal pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Fences,
barriers, walls, and technology have been instrumental to the
Border Patrol's successes on the border. But, we must not
forget that personnel and technological capabilities are an
absolutely vital part of integrated border control strategies.
Barriers in infrastructure--along with significant
increases in Border Patrol personnel, improved detection and
surveillance capabilities, and the strategic deployment of
resources to support iterative border control strategies--have
gotten us to where we are: improved control of the border. But,
again, I reiterate, more needs to be done.
President Trump has directed the Secretary of DHS to
develop a strategy to obtain and maintain complete operational
control of the Southern Border. I believe walls, fences, and
border infrastructure will definitively be a part of what the
Border Patrol will be identifying as current requirements. The
Secretary's findings should inform what types of barriers
should be constructed, where they should be constructed, and
construction priorities.
There are multiple threats that must be addressed at the
U.S.-Mexico border. These include trafficking of drugs,
trafficking of arms, contraband within legal trade, and money
laundering. The criminal organizations that work to defeat our
border enforcement efforts are too often solely looked upon as
drug-smuggling and human-smuggling organizations.
These same organizations will provide illegal access into
our country for anyone willing to pay the going price. Our
military men and women are fighting the enemy on foreign
ground. We have hardened our airports and ports of entry,
making it extremely difficult to get to us by air. But, we must
act responsibly in addressing our borders.
Ladies and gentlemen, since the Border Patrol began
building infrastructure--fences, walls, and vehicle barriers--
along our Nation's border, there has been an endless debate on
its value. Border Patrol agents and the Border Patrol as an
organization all agree that properly constructed, placed, and
supported physical infrastructure is essential to border
security.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to
answering any questions that you might have of us.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar.
Our next witness is Ron Colburn. Mr. Colburn is the former
Deputy Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. Mr. Colburn served in
that role from 2007 to 2009. He helped oversee the effort to
double the size of the Border Patrol and the deployment of more
than $1 billion worth of technology and tactical infrastructure
designed to bolster border enforcement efforts. Prior to being
named Deputy Chief, Mr. Colburn served as the Chief Patrol
Agent of the Yuma Sector, where he made significant
improvements toward securing that sector. Mr. Colburn.
TESTIMONY OF RONALD S. COLBURN,\1\ FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF THE
U.S. BORDER PATROL AT U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AT THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Colburn. Thank you and good morning. Chairman Johnson,
Ranking Member McCaskill, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, I am honored to be here, today and humbled to be
invited by you to testify before the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) regarding ``Fencing
Along the Southwest Border.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Colburn appears in the Appendix
on page 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will begin by describing some of my experience with and
knowledge of the history of tactical infrastructure--also known
as fences and barriers--pertaining to the international
boundary between the United States and Mexico.
Thirty-five years ago, in southeastern Arizona, I was
building border fence with a post hole digging tool, a wire-
stretching tool, a heavy coil of barbed wire, and a very good
pair of leather gloves. Alone, and with no backup, my partner
and I dug post holes and strung wire in Douglas, Arizona--
standing just inches from Mexico.
Three or four strands of barbed wire would not halt people
from crossing or stop the smugglers from defeating our own
efforts the very next night with a simple pair of wire cutters.
But, it marked the border. It was our ``line in the sand.''
We have come a long way since the days of steel posts and
strings of barbed wire. In 1995, a U.S. Army construction
battalion replaced expanded metal and chain link fencing in
another Arizona border town, where I found myself in command.
That year, we arrested an astounding 116,000 foreign-born
nationals illegally attempting to cross the border in just that
station area alone. Countless tens of thousands got away from
our sparse staff of 62 agents. That was our ``thin green
line.''
Then came the attack on September 11, 2001 (9/11). After
the horrendous, deadly attacks on American soil by foreign-born
terrorists, the American people strongly communicated to
Congress, to the Administration, and to the media that they
wanted our Nation protected first and foremost at our borders.
In 2005, I found myself serving as the Chief of the Yuma
Border Patrol Sector in southwestern Arizona and the very
southeastern portion of California. About 450 agents covered
that approximately 125-mile stretch of the border. They were
working 8 to 12 hour shifts--overlapping--covering the border
24/7.
During my first year as the Chief of Yuma, we arrested
138,000 foreign-born nationals attempting to cross the border
illegally from Mexico. They crossed under the cover of darkness
and during broad daylight. They crossed in vast and
overwhelming numbers. They crossed into Yuma and the urban
centers where they could escape quickly. And, they were led by
unscrupulous smugglers who brought them across the Colorado
River--a water boundary--remote desert, and towering mountains,
where the temperatures can skyrocket to 120 degrees or more.
We seized nearly 36,000 pounds of drugs that were driven or
backpacked into the United States just in Yuma alone. There
were over 200 attacks by border bandits recorded by us that
year. We counted 1,800 victims, mostly from Mexico. The
criminal gangs and lone bandits from Mexico preyed on their
own--robbing, raping, and murdering fellow countrymen,
including women and children. Many of these people were staging
to enter from Mexico or in the process of entering illegally,
led by guides that were actually working in concert with the
bandits and sharing the take from those robberies and assaults.
Assaults on border law enforcement personnel numbered in the
hundreds just in that stretch of the border. Yuma had become
the most dangerous stretch of the border at that time.
So, in response to this, the Yuma Sector became the ``proof
of concept'' that America can protect and control its border
when the proper mix of resources are placed almost
instantaneously. The Secretary of Homeland Security prudently
and thoughtfully exercised his legislated waiver authority in
consideration of certain environmental regulations, which posed
a hindrance to construction initiatives.
Nine hundred men and women from the National Guard,
supporting ``Operation Jump Start,'' descended upon the border
in the Yuma area. We built border barriers--fence--along the
entire stretch of the Yuma Sector. The Army Corps of Engineers
and contractors built double pedestrian fencing, vehicle
barriers, and what is known as ``floating fence'' in the
Imperial Sand Dunes Park region. The style and material used
depended on the geographic and demographic challenges. We
doubled the Border Patrol Agent manpower, and we added sensors
and communications technology.
Violent bandit activity went from that record 200 attacks
the year before--and over 1,800 victims--to zero after the
fence was built in Yuma. The number of violent assaults on
Border Patrol Agents also declined drastically.
Before fence, Yuma Border Patrol recorded 2,706 ``drive-
throughs'' in a 1-year period. This is where smugglers load up
vehicles with their contraband--be it drugs, people, or
weapons--and simply drive across the open, unfettered border.
They cross the river in shallow places, destroying wilderness
landscape along the way. They lose themselves in urban areas
and traffic once reaching paved roads. And, of those 2,706
``drive-throughs'', we recorded a mere 13 captures and
``turnbacks.'' All of the rest got away, and we do not know
what they brought into the United States.
But, after fence, the next year, only six vehicles even
attempted to enter the United States at any place other than a
designated port of entry--and none of them got away. We
captured or turned back all of them. So, it went from 2,706
down to 6. Impressive.
By 2008, Yuma Sector arrests of illicit border crossers and
traffickers had dwindled, from over 138,000 my first year there
as Chief down to 8,363. The known attempts to enter and the
``got-aways'' dwindled to an equally minimal number, compared
to the hundreds of thousands that entered and evaded arrest in
the previous years.
I do encourage you to ask those Border Patrol Agents in the
field. They know. I recently completed a comprehensive tour of
the border, myself, in South Texas, receiving robust ``state of
the border'' briefings and updates by several Border Patrol
Chiefs and their staffs. I have spoken with the majority of
Border Patrol leadership that covers the Southwestern Border in
recent days.
The bottom line: When I ask them about fence, every one of
them responds: ``Yes, build new barriers where needed, improve
existing fence, and maintain timely repairs when breached by
criminals or damaged by the elements.''
Threats change. The transnational criminal organizations
(TCOs) simply will not go away. They try methods to defeat the
fence, but it persistently impedes their ease of entry and
their ability to quickly ingress into border communities and
the interior of the United States. It gives the protectors of
our borders the time to detect and respond to that illegal
activity. It preserves the environment in the border wild
lands.
This system-of-systems approach, implemented broadly and
rapidly, is what makes tactical infrastructure--border fence--
so valuable as a part of the solution.
Thank you, esteemed Members of the Committee. God bless the
men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol, and I remain ready to
continue this dialogue.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Colburn.
Our final witness is Dr. Terence M. Garrett. Dr. Garrett
currently serves as professor and chairman of the Public
Affairs and Security Studies Department at The University of
Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV). He has authored numerous
publications on eminent domain. Dr. Garrett is a military
veteran and received the National Defense and Air Force
Achievement Medals for his service. Dr. Garrett.
TESTIMONY OF TERENCE M. GARRETT, PH.D.,\1\ PROFESSOR AND CHAIR,
PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND SECURITY STUDIES DEPARTMENT, THE UNIVERSITY
OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEY
Dr. Garrett. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Johnson,
Ranking Member McCaskill, and the rest of the distinguished
Senators on the Committee for inviting me here, today to speak
to you about the topic of fencing along the Southwest Border.
Please note that my testimony and other remarks today before
you are my responsibility and may or may not reflect the views
of and are independent of my employer, The University of Texas
Rio Grande Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Garrett appears in the Appendix
on page 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, one of the things I am interested in discussing, first
off, is the cost to the U.S. taxpayer for the border wall
itself. I have seen reports anywhere between a few billion
dollars up to $40 billion, in a Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) story that was printed by the New York Times.
The public of the United States is not in favor. The Pew
Research Center shows that 39 percent of those polled were in
favor of a fence or thought the wall was important to build,
while 59 percent did not think the wall was important. The
final cost to U.S. taxpayers for the construction of Trump's
border wall remains to be seen. It will be up to you, of
course.
Bids will likely have to be extended--and they have been--
for wall building contractors to develop a clearer
understanding for government officials in charge of the
project.
Now, I can tell you directly about past experience with the
building of the wall in the Rio Grande Valley, as an example of
this. In the past, government contracts of now-existing border
fence placements illustrate how corporations have benefited
from the building of the border fence. Boeing's Secure Border
Initiative network (SBInet), for example, received $7.5 million
per mile--out of 110 miles--for constructing an 18-foot-high
fence in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) during the period of 2006
to 2009.
In South Texas, the border fence was placed in areas where
wildlife refuges, landowners, farmers, and ranchers were
located, resulting in properties being apprehended by
provisions of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was made
reference to.
So, the next thing I want to talk to you about is the
account of eminent domain issues at the university I was at
previously, the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas
Southmost College (UTB/TSC). I have archived Dr. Juliet
Garcia's personal statement archived at the University of Texas
(UT). I am going to read some pieces from it.
The President of the University of Texas at Brownsville and
Texas Southmost College, Dr. Juliet Garcia, refused to sign a
U.S. Customs and Border Protection document requesting right of
entry in October 2007. She did not sign the document for the
following reasons:
First, there was a risk to our property investment, because
the government sought access to land from levees to buildings
in the very heart of our campus, adjacent to the student union
and the Life and Health Sciences building. The right of entry
was meant to support preparations for the building of a fence
that would jeopardize campus security.
And, on that point, Mr. Ben Reyna, formerly of the U.S.
Marshals Service, was our adviser on this.
There had been no opportunity for genuine public input.
UTB/TSC has become a key player in the promotion of industry,
especially ecotourism and reclamation of important wildlife
areas, inclusive of thousands of acres of the Bahia Grande
area. Many have worked for decades to design a campus that is
respectful of the natural and rich environment of this special
ecological zone.
Finally, the right of entry jeopardized the important
historical heritage of the campus. The university campus
encompasses several significant historical sites, including
historic Fort Brown and Fort Texas.
In January 2008, UTB/TSC was sued in Federal court by the
Federal Government. On July 31, 2008, a final agreement was
reached with DHS. CBP dropped condemnation actions. The
university enhanced its own fencing, a 10-foot-high fence with
high-tech devices--paid for by the State of Texas, by the way--
and agreed to establish a center to study border issues,
including security.
I was part of President Garcia's strategy team, and we went
to Rancho El Cielo, which is a biological research station 300
miles south of Brownsville, Texas--near Gomez Farias, Mexico--
along with UTB/TSC faculty and administrators and UT System
attorneys. We considered what we had accomplished, in terms of
winning a victory, we thought of as being in the best interests
of the students, faculty, and citizens of South Texas. However,
other citizens along the Rio Grande did not fare as well.
DHS produced a document entitled, ``Environmental Impact
Statement for Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of
Tactical Infrastructure for the Rio Grande Valley Sector,''
dated November 2007. This document laid out the strategy for
land condemnation proceedings against the citizens of the Rio
Grande Valley. The fence went primarily in areas where
landowners were economically--mostly citizens whose primary
language was Spanish and who had lower levels of education
attainment. Wealthy landowners, whose primary language was
English and had higher education levels, were spared, and this
was brought out in a Washington Post report. And, we had
faculty, Jude Benavides and Jeff Wilson, who conducted a 2010
demographic study on disparities associated with the proposed
U.S.-Mexico border wall in Cameron County, Texas, in
``Southwestern Geographer'' in 2010, and they found out that
there was collusion to actually go after the poor, who would
not resist.
Judge Hanen, as mentioned previously--320 eminent domain
cases wound up in his court, and 91 remain open. When Trump
signed his Executive Order last month, calling for his big,
beautiful wall, Hanen knew what that would mean. As he said to
National Public Radio (NPR): ``What I thought was, `Oh, this is
going to be a lot more work for us,' Hanen said. It is going to
be a lot of headache. The people in South Texas--there are a
lot of hard feelings about the wall.''
My time is running out, but I have a few quotes here.
``You show me a 50-foot wall, and I will show you a 51-foot
ladder at the border. That is the way the border works.'' that
is from Janet Napolitano, former Governor of Arizona, in 2005.
Deputy spokesman for the National Border Patrol Council
(NBPC) and Local 3307, Rio Grande Valley, Chris Cabrera,
recalled recently: ``We came with this 18-foot wall, and the
very next day they had 19-foot ladders. It got to the point
where we had so many ladders at the station that they told us
to stop bringing the ladders in. It was just insane, the number
of ladders. We had hundreds upon hundreds.''
Cameron County Sheriff, Omar Lucio, says, ``It is a waste
of money. It is not going to work. I do not care what Trump is
saying.''
I will stop at this point.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Garrett.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Let me first start with cost. I hear a
lot of estimates, and, again, they are all projections. But,
let us take a look at some actual costs. Again, I will refer
people to our Committee's report\1\ on my trip to Israel: 143
miles worth of fence, constructed between 2011 and 2013, at an
average cost of $2.9 million per mile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Majority staff report appears in the Appendix on page 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, you can have some inflationary cost increases, but,
again, $2.9 million per mile. It is a pretty effective fence--
from 16,000 illegal crossings down to 18--1-8.
By the way, if you would like your Minority report to be
entered into the record, I am happy to do so. I know you are
talking about 270 acres of land being purchased at an average
cost of about $42,600. Depending on how you purchase that
land--whether you do it in furlough versus chain--660 feet by
66--or square
acres--somewhere the cost per mile of acquiring that land--
based on that, it would be $340,000 to $1 million. So, tack on
$1 million to 2.9 for the total cost of a 2,000-mile wall--and
I do not think anybody here in this hearing room is--maybe they
are--suggesting 2,000 miles. We are looking at the right kind
of fencing in the right places. But, even that would be less
than $8 billion--somewhere between $5 and $8 billion. So,
again, I want to be talking about real costs.
Mr. Aguilar, the 650 miles of current fencing--again, I am
waiting on the study, and it will be interesting when we have
real information from DHS with their evaluation and what the
real recommendation will be. Can you just give me your
evaluation of the current fencing? About 350 miles of that is
pedestrian fencing and about 300 miles is vehicle fencing. How
good is it? How much needs to be replaced? In your estimation,
how much more would need to be built?
Mr. Aguilar. So, the existing fence right now has been
absolutely critical to get us to where we are today--at the
level of control that exists along our border with Mexico. But,
again, I need to reiterate that it is the fence, the
technology, and the personnel that is needed in order to be
responsive to any kind of breaching attempt that is done--
whether it is with a 19-foot ladder or otherwise--``otherwise''
being the tunneling, the ultralights flying overhead, the
catapulting that is happening, and the bridging of the fences.
All of these things are, in fact, happening.
We cannot forget, though, that the purpose of the fence is
to deter, to impede, and to, basically, create more time and
distance for the officers to be able to responsibly react and
take the actions necessary.
So, of the existing fence that is out there now, there is
quite a bit of it that needs to be replaced, and the reason for
that is what Chief Colburn and I as well as other Border Patrol
Agents did. We actually built those fences back when we did not
have the support of the American public, as I put it. So, a lot
of it needs to be replaced.
Now, as to how much is required, that is going to depend on
the chiefs that are in the field right now, which is exactly
the position that we took--that I took as the National Chief of
the Border Patrol--I was going to chiefs in the field, asking
them what they needed, where they needed it, what the type of
fencing was, and what the purpose and rationale was, taking
into account the
very difficult decisions that we knew were going to be taking
place--eminent domain--heart-wrenching. I was born, bred, and
raised in Texas--not unlike Montana, not unlike Oklahoma, not
unlike Missouri, where some of these are very touching
situations and very hard.
But, I have to say that the oath that people like Mr.
Colburn and I took was not to Texas, was not to South Texas,
and was not to southern Arizona. It was to the country. It was
what was most needed to be done to protect the country--the
United States--in the best way that we could. That is what we
are looking for now to move forward.
Chairman Johnson. You talked about the goal being to
impede--to deter. In Israel, their fence is about a 15-foot
fence, and the whole design--first of all, you can see through
it, which is an important design consideration.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. I think that is important. But, the whole
purpose of it was to give them about a 5-minute response time.
Mr. Aguilar. Exactly.
Chairman Johnson. And, that is what they have: a 5-minute
response time. So, it is built with very thick rebar. It cannot
be cut through and it cannot just be clipped. You would have to
have a pretty good saw. It takes time, so that you have enough
time for the border patrol in Israel to respond. Is that
basically the primary goal of the fencing?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely, it is to deter and impede the flow
and create that time and distance, which are critically
important.
Now, depending on where you are building the fence, it
could be minutes, it could be hours, and, in some cases, the
Border Patrol could need longer than that to impede, in order
to take the appropriate actions.
Chairman Johnson. You are talking about the specific
challenges in Texas. I am not going to identify the Members of
Congress, but I have spoken with Texas Congress Members in the
House, who say that levees would really work well and are
actually supported by the public. Can you speak to that as part
of the solution?
Mr. Aguilar. That was a very unique situation that we took
in Texas. The levees, as we probably all have heard, are
critically important for the flooding of the Rio Grande. And,
the actions that we took as part of the Border Patrol back
then--the sitting chiefs basically identified the Rio Grande at
South Texas as requiring fencing. We worked with the local
community on an ongoing basis and spoke to them at length about
what could be done.
What we literally did is, we took the existing dirt levees,
cut them down the middle, and abutted against them--reinforced
the existing levees with concrete--in some areas as high as 20
or 30 feet. Above those levees, after we set that abutted
concrete, we built the walls that needed to be built on top of
that to continue from the deterrence perspective.
It worked very well. It was a community effort--community
of the locals, community of the Border Patrol as an
organization, and DHS.
Chairman Johnson. So, do you think that would be a solution
in larger areas of Texas?
Mr. Aguilar. There will be some areas that can be
accommodated like that. One of the things that I am absolutely
sure that DHS, CBP, and especially the Border Patrol will be
doing going forward on this is working with the local
communities--as we did back then.
Dr. Juliet Garcia, I worked with her personally on an
ongoing basis. I met with her three or four times at the
University of Texas in Brownsville on building and
accommodating what we eventually built at UTB.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Colburn, in your testimony, you are
relating direct experience, similar to Israel--16,000 to 18--
similar types of dramatic numbers, in terms of fencing barriers
actually working. I have a little time left here. Of the 650
miles, how much do you think needs to be replaced? How much
more do you think has to be built? And, we are not going to
hold you to it, because we are going to wait for the DHS
study--but, some sort of general feel.
Mr. Colburn. I will answer it in two parts. First, the
collection of chiefs of the nine Southwest Border sectors all
jointly say that they need more fencing, as well as repairs and
improvements on existing fencing.
That said, just to name some mileage in Yuma Sector--the
sector that I served for a period of time as Chief--when the
fence was started--they currently have over 63 miles of primary
fence and 9 miles of what is called secondary fence behind some
of that primary fence. They have over 28 miles of all-weather
roads. So, when we talk about infrastructure, sometimes it is
not just a barrier. It is to give access.
We added nearly 9 miles of permanent lighting, which
actually the community of San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico, was
very appreciative of--crime went down in Mexico as well. We
added 44\1/2\ miles of permanent vehicle barriers of a couple
of different styles, and we even had 9 miles of tertiary
fence--in the flanks of the San Luis port of entry, three rows
of fencing.
That just gives an example of what is necessary. I think
that the gates and bridges that were built along the Colorado
River, where there are also ditches and irrigation usage of the
water for farming, we added 18 vehicle gates and one bridge to
the bridges already existing. We even added water wells for
access by the agricultural land users.
Chairman Johnson. So, basically, what you just rattled off
there and what I have in my briefing--about a couple hundred
miles of different forms of fencing--how long is Yuma Sector in
total?
Mr. Colburn. 125 miles.
Chairman Johnson. OK.
Mr. Colburn. So, because it is overlapping, it exceeds
that. And, uniquely, the Imperial Sand Dunes National Monument
area has the floating fence, and I know you have probably--you
can go online and see. It is quite unique and quite effective.
In 2008, we lost a brave Border Patrol Agent, Luis Aguilar,
because there was no fence.
I was quoted by the Army Corps of Engineers, when they
published their book on fencing, on the front cover, as saying,
``That will never happen again there,'' because of that
floating fence.
Chairman Johnson. By the way, Israel has technology for
sand as well. It works quite well. Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
I think additional fencing is essential and repairing
fencing that is in place is essential, but a couple of things
came out in the Chairman's questions, and one is the issue of
situational awareness--that if you cannot see through and you
do not have the technology to look over, then you are really
handcuffing, in my opinion--and I would like to know if you,
Mr. Aguilar, and you, Mr. Colburn, would agree that you are
handcuffing the Border Patrol Agents, because they cannot see
and respond quickly enough if, in fact, this is a concrete wall
that you cannot see through and cannot see over. Would that be
a fair assessment, as to why we need to be aware of situational
awareness as we make these decisions?
Mr. Aguilar. Situational awareness at the border,
regardless of what kind of infrastructure is built south of the
border, in the case of Mexico, is absolutely essential for the
safety of the officers, for reactionary time, for planning, and
for taking the appropriate actions at the right time. That is
why you will hear every Border Patrol Agent say that there will
definitively be a need for infrastructure supported by
personnel and supported by technology.
Senator McCaskill. Technology.
Mr. Aguilar. There is technology now that can give us that
overhead capability. There are tethered drones that will stay
up for weeks at a time that will give you a view, not just of
the wall, but north and south as to what is coming at you, the
actions to take, and the safest actions to take.
Senator McCaskill. And, when they cannot fly, they can use
those elevated night vision goggles--even at night--to get the
situational awareness they need.
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. That is the technology we are talking
about.
I would point out that the prototypes that are being built
are walls. We took $20 million out of the technology fund that
would have provided more of that situational awareness, and we
are building prototypes of walls--not fencing, but walls. And,
what I am concerned about is that we are headed down a path
toward an outcome without fully considering what would be the
most effective use of the American taxpayer dollar, as it
relates to securing the border. And, that is what I have tried
to hammer on--and I think the Chairman and I agree on a lot of
that.
Let me talk to Dr. Garrett for a moment about land
acquisitions. Is the government likely to run into resistance
if they attempt to condemn more property from Texas landowners?
Mr. Garrett. Almost certainly. In fact, I did not get all
of the way through, but when you are talking about River Bend
Golf Course, which is a retirement community with hundreds of
homes--and very valuable--we call them ``winter Texans''--when
they come down. They will probably fight it, even though they
came out in the Washington Post and the owners said, ``Well, we
will try to work with CBP.'' But, basically, the implication
was, ``We will fight them.'' So, they have the resources to
fight, and that was kind of the point where I was going with
the university case. There are other places along the border--
Cimarron Development south of Mission, Texas--that previously
did not get the wall. Also, you are talking about hundreds of
more miles with private landowners that have yet to be----
Senator McCaskill. And, they are all entitled to a jury
trial, correct?
Mr. Garrett. They are all entitled to a jury trial. And, if
I can say something on the levees--if I can add something--
Kristian Hernandez, in ``the Monitor,'' he looked at the cost,
and he actually quotes Representative Michael McCaul, the
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, which
basically--first of all, Ramon Garcia, the county judge, and
the mayor of McAllen came out with a letter that said, in
effect, ``We are against the wall. However, if you are going to
build a wall, we would like to have levee infrastructure
similar to what we had in 2007.''
Now, we are talking about over 30 miles of levee
infrastructure, according to the article, and it would cost $12
million per mile for a total cost of $378.93 million out of
President Trump's $2.6 billion proposal.
Senator McCaskill. And, that is just for levee in that
one----
Mr. Garrett. That is just for the levee sections in Hidalgo
County.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Historically, has the government
underestimated the time and the expense of land acquisition,
when it comes to acquiring the land necessary to build
barriers?
Mr. Garrett. Yes, absolutely. It has been over--Judge Hanen
has had many years of cases before him. I was asked by Time
magazine a few years ago about it, and the needle has not moved
very much. And, the problem for the judge is, eminent domain
cases take a lot of his time, and it appears to me that he also
deals with criminal activities along the border. Why is he
spending time and taxpayer money defending--or working with
lawsuit defenses on behalf--for the plaintiffs, when, in fact,
would he not be better spending his time dealing with people
who are apprehended and engaged in criminal activities on the
border?
Senator McCaskill. What can you tell me--the fencing that
has been installed in Brownsville, it is right on the southern
tip of Texas. It must be, obviously, a dangerous place, because
it is so close to the Mexican border. What is the security
situation like in Brownsville?
Mr. Garrett. Brownsville, itself, is the least criminal-
ridden or, violent community in all of Texas, according to the
``Texas Tribune.'' They looked at U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) data, and actually, corresponding roughly with about the
time of the war on drugs in Mexico by President Felipe
Calderon, the border cities began to see a precipitous drop in
violence within those communities. So, how can you prove the
fence works when, in fact, we had a partner in Mexico, dealing
with some of these criminal organizations? And, what has
happened is, crime has dropped on the U.S. side of the border.
Senator McCaskill. When you were Commissioner of Customs
and Border Protection, Mr. Aguilar, I think you ranked
personnel first, infrastructure second, and technology third.
It is my understanding that you would now rank it: technology
first, personnel second, and infrastructure third?
Mr. Aguilar. The ranking now is technology definitively
first just about anywhere along the border.
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Mr. Aguilar. Infrastructure and personnel will be going
back and forth depending on the area----
Senator McCaskill. Where you are.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. Where you are going to be placing
it.
Senator McCaskill. Would you agree with that assessment,
Mr. Colburn?
Mr. Colburn. Yes. To borrow a famous two-word term from
many lawyers, ``It depends.'' It really does depend on the
topography, the demographics, the geographics, and also the
climate. So, there are times when manpower has the greatest
value assigned, other times where the tactical infrastructure
does, and other times when it is technology.
It is a chain that cannot be broken, though, so without the
tactical infrastructure, we will still not have accomplished
border security. With it--along with the technology and
manpower--I feel that we will finally see that light at the end
of the tunnel, and we can secure all of the border--not just
Yuma, not just other stretches, but all of it.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Thank you all.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Just 1 second. Could I ask that the
report be issued into the record\1\--the one you referenced?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Minority report appears in the Appendix on page 181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Sure.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Sorry, I forgot.
Chairman Johnson. Without objection.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Colburn, you have had a unique
experience, in that you were at a location in Yuma, saw the
high crime rate, saw the large number of people crossing
illegally, saw the vehicular traffic, and could not do anything
about it. A wall goes up, and then you saw the very significant
drop in illegal crossings at that spot--as well as vehicles and
people.
Let me get some specific questions to you on some of this.
What did you see as far as delays? There has been a lot of
conversation about land acquisition. We had delays in
construction, permitting, road access and such. What did you
see in delays? What were the causes of those delays? And, did
construction move in some areas, while they working out the
delays in other spots?
Mr. Colburn. The delays in Yuma were not as significant
compared to, say, South Texas, and significantly, a lot of that
has to do with the fact that, along that 125-mile stretch of
the border, 96 percent of the land adjoining Mexico on the U.S.
side is federally, publicly stewarded lands. So, it was the
Bureau of Reclamation within the Department of Interior (DOI),
it was the National Park Service (NPS), and it was the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM). It was Department of Defense (DOD),
with the Barry M. Goldwater Bombing Range. So, it was a variety
of Federal and publicly stewarded land.
That does bring in environmental considerations, but when I
mentioned earlier about rapidly layering on manpower,
technology, and tactical infrastructure, that is what made Yuma
that case in point--was we were able to get that together
quickly.
There are places, because of private ownership--as we have
been discussing--that are more challenging--as well as there
are places where the terrain, geographics, and climate will be
more costly. Levees will cost more than some of the barriers
that we were putting in in Yuma at the tune of $1.1 million a
mile. So, compared to the $5 million per mile in South Texas,
it was rather efficient in the desert areas of Yuma for much of
that part of it. Not everywhere, though. We do have roughly 20
miles of river boundary. People forget. They think of Arizona
as all land boundary. But, the Colorado River does separate,
not just the States of California and Arizona, but also Baja
California Norte and Sonora. So, it is an international
boundary marked by water.
What the smugglers were doing there--they were building
bridges with sandbags, and their engineering was amazing.
Overnight, very squared, very level, and just inches below the
surface of the water, so that the bridges could not be detected
off of the reflecting angle of the sun in the early morning
hours. They could drive a number of vehicles laden with drugs
across in the early darkness hours. They were building those in
one night. Talk about how sometimes you do not have a technical
solution? Well, now they have technology that can detect it,
and they have barriers that can keep them from freely driving
over the levees and across the bridges.
But, we still had to wade into the river with machetes and
slit each bag of sand. So, as they built it during the night,
we tore it down during the day. And, that is what finally
defeated them. It became too cost-inefficient for the organized
crime groups to
continue building one overnight. So, sometimes rudimentary
force--muscle--wading into the river with a knife and slitting
open bags is the solution.
As both the Chief and I have mentioned, there it is not a
cookie-cutter solution anywhere along the border. Each sector--
even within each sector--we find different combinations of
resources that solve that problem. But, certainly in Yuma, we
had it easier, because of the publicly stewarded lands.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Aguilar, talk to me about the
technologies. That is one of the prime areas to be able to
innovate on first. What technology is needed? And, what do we
have that we need more of? Or, what do we not have that we need
to put in place?
Mr. Aguilar. The technologies have been an absolutely
critical part of anything done anywhere along the border. The
type of technology that we are talking about is a technology
that will give you situational awareness--persistent
situational awareness anywhere that agents are going to be
interested in what is happening along the border.
Today, we have integrated fixed towers (IFTs), which
started way back when Chief Colburn and I were in the field. We
have remote video surveillance systems. We have mobile
surveillance capability systems.
Senator Lankford. Hold on. Slow down. Towers, how frequent?
Let us get more specific as we are talking through this. When
you talk about towers, how frequently do you need those? You
have a 2,000-mile border. Is that every 2 miles? Is that every
5 miles? Or is that every 500 feet?
Mr. Aguilar. Let me step back. Not the towers, because,
basically, again, it goes back to the type of geography to
decide where we are deploying the kind of capability we are
looking for.
In Arizona, for example, when I was the Chief of the Border
Patrol, we lined out the exact number of towers that had a
viewshed that had the capability to cover an entire area. But,
along with that, we had some problems, because we had, for
example, the Tohono O'odham Nation for 75 miles of the border
of the Tucson Sector where I was Chief--bottom line is, we were
not allowed, because of the sovereignty of the Tohono O'odham
Nation, to build that type of technological capability.
But, today, there are technological capabilities that could
now basically give that same type of situational awareness--
tethered drones that basically are going to have viewsheds of 7
or 8 miles wide--maybe even higher. So, in areas where we
cannot put an integrated fixed tower or a remote video
surveillance system--and, by the way, the integrated fixed
towers have the capability of a viewshed of 8, 10, 12, or 13
miles, depending on where they are placed--line of sight for
infrared capability, line of sight for Doppler radar and line
of sight for cameras--very high quality, high-fidelity cameras.
So, it all depends on where you are going to be placing
them. There are plans in place by the Border Patrol for the
entirety of the Southwest Border.
Now, we also have to take into account that, as an example,
integrated fixed towers, which work very well in Arizona, will
not work as well in South Texas. The reason for that is the
vegetation, the density, and the triple canopies. So, all of
those things need to be taken into account.
But, the chiefs are aware of what they need. There are
designs out there that, basically, have been put in place for
that.
Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thank you. Gentlemen, welcome this morning.
Particularly, Mr. Aguilar and Mr. Colburn, thank you for your
service to our country in many different roles. Dr. Garrett,
welcome. We are delighted that you are here.
I am channeling my father this morning. My dad used to say
to my sister and me, when we would do some bone-headed stunt--
he used to say, ``Just use some common sense. Just use some
common sense.'' We did not have much of it. He said it a lot.
I am also channeling a woman who once came to one of my
town hall meetings years ago when I was a Congressman, and it
was on budget--how do we reduce the budget deficit, which was
$1.4 trillion about 8 years ago. Today, it is over $400
billion--$1.4 trillion is down to about $400 billion--still way
too much. So, we are talking about spending money that we
really do not have for a wall.
But, I remember at this town hall meeting, a woman said to
me--we were talking about whether or not revenues could be a
part of the deficit reduction plan, and she said, ``I do not
mind paying more taxes. I just do not want you to waste my
money.''
``I just do not want you to waste my money.'' And, I am
very mindful of that, as we think about the combination of
tools that we use to make our borders more secure.
Another one of my guiding principles in life is to find out
what works and do more of that. Find out what works and do more
of that. And, I think one of the common themes that comes from
this discussion here this morning is that there is no one
answer. There may be several answers. There may be several
answers for the same area of the border.
Another point that has not been mentioned--one of the
reasons why, I think, we saw, Mr. Colburn, that precipitous
drop in illegal immigration in the Yuma Sector is, the folks
from Mexico are no longer coming to the United States in such
great numbers. In fact, as you know, there are more people
going back into Mexico from the United States than there are
Mexicans coming into the United States, which is a big help,
and that says to me--well, what are some ways that we could
convince people--where most of the illegal immigration is
coming from today--what could we do to convince people in
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador not to come up here. And,
one of the things we could do, as the Chairman knows and as
Claire knows--the reason why they come to this country is
because their lives are miserable. Their lives are unsafe.
There are conditions of misery. We are complicit in their
misery, because of all of the drugs that we buy that are
trafficked through their countries. Well, why do we not do
something to help in that regard?
There is help on the way. It is called ``Alliance for
Prosperity,'' and it is literally taking ``Plan Colombia'',
something that has worked over the last 20 years, and
replicating it, with respect to those 3 countries. The funding
for that plan is, I do not know, about $500 to $600 to $700
million a year. If we would just take half of the money that we
are talking about spending for a wall, we could fund the
``Alliance for Prosperity'' for the next two decades, which is
how long we have been funding ``Plan Colombia'', which has
worked.
The last thing I want to say is about illegal immigration
reform--immigration reform. I am not interested in, basically,
saying to people that are here illegally, ``Well, you can just
stay. We will just provide immunity for you guys and let you
stay.'' I am not interested in doing that. Most Americans are
not interested in doing that. We passed comprehensive
immigration reform here in the Senate, oh, gosh, 5, 6, 7, 8
years ago that did not do that, but, actually, did give people
that were here who played by the rules, got in line, worked,
paid taxes, and spoke English--we gave them a pathway to a
legal status. I think that probably makes some sense. I think a
guest worker program makes some sense. And, Senator Johnson and
I talked about this more than a few times. A lot of the people
that are down there, they want to come here and go to work and
want to be able to go back home--maybe for good--and we do not
give them a very good opportunity to do that, because when they
get over here, they get stuck and they cannot go back.
The last thing I want to say is on force multipliers. We
have mentioned some of the force multipliers that make sense,
and I have been down on the border from San Diego, where I used
to be stationed in the Navy, all of the way almost to
Brownsville, where we used to fly out of--Brownsville and
Kingsport, but--Kingsville. But, I have talked to hundreds of
Border Patrol officers and said, ``What do you think we ought
to be doing?'' And, I am just going to mention some of the
answers they have given me--and some of them we have heard
here, today.
Not just helicopters, but helicopters are great. Not just
drones, but drones can be great. Not just fixed-wing aircraft,
but they can be great. But, let us make sure they have the
right kind of surveillance equipment inside of the aircraft--
the Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar (VADER) system,
which is actually one of a number of packages that works very
well. But, I used to go out in Navy
P-3 Orion airplanes out over the ocean with my crew--a 13-man
crew--looking for people that were lost, ships that were sunk,
or whatever, with binoculars. Good luck. And, when we have a
great system, like VADER, and we have the aircraft, the drones,
and the fixed-wing aircraft, for God's sake, let us make sure
the surveillance aircraft is equipped with that technology.
What have I heard that works? Drones with proper
surveillance packages. Horses in areas with high grass. And,
helicopters, as I mentioned earlier. Motion detectors sometimes
make a lot of sense. Mobile and stationary observation towers
with the right kind of observation surveillance equipment on
board.
Better intelligence. We have not talked about better
intelligence, but that is certainly a good point. Mobile and
stationary observation towers. Cooperative agreements with
landowners along the border. Someone mentioned lighting. Those
are all things that work someplace along the border.
And, I have just given you a stream of consciousness here.
Mr. Aguilar, just react very briefly to some of what you have
heard. Does any of it make sense?
Mr. Aguilar. Everything that you have just lined out there,
plus more, Senator, is exactly what any Border Patrol Agent
that has served on our Southern Border--or our Northern Border,
for that matter--will identify as needs and requirements. It is
how you put that package together that is critically important.
It is those capabilities added--placed against the requirements
that the agents in the field have.
So, yes, absolutely all of those things, plus other things
that are constantly being developed--situational awareness, for
example. Situational awareness capabilities that exist that
should be applied so that--terrain change, as an example. From
an intelligence perspective, agents need to know when, in a
remote or very rural area of operation, terrain change has
occurred--to notify them that, ``Hey, you need to be paying
attention to this and taking those kinds of efforts.''
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Colburn, one of the things I did not mention is, walls
work. I have been to Israel. They work. But, walls can be
tunneled under and climbed over. Fences work, and, as we have
gone along, we have figured out how to make better fences. So,
I am not saying that those are bad ideas. In some places, they
work great. But 1,900 miles of walls? Really?
Mr. Colburn, I am almost out of time. Please, briefly.
Mr. Colburn. One other item that I----
Senator Carper. I just wanted you to react to my stream-of-
consciousness ideas--force multipliers.
Mr. Colburn. You have listed some very good ones, and your
sources being the Border Patrol Agents--as I said in my opening
remarks, ask the agents, and they will tell you.
Consequences--a system of consequences is extremely
important. If there are no consequences for illegal acts, then
it encourages return.
Deterrence. The end game, of course, in the end, is to make
the criminal organizations that now own the movement of people
along the border--and drugs and weapons and cash--and create an
environment where they believe they can no longer get away with
it.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Colburn. And, you do that through all of those kinds of
resourcing, and the right amount of it in the right place.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Colburn.
Very briefly, Dr. Garrett, please. Just react to the
diatribe I just went through.
Mr. Garrett. Yes, I would say I have a colleague, Dr.
Correa-Cabrera, who is over at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars. Last year, she was on a $200,000 U.S.
State Department grant studying a human-trafficking route--on
the eastern route from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
through Mexico. She is a great expert. She actually interviewed
traffickers in prisons in those countries and provided a report
to the U.S. State Department. That kind of intelligence,
getting to your point, is very valuable, I would think, in
terms of understanding the connections between transnational
criminal organizations, which have begun diversification--which
is another one of her specialty areas--in drug trafficking, in
human trafficking, and in petrochemicals--hydrocarbons.
So, it seems to me, we are doing our country a disservice
if we do not utilize resources like that--like the Wilson
Center and like U.S. State Department grants. Those are the
kinds of things that we need to have to improve our intel.
Senator Carper. All right. I am out of time. Thank you, Dr.
Garrett.
I would just say, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and
colleagues, we have a lot of tools in our toolbox. We need to
be using them. A wall and a fence, is that part of the toolbox?
Yes, it is. But, to spend $15 to $25 billion, at a time when we
have a budget deficit of over $400 billion, is unwise, is
unneeded, and is unaffordable.
Thank you so much.
Chairman Johnson. Just really quickly--as I stepped out for
a couple of minutes--in your stream-of-consciousness diatribe--
your words, not mine--did you mention cutting down vegetation,
like the carrizo cane? Was that part of the----
Senator Carper. I did not. That is one of the--I think, as
Mr. Aguilar or somebody said, there are other ideas. I think,
in many places, that is good.
Chairman Johnson. That would be a good one. Senator
Heitkamp.
Senator Carper. Let us not use Agent Orange. Been there,
done that. [Laughter.]
Chairman Johnson. We will use some good tools.
Senator Carper. Very good.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first start out by saying that there has been--we
have had a number of kind of hearings and discussions. There
has been no one to come before this body and suggest that we
need to build a concrete wall completely across the border. No
one. Not one person--no matter what political persuasion and no
matter how they represented their political thoughts in the
last election.
So, I just wish we could get beyond it, so we could
actually talk about what we need to do on the border, because
all of us share the same goal, which is border security. Border
security protects, not only this country, but has a way of
protecting people to the south. I do not think there is any
doubt about it.
And so, I have visited the Southern Border--actually, I am
known kind of on this Committee as being the person who always
reminds people that we have a very large Northern Border that
we need to pay attention to, but I have spent a lot of time on
the Southern Border, and I have talked to locals and people on
the Southern Border who think that this is crazy--what we do
here, because no one really engages the local people, who see
it every day, and talks to them about strategy and what needs
to be done. And so, I want to just make that point that, as
Senator McCaskill, the Ranking Member, I think, eloquently--
talking to the personnel who actually are responsible for
border security--in her opening comments talked about we need
to spend a lot more time with the people who live on and who
study the Southern Border.
To that end, I have a couple of pieces of testimony that I
would like to submit for the record. One is from the Tohono
O'odham tribe,\1\ which has people on both sides, and you know
well the work that has been done to build relationships there.
They are deeply concerned about whether those traditional
collaborations will, in fact, be disrupted. They have some
great ideas on helping with roads and with other infrastructure
on the reservation that will help them help the Border Patrol
and the Department of Homeland Security to secure the border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The statement of Tohono O'odham Nation appears in the Appendix
on page 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I have a statement from Howard G. Buffett, who has
done a tremendous amount of work, not only as a rancher down
there, but also looking at border security and trying to
understand all of the dynamics. And so, I would ask that these
two documents be submitted for the record.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The statement of Howard Buffett appears in the Appendix on page
188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Sure. Without objection. But, I also just
want to interject. When you say nobody is talking to them, that
is what this hearing is about--and we had Howard Buffett
testify before this Committee as well. So, we are definitely
trying to do that--exactly what you----
Senator Heitkamp. There is no one on this panel who
actually is a Southern Border----
Chairman Johnson. Well, again, we have had 22 hearings on
this.
Senator Heitkamp. Right.
Chairman Johnson. So, we definitely are talking to them,
and we will be doing that.
Senator Heitkamp. But, would the Chairman agree that not
one person has come in front of this Committee suggesting that
we build a wall on the entire length of the border?
Chairman Johnson. Again, we are discussing the challenges
involved here, and we----
Senator Heitkamp. And, we keep dancing around it, but the
reality is----
Chairman Johnson. We are talking to people on the border as
well, because we had Howard Buffett testify before this
Committee.
Senator Heitkamp. We would go a lot further if we actually
just acknowledged that there are ways to secure the border
other than simply building a wall.
So, I have a couple of questions. How much private land
will need to be secured by eminent domain to build a wall along
the entire Southern Border? Do we know?
Mr. Aguilar. As far as mileage goes, I do not think any one
of us would put a number on that. I can tell you that, in
Texas, it would be quite a bit. In places like Arizona, a lot
of it is going to be federally owned lands--State-owned lands--
so we would work in coordination with them.
Senator Heitkamp. I think we have talked a lot already
about how barriers can slow the development--create a
deterrence. But, we know that there needs to be additional
assets--especially personnel and technology. And, I think,
until we see the report, I do not think that we really will
have a clear idea on how we deploy all of those resources. And,
I think, Mr. Colburn and Mr. Aguilar, I think both of those
factors have come up completely in your testimony, which means
take a look at the terrain, take a look at where you are, take
a look at what is possible and what is not possible, and make
sure that we have a border strategy that is smart and that does
not spend money where we do not need to spend money just
because we promised something during a political campaign.
Finally, I think one thing that has not been talked about
here is the role of Mexico. I think we all understand Mexico is
not going to pay for this wall if it gets built. But, there is
a critical role that our neighbor to the south plays, in terms
of border enforcement. And so, I am curious about how you see
Mexico playing in border enforcement, because it seems to me
that Mexico must be a critical partner in any effort on our
shared border.
The migration spikes that we are seeing are originating in
Central America, as Senator Carper pointed out, not Mexico.
But, people are traveling through Mexico to get there. So, what
do we need from Mexico that they are not doing now to forge a
relationship to stop the traffic? And, I would include, not
only migration of people, but also drug enforcement.
Mr. Aguilar. So, as it relates to Mexico, first and
foremost, I think I would say the relationship between Mexico
and the United States is unprecedented. We have never had the
level of relationship that we have with Mexico now--in a very
positive way. As we speak today, the relationships, the
strategies being put forth, the efforts, the joint
intelligence, the sharing, and the liaison--all of those things
have been improved dramatically.
Now, as with Canada, we need to do more of that. Those
relationships need to continue to be solidified even beyond.
Senator Heitkamp. But, you would agree that our
relationship--law enforcement to law enforcement--with Canada
is far different than our relationship with law enforcement----
Mr. Aguilar. Oh, absolutely. Look, not too long ago,
Senator, Mexico used to say, ``Treat us more like you treat
Canada, not like you treat Mexico.'' I think we are getting
closer to that, because of the evolution of where we were to
where we have gotten. I often say that, when I first came into
the Border Patrol in 1978, the last people that you would think
about calling were the Mexicans when something happened on the
border. Today, they are the first ones we call when we have a
situation. And, you are absolutely right, in that Mexico is
pretty much at the place that we were 30 years ago with our
Southern Border. Their Southern Border is getting overrun--not
by people that want to stay in Mexico, but by those who want to
get to the United States. There is absolutely more that needs
to be done by them, with our assistance, on their Southern
Border. There is more that needs to be done by the United
States and Canada in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, in
order to increase the rule of law, civil society, health,
education, all of these things.
So, that is exactly what we should be talking about, but we
constantly focus on the wall--as we should be focusing on our
borders. But, it needs to be a very systematic approach across
the entire breadth of what is causing the problems.
Senator Heitkamp. I certainly look forward to the
Department of Homeland Security's report, and I hope they do
include a strategy for collaboration with tribal entities that
serve on both sides of the border--but also the Mexican
officials. But, we need to be realistic about that
relationship--and it is not Canada. I think we can all agree on
that.
Mr. Aguilar. If I might, because I think this is critically
important, first and foremost, talk to the agents--talk to the
Border Patrol--and I assure you that they are absolutely
engaged with the communities. Now, they cannot please everybody
within the communities, but, if there is any--especially
Federal--law enforcement agency that has their thumb on the
feel of what is going on with the communities, it is the Border
Patrol. We spend a lot of time making sure that we have dealt
with them, that we understand their needs, understand their
concerns, and build the relationships. So, when the tough
decisions were being made, all of those things were being taken
into consideration.
Chairman Johnson. And, just to point out, we had a hearing
last week with the heads of the unions of the agents. We have,
on a bipartisan basis, a group of staff going down and talking
right down to the folks who are the boots on the ground. But,
Senator Heitkamp, when we talk about the insecurity of the
Mexican-Central American border, I remember our Congressional
Delegation (CODEL) in Guatemala, where you could basically walk
across the--we are here at the Border Patrol entry point, and
you can basically walk across the boats.
Senator Heitkamp. Right. They are swimming across. But,
also, Mr. Chairman, I want to remark about the great work that
the Department of Homeland Security is doing in those
communities to try and provide technological solutions--
stopping buses--all of the issues, especially as it relates to
human trafficking. So, that was a great trip. I hope we can do
something like that again.
Chairman Johnson. Of course. Our guide was General Kelly,
so he knows what he is talking about. Senator Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Mr. Aguilar, thank you for your service. According to the
strategic plan from 2012 through 2016 of CBP, my understanding
is that the priorities include, in this order: first,
preventing terrorists and weapons from entering the United
States; second would be managing risk, which includes the
adoption of technology and all you have talked about, in terms
of situational awareness; and third would be disrupting and
degrading transnational criminal organizations.
Before I was elected Senator, I was the Attorney General
(AG) of California, and one of the first trips that I took
after being elected back in 2011 was down to the border with
Mexico. I surveyed the tunnels and the border. I saw
photographs of tunnels with walls as smooth as the walls in
this Committee room, lined with air-conditioning and lighting,
which made an obvious point very clear: that there is a large
investment of money by the transnational criminal
organizations--we estimate up to $3 billion a year--in creating
an infrastructure for them to be able to do their business,
which is the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Harris. And, in fact, I commissioned a report
shortly thereafter, which I, Mr. Chairman, would like to submit
in the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report referenced by Senator Harris appears in the Appendix
on page 195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Without objection.
Senator Harris. ``Gangs Beyond Borders,'' which highlights
the concern that California has about the transnational
criminal organizations.
One of the things that we learned in documenting this
report is that trafficking takes place because there has been
an investment in that, as we have discussed. But, trafficking
includes not really necessarily things coming across the border
on foot, but also through tunnels and by air. In fact, we
document hundreds of ultralight aircraft flights for the
purposes of trafficking.
So, back to the point then of this wall. We also document,
for example, the use of panga boats, and, Mr. Colburn, you
talked about the waterways that are used for trafficking.
Do you agree that if the United States invests billions of
dollars in wall infrastructure, the cartels will simply invest
more in underground tunnels and water and aerial approaches?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes. Yes, they will, and that gets to the
issue of what is making them do that.
Senator Harris. Right.
Mr. Aguilar. It is the dollars. It is the draw. It is the
draw of illegal immigrants into this country. It is the draw of
people seeking asylum--political refugees. It is the draw of
the narcotics coming into this country.
Senator Harris. Well, let us be clear about that. When we
are talking about the trafficking of guns, of drugs, and of
human beings--there have been many people, including, I
believe, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
that have acknowledged that a major draw--especially in terms
of the trafficking of drugs--is America's insatiable appetite
for narcotics. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Harris. Right, so that is not about immigrants
creating that appetite. The appetite exists in the United
States, and just basic principles of capitalism tell us that
wherever there is a demand, there will be a supply. Would you
agree with that?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely.
Senator Harris. So, when we are talking about this and we
are looking at the amount of money that it takes, in terms of
our need, to keep our border secure from the trafficking of
drugs, guns, and human beings, can you tell me what you believe
the priorities should be, in terms of the government funding
CBP in its noble effort to keep our borders secure--and, in
particular, secure from the trafficking of illegal substances
into the United States that harm Americans in a very direct
way?
Mr. Aguilar. Well, if you take a look at funding,
specifically through a silo of CBP--and that is all that we are
talking about, CBP prioritization?
Senator Harris. Yes, just CBP. Yes, please.
Mr. Aguilar. Because, if you go beyond that, there are
other priorities before CBP.
Senator Harris. Sure.
Mr. Aguilar. But, as it relates to CBP, right now, given
the current environment that we face on the border, it is
technology--and, depending on where you go from there, it is
infrastructure and personnel.
Now, Senator, one of our primary examples of success is, in
fact, California, when it comes to infrastructure. As young
agents, we both worked an area known as the ``soccer field.''
Senator Harris. Oh, yes.
Mr. Aguilar. It was a soccer field. It was American
territory that was ceded to Mexico. We could not go in there as
a two-man team. We had to, literally, go in there with a
tremendous amount of support, because we had ceded--smugglers
operated there. Today, on the soccer field, we have multi-
million-dollar homes. We have thriving commercial businesses.
We have malls in that area.
Senator Harris. Right, but this is because of the work that
happened many years ago.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Senator Harris. And, I applaud you for that work, but I
think we agree--and your testimony has made clear--that times
have changed----
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely.
Senator Harris [continuing]. Because of the reordered
priorities, which have been quite successful.
Tell me something. The last major hiring surge of CBP
agents occurred during your tenure, correct?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Senator Harris. And, that surge and the corresponding rise
in the tactics of cartels to infiltrate CBP led Congress, while
you were there, I believe, to institute polygraph testing for
new border agents. Is that correct?
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct.
Senator Harris. And, in August 2012, you testified to the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (OGR) about
CBP's efforts to prevent and detect corruption and misconduct
in its workforce, and specifically you said, ``Background and
periodic investigations as well as polygraph examinations are
consistent with, and form the basis of, a comprehensive
workforce integrity plan.'' Do you still believe that to be
true?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Senator Harris. And so, President Trump issued this
Executive Order mandating the hiring of 5,000 new Border Patrol
officers, which would result in a 25-percent force increase.
Would it not be a threat to officer safety and public safety to
loosen the processes by which we determine who should be
eligible and qualified to enter the force?
Mr. Aguilar. There is not a law enforcement officer--not
just a Border Patrol Agent--that would not say that lowering
qualifications--lowering standards is unacceptable.
Senator Harris. Right.
Mr. Aguilar. Now, we have learned a lot from that time
frame, where we basically doubled the size of the Border
Patrol. The Border Patrol is much larger. They have the,
benefit of all of the hard lessons learned--the school of hard
knocks. There are things that can be implemented. There are
things that we did right and things that we could have done
much better.
What you are referring to, I believe, Senator, is taking a
look now--which I actually applaud--leadership taking a look at
what it is that has been done in the past and what can we do
better. But, at the forefront of that, we should not, in any
way, reduce standards or qualification requirements.
Senator Harris. Thank you. I appreciate that. And, I know
you know that one of the concerns that we have is, given the
amount of money that the transnational criminal organizations--
Sinaloa and other cartels--have invested in making sure that
they can profit from their illegal activities--is to do a
number of
things--being creative around how they will get over and under
ground to be able to transport their wares. But also, they
have, in their history--and based on their business model--a
real incentive to compromise agents at the border. And so, we
have to make sure that we have the highest standards, so that
we can make sure that we are hiring agents, such as yourself
and Mr. Colburn, who years before were being creative in
helping to secure our borders. I thank you for your service.
Mr. Aguilar. We are in lockstep on that, Senator.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Harris.
I just have to point out, based on what you said, that
there are probably far more areas of agreement on this
Committee--which is what we are trying to do. I will refer
you--before you became a Senator, on November 23, 2015, we
issued a report after 13 hearings and 3 roundtables on border
security. Our key finding in the report--and I am just going to
read it--``America's insatiable demand for drugs''--the same
words you used. ``America's insatiable demand for drugs,
coupled with smugglers' insatiable demand for profits, is one
root cause, perhaps the root cause, preventing the achievement
of a secure border.'' So, I am in total agreement with you. It
is our insatiable demand for drugs that is destroying public
institutions in Central America--crime-ridden--the impunity and
the corruption. That is something we really have to address.
This is incredibly complex, but I think there are a lot of
areas of agreement. I think we are finding that today, in this
hearing, finding what we need to do to secure our border, but
also understanding----
Senator Harris. Cause and effect.
Chairman Johnson. ``We have seen the enemy, and it is us.''
Right?
Senator Harris. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hoeven.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would ask that each of the witnesses talk for just a
minute, in terms of this balance or mix of infrastructure--
meaning a wall, technology, and personnel. Talk about your
perception of the strengths and weaknesses of each and the
steps you would take to address it right away and in what
priority. Mr. Aguilar, if you want to start?
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. Thank you, Senator. Technology at the
current time, in the current environment, with current needs is
going to reflect the highest needs that the Border Patrol has
for several reasons. It gives you situational awareness. It
gives you intelligence--immediate juridical line intelligence--
and it gives you the capability to respond in an effective
manner and in a safe manner.
Senator Hoeven. And, when you say that, do you mean
unmanned aerial systems (UAS)? Do you mean sensors?
Communications? Define some of----
Mr. Aguilar. It is a combination of those things, dependent
on what area of the border you are talking about. We have
areas, for example, that both of us worked in Nogales, Arizona,
where the canyons are basically so close together that an IFT
tower will not work. A remote video surveillance system will
not work. But, a helicopter can only fly for, I think it is, 2
hours. For Black Hawks, 2 to 3 hours. Whereas, a drone, a
tethered drone--can stay up for weeks at a time. Or, if you
place a relocatable tower with the capabilities of Doppler
radar to detect movement, that has a high-fidelity camera that
can go 7 or 8 miles and detect a person--whether he is carrying
a bundle, a gun, a weapon, a longarm, and so forth. These are
the things that come into play.
So, it is the packaging of those capabilities that do exist
by the way of technology, identifying what best fits the area
of the border that is of interest, from an operational
perspective, and placing it.
Now, part of that is going to be also asking if that
package of technology requires infrastructure to do that
slowdown, if you will--and create that efforts of time and
distance and, in addition to that, the personnel to respond to
it. And, by the way, that personnel response may be in a Black
Hawk, because of the area that is so remote and rural.
So, it is all of these things. As the Chairman said, it is
very complex. There is not a ``one-size-fits-all'' for the
border.
Senator Hoeven. So, is the Department of Homeland
Security--General Kelly and the planners--are they approaching
this in that holistic way?
Mr. Aguilar. I can assure you that they are doing that,
absolutely. That is what we have historically done. That is
what they will continue to do.
Senator Hoeven. And then, throw in the metrics piece,
too--measuring results and knowing what our success rate is out
there.
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely. And, that, again, is going to be a
big part of the technological capabilities, because it will
give you that situational awareness of what is happening, when
it happened, what the results were, and what are the actions
needed to take for any continued interest in that area of
operation.
Senator Hoeven. And, you need those metrics to know where
you have to adjust, improve, and strengthen your effort, right?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Colburn, your thoughts on the same
question and how you would manage--I mean, this is a huge
logistics challenge, so how would--if you are king of the world
and running it, how are you going to do it?
Mr. Colburn. At the risk of being a bit redundant with what
Chief Aguilar said--we actually worked together off and on
through about three decades, so sometimes we tend to think a
lot alike. But, I will take strengths first and just say simply
that the right mix rapidly deployed--and that is all of the
above that we have discussed--so rather than elaborating
further. When it comes to strengths, it is all of the above.
For the weaknesses--the missing link. Without tactical
infrastructure, then it is too weak. Without the right amount
of manpower, it is too weak. And, without the right mix of
technology, it is too weak. The links in the chain have to be
equally strong, and it has to be the right mix. And, it is not
going to be the same in San Diego as it is in Rio Grande Valley
in South Texas.
Lastly, we have talked about how the transnational criminal
organizations have created their own business flexibility
models. They are not the old--as we used to call them--``mom-
and-pop'' smugglers of 30 years ago. Now, the TCOs--the
cartels--own the border. They are the gatekeepers, they are the
plaza watchers, and they control who plies their trade there
through a hierarchy of smuggling and gang systems that report
up their chain to them--very much like a large corporation or a
government.
That said, we talked about CBP and what they need in the
silo of CBP. One thing I have confidence in Secretary General
Kelly as well as the chiefs in the Border Patrol and the
leadership of CBP for, is that they will not ask for more than
what they need. But, they do need to be given exactly what they
need to secure the border. And, that was my challenge in Yuma,
and the way I put it to both the American people, the
Administration, and Congress at the time was, it was not about
empire building. It was about asking for the right mix, but
bringing it on--and bringing it on quickly, and it made a
difference. But, out of 2,000 miles, that was 125 miles.
Senator Hoeven. Again, how do you know when you have the
right mix?
Mr. Colburn. You go to the professionals in the field, and
they walk it yard by yard, as they have done. They assess it,
and they identify what they think they need, compared to the
kind of--foliage-penetrating radar did not exist in 2005 for
the capabilities or uses of the Border Patrol that exist now.
So, when we talk about next year's technology, and we talk
about the challenges of, say, toward, in South Texas versus,
say, in Arizona--now they have created foliage-penetrating
radar at the ground level--not just from the air. So,
fortunately for all of us, the technology evolves. And, I know
you will hear this from the Secretary, himself. If you can get
the right combination--less expensive is always better. I am a
taxpayer, too. That is why I say that it should be just what
you need, not more than what you need--and off-the-shelf and
integratable. It has to be integratable, so that it can be
replaced or added to and have an impact that way--whether it is
in South Texas or California--if it can be integrated.
Senator Hoeven. Right, and you have to have a way to
measure results, something that we agreed to, so you know
whether you have the right asset mix out there, the right
deployment level, and so forth, right? I mean, that is really
the way--you can have the expert tell you what you should do,
but you have to have somebody to measure what you are doing.
Mr. Colburn. Some of the metrics are easy and some of them
are not so easy, and that is what I have found in the law
enforcement world, in general. I remember speaking to an
organization in Arizona, the Arizona Association of Chiefs of
Police (AACOP), a few years ago, and at the end of my
presentation on the state of the border in Arizona, one of the
municipal chiefs of the largest municipality in Arizona raised
his hand, during the question-and-answer period and said, ``So,
Chief Colburn, when will you finally get absolute control of
your border in Yuma?'' And, I said, ``Chief, when will you
finally stop all crime in Phoenix?'' And, he thought about that
for a minute and shook his head, and said, ``Now I get it.''
Crime will never go away, and they will not stop trying.
But, we can create a deterrent stature that will stop them. We
have come a long ways.
Senator Hoeven. But, to create good policy in the whole
immigration area, we need to understand exactly what we are
doing on the border. We need to have some agreed-upon metrics,
so that everybody does not come in with a different story about
what the results are--I mean, get some kind of baseline--some
kind of agreement on what is going on. And, that is why the
metrics are a very important part of doing this.
Mr. Colburn. Yes, and you are absolutely right. They have
to be universally the same and consistently measured that way--
or they are useless.
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Mr. Colburn. And, the chiefs demand----
Senator Hoeven. And, to foster some understanding in the
public, right?
Mr. Colburn. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. We need it so that they really know what is
going on there. I think it is not only important, in terms of
national security, but also in terms of creating and building
support for good policy.
Professor, I wanted to get to you. I know I am over my
time, and we have a pretty rough Chairman on this Committee, so
I have to be careful here.
Chairman Johnson. Yes, you do.
Senator Hoeven. But, please share just a thought or two
briefly.
Mr. Garrett. OK. I want to kind of turn it around a little
bit and look at it slightly differently. Obviously, I cannot
address what they have. However, what about economic security
on the U.S. side of the border? When we escalate the trade war
or when we put the affront of the actual physical barrier--the
wall--in front of Mexicans that come over to South Texas,
California, and other
places--I can tell you, the last time the wall went up, we lost
millions in the Valley, and in terms of people coming over
directly. That is the fear this time around. In fact, the mayor
of South Padre Island is just terrified that Mexicans will not
come over this upcoming week for Santa Semana. We are going to
lose all kinds of money because of fear of coming over--because
of the rhetoric coming out from President Trump, primarily.
And also, the mayor of McAllen, he says the same thing. He
says that the effect of a trade war with Mexico would cascade
beyond lost jobs in the U.S. plants. Downtown stores would lose
business, lay off workers, and close up shop. Mexican investors
would likely sell off their U.S. properties, leading to
plummeting real estate values.
McAllen, Texas--all along the Valley--because of what has
happened since 2006, lots of Mexican nationals have bought
property on the U.S. side, along the Rio Grande--and, in
particular, about one-half of South Padre Island, which is a
resort community that depends heavily on tourism from Mexico,
half of the properties there are owned by Mexican nationals.
So, the idea is, if we terrify the Mexicans sufficiently,
it could cause a real problem for us along the Rio Grande
border.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was struck by this press release that came out from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection on March 8, which mentioned that
we saw a 40-percent drop in illegal Southwest Border crossings
from January to February. My understanding is that was far
outside normal seasonal trends. So, there is something--it is
not just
within the statistical variation. Something has changed in the
process--in the system. Typically, the January to February
change is actually an increase of 10 to 20 percent. And yet,
the numbers reported by CBP say that it was a 40-percent drop.
That breaks a 20-year trend. I am curious, Mr. Aguilar, why?
Mr. Aguilar. This has actually happened before, Senator,
and let me just update that. March 8, I believe you said it
was.
Senator Daines. Yes.
Mr. Aguilar. As of March 31--5 days ago, whatever it is--it
is actually up to a 67-percent drop, compared to last year.
Senator Daines. So these are the February numbers updated
further?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Senator Daines. OK. So, if CBP issued another press
release, you would say that they have updated the February
numbers. It was not a 40-percent drop. It is now a 67-percent
drop?
Mr. Aguilar. Right.
Senator Daines. Is that going to come out with another
release?
Mr. Aguilar. I am sure it will.
Senator Daines. OK.
Mr. Aguilar. I am sure it will. They should.
Senator Daines. My interest is even more piqued, let us
say.
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely. And, we have lived this before.
This has happened before. As it relates to immigration,
especially, when the United States stands strong and takes
certain actions--substantive actions--and substantive may be
something--as, primarily, the current Administration saying,
``We are going to do this,'' and something substantive happens
to do that. This Administration has said, ``We are going to
address illegal immigration.'' ICE has started working in the
interior--unlike other times. So, that message resonates.
The problem is that it does not hold for long, unless those
substantive actions continue. We saw this under the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), under President Reagan,
when IRCA was passed. It dropped overnight. We saw this on the
border, when we took effective actions in California. We built
infrastructure, we added Border Patrol Agents, and we threw
them in, literally, overnight. There was a shift over to
Arizona. We saw this in Arizona, when we added agents to
Nogales--we were both there--and it shifted over to New Mexico
and El Paso. But, then what happens? When you cannot maintain
that, it defaults right back to where it was.
In the Border Patrol, specifically, when we started down
the path of strategic application of resources, there were
three things that we talked about: We have to go into an area
and gain the control that is needed. Once you gain the control
that is needed by way of metrics, then you have to be able to
maintain and sustain that control--and then continue the
expansion. So, it was gain, maintain, and expand.
So, there has to be substantive actions--substantive
decisions to hold what it is that you are doing.
Senator Daines. So, what are the one or two things that we
need to do now to ensure that we do hold this--maintain, as you
said--this dramatic decrease in illegal crossings?
Mr. Aguilar. Well, what we are talking about here is
addressing the border--the needs of the border and the needs of
the Border Patrol, as identified by the current chiefs in the
field: technology, infrastructure, personnel in the right mix,
in the areas that they need it.
In addition to that--and this is a whole other hearing,
Senator Johnson. You and I have talked about this. The
supporting entities to the Border Patrol--what happens when an
unaccompanied alien child (UAC) is apprehended by the Border
Patrol--or a family unit? There has to be a system in place
where it can be handed off, so they can get right back to the
border. But, now that is not the case.
And then, our Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR) system--or immigration judges--are overwhelmed and are
docketing cases 8, 10, 15 years from now on people that need to
have immigration hearings. It is all of these things combined.
Senator Daines. So, we are here, today to talk about
physical infrastructure--a wall. Clearly, a wall and some kind
of physical barriers are a means to an end. The end is to
reduce the number of illegal crossings. If you were to
prioritize--I am going to ask all of you this question to think
about. If you were to prioritize where this Committee--where
Congress should place its efforts--because you mentioned, for
example, the backlog with judges is one part of this equation--
what would you tell us? I recognize we need to be able to do
more than just one thing at a time. But, if there were two or
three things we should prioritize in stacked, ranked order, to
reduce the number of illegal crossings, what would they be?
Mr. Aguilar. Prioritize and--this is the way I would answer
that question. Prioritize a system that can have the impact.
That
system has to begin with the Border Patrol, given the current
environment. There are things happening now that have to be
addressed. So, begin with the Border Patrol--its needs and its
requirements--and then take a look at the supporting entities
for the Border Patrol.
And, by the way, somewhere in that system--and this is up
to this body and the House of Representatives--you have to take
a look at what it is we do, from an immigration requirement, in
this country. Is it comprehensive immigration reform? All of
these things are part of that systematic approach that needs to
be taken. But, if we are going to look at the immediate border,
it is Border Patrol-centric requirements and the supporting
entities to the Border Patrol. By that, I mean ICE support, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) support, the
Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) support, and EOIR
support. That right there would be a border-centric approach
that would make a world of difference.
It is not the entire solution, by the way, because there is
so much more that needs to be done.
Senator Daines. Thank you. I am going to run out of time.
There is so much to talk about here. But, back to the topic at
hand, as it relates to physical barriers on the border, what is
left for Congress to do to get this infrastructure built?
Mr. Aguilar. Fund. Fund, appropriate, and----
Senator Daines. So, the authority exists.
Mr. Aguilar. The authority exists.
Senator Daines. We have all of the legal authority. The
constraint is funding?
Mr. Aguilar. Funding and identification from the Border
Patrol, CBP, and DHS as to what the requirements are, yes--and
fund those requirements.
Senator Daines. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
You probably all wanted to answer the top three, right?
Chairman Johnson. Go ahead and answer, but then we will cut
it at that.
Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman, I want to give everybody a
chance to----
Mr. Garrett. Can I answer?
Senator Daines. Go ahead. Mr. Colburn, do you want to
answer it as well?
Mr. Colburn. Yes, please.
Senator Daines. OK.
Mr. Garrett. I would say that we need to have a hemispheric
policy, first and foremost. We need to stem the flow of
migrants coming across. I think that is far more important than
trying to stanch the bleeding once they come into this country.
So, if we were able to use diplomacy, use resources--economic
and political--to stabilize these regimes--and, second, I would
say, to reduce drug consumption in the United States--I think
we have all touched on that today--on this side of the border,
which is a driving economic reason. So, I would give you those
as the two top things we need to do.
Senator Daines. I am very encouraged by Secretary Kelly.
When he thinks about this, he thinks as U.S. Southern Command
(SOUTHCOM) leadership. He brings a much more systemic view of
this. And, when you talk about the Southern Border, Secretary
Kelly says, ``Well, it starts 1,500 miles to the south.''
Mr. Garrett. Absolutely.
Senator Daines. The point you are making--Mr. Colburn,
please.
Mr. Colburn. Thank you. The question that you posed to us
actually I asked just recently during my comprehensive border
tour, in which I was able to get state-of-the-border briefings
by a number of chiefs--not all nine of the Southwest border
chiefs, but most of them. And, every one of them said
relatively the same thing
in speculation. There is historically--predictably--a surge in
crossings come January--or mid-January forward, if you look
back decades--and yet that did not occur this year.
Senator Daines. Right.
Mr. Colburn. They said that they thought there was actually
a psychological impact--that there is this symbolic holding of
one's breath by the transnational criminal organizations and by
the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and
Honduras, because of the new Administration in place--and that
it does not mean that they will not at some point decide, ``OK,
I think we can continue plying our illegal trade.'' But, there
is this, I will call it, ``symbolic'' or ``symptomatic''
holding of one's breath corporately across the organizations--
and they have slowed down. They are watching and waiting to see
if Congress, the American people, and the Administration have
the will to follow through with completing it. And, if we do,
then we may see this as a continuing down trend of crossings--
deterrence.
Senator Daines. There are early reasons for hope right now,
but I know many Americans are just so frustrated by this
fundamental lack of enforcing the rule of law. And, perhaps,
that change in tone and tenor will be it--again, it is a
complicated system. We have talked about it at length. There
are multiple variables here. But, let us just say that I think
we are off to a better start.
Mr. Colburn. If I may--sorry--another thought occurred to
me just now. Something else that is historically unprecedented
has occurred over the last 2 years, where Mexico deported more
Central Americans--from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--
than the United States did. That is very symbolic. My personal
history with Mexico is sending teams to train those protectors,
Grupo Beta, the rescuers. It was always easier to call the
Mexican people and their government leadership as a
constituency--it is always to provide support from the United
States of America's government when it is saving lives and
rescuing people. So, we always started that way with Grupo Beta
and rescuing.
But, actually, the late Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
I believe his name was Nemesio Lugo, who has since been
assassinated by the cartels, turned to me over lunch one day
and said, ``We have a real problem on the Southern Border
because they are remaining in Mexico and looking for work in
Mexico instead of going forward.'' So, Mexico is beginning to
experience the economic drive
that--there are seven billion people in the world, and five
billion of them want to come to America, because of that
economic drive. And, Mexico is beginning to experience that,
too.
So, I think we can continue to partner with them and the
other countries, and as General Kelly said, ``It starts beyond
our borders.''
Senator Daines. Thank you for your candid and insightful
comments today. Much appreciated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Daines.
I would just summarize kind of what I am hearing. Dr.
Garrett, you said to ``stem the flow.'' Overall, I think you
have to end the incentives for illegal immigration. There is a
host of them: our insatiable demand for drugs--I mean the fact
that people are coming here for the opportunities in America--
so have a functioning guest worker program. I would say to end
the length of the adjudication problem, which is incentivizing
children from Central America to take the very dangerous
journey. We had a surge of flow from Brazil, and Secretary
Chertoff sent those folks right back, and it ended the flow.
So, I think you focus your attention on how you stop the
incentives for illegal immigration.
I just have one final point and a question, because Dr.
Garrett talked a little bit about the reduction in crime in the
border cities. In Wisconsin, Al Capone had a really nice
vacation spot on an island, and he did not create a whole lot
of crime up there. He wanted to keep law enforcement's
attention off of him. And, as I have been on the border and I
have talked to sheriffs, that is kind of their explanation,
too. I was actually surprised that there is not a whole lot of
crime at the border--again, they really do not want law
enforcement paying a whole lot of attention to what they are
doing in those towns. I would just ask Mr. Aguilar and Mr.
Colburn: Is that an accurate assessment?
Mr. Aguilar. The sheriffs know their areas, but I lived the
chaotic borders of the late 1980s, early 1990s, and so forth.
Crime was rampant. Crime was absolutely rampant. There was
everything from stolen vehicles--Senator Hoeven asked about
metrics. One of the metrics that we actually used, which may
sound a little ridiculous--but it was things we were watching.
Ladies could not put clothing out to dry in their backyards
because it was stolen. When that stopped happening, we said,
``Wow, something is happening here.'' Merchants could not keep
their doors open to their stores, because the smugglers were
taking over the stores. That is a localized metric.
The associated criminal activity with an uncontrolled
border is very high. Breakings into homes--into ranchers'
homes--these things went on and on and on.
Chairman Johnson. So, what happened? Why is crime reduced
then?
Mr. Aguilar. The increase in personnel--Border Patrol
personnel--the increase in infrastructure, and the increase in
technology. Those are the things that, basically, lowered the
criminal activity.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Colburn, do you want to chime in on
that at all?
Mr. Colburn. I will just add that I remember 30 years ago
patrolling the border--and I was the new guy as a supervisor,
who had just arrived in 1 of my 10 duty stations. And, as we
were patrolling the border, we came across what I would
describe now as a palatial estate, with high walls around it,
on the U.S. side, just within view of the border. And, as we
drove by, the journeyman veteran agent that was riding with me
said, ``Yes, that is the house that dope built.'' A lot of
those groups that are investing in America are the cartels. A
major shootout in San Diego a few months ago was cartel on
cartel in a bedroom neighborhood.
So, part of the risk, of course, is as they are killing
each other in Mexico, and right across from McAllen, Texas, in
the Rio Grande Valley, South Texas, some of the most violent
warfare-like fighting is going on, as we speak--where gun
battles last 8, 10, or 12 hours overnight, blockading and
burning vehicles----
Chairman Johnson. Which, by the way, is exactly what we
hear from the people on the border. They are hearing all that
gunfire and they are hearing those battles.
Mr. Colburn. Most of what I get--I am still a member of
the--as a private citizen and consultant in retirement from the
Border Patrol, I am a member of the intelligence and
information community, but I get open-source information. And,
what is going on in Mexico--the violence of the cartels makes
the Colombians of the 1980s look like amateurs. It makes the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Taliban look
like amateurs. That is how brutal they are. It is almost a
contest to see who can out-brutalize each other.
Chairman Johnson. I do not even want to mention the
brutality I have heard.
Dr. Garrett, we will let you close it out here.
Mr. Garrett. OK. So, in Brownsville--UTB, our campus, has
actually been hit by three bullet rounds, but they were from
the Mexican Army, in a shootout. We were actually in an
academic affairs committee meeting when Tony Tormenta of the
Gulf Cartel, was taken out by the Mexican military. The Mexican
military has been very instrumental, in terms of battling the
groups very violently. That is where the violence is taking
place. It is not taking place over on the U.S. side primarily.
Most of it is in Mexico, unfortunately.
Chairman Johnson. Again, I will attribute that to--I will
call it the ``Al Capone syndrome.''
Senator McCaskill, do you have anything else?
Senator McCaskill. No.
Chairman Johnson. Again, I want to thank the witnesses. I
think this has been an incredibly interesting hearing--again,
our 22nd. We are going to keep laying out these realities, and
I appreciate you contributing to that effort.
The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until April
19 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for
the record. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]