U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–365 PDF 2005

SECURING OUR BORDERS: WHAT HAVE WE

LEARNED FROM GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES

AND CITIZEN PATROLS?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 12, 2005

Serial No. 109–24

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 12, 2005 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Bonner, Robert C., Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ..................................................... 30

Bonner, T.J., president, National Border Patrol Council, accompanied

by Daryl Schermerhorn, regional vice president, National Border Patrol

Council; Chris Simcox, co-founder, the Minuteman Project; and Janice

Kephart, former counsel, the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks

Upon the United States ................................................................................ 73

Bonner, T.J. ............................................................................................... 73

Kephart, Janice ......................................................................................... 96

Simcox, Chris ............................................................................................. 82

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Bonner, Robert C., Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, prepared statement of .............. 33

Bonner, T.J., president, National Border Patrol Council, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 75

Brown-Waite, Hon. Ginny, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 69

Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 144

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 52

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 4

Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 146

Kephart, Janice, former counsel, the National Commission of Terrorist

Attacks Upon the United States, prepared statement of .......................... 98

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio:

Letter dated March 8, 2005 ...................................................................... 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

McHenry, Hon. Patrick T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of North Carolina, prepared statement of ................................................... 63

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 148

Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Maryland, prepared statement of .................................................. 8

Sanchez, Hon. Linda T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 129

Simcox, Chris, co-founder, the Minuteman Project, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 84

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 13

Van Hollen, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 126

Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., a Representative in Congress from the

State of Georgia, prepared statement of ..................................................... 149

(1)

SECURING OUR BORDERS: WHAT HAVE WE

LEARNED FROM GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES

AND CITIZEN PATROLS?

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Gutknecht, Souder, Duncan, Brown-Waite, Marchant, Westmoreland, McHenry, Dent,

Cummings, Kucinich, Van Hollen, Sanchez, Ruppersberger, and

Norton.

Staff present: Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Jennifer Safavian,

chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Anne Marie Turner

and Jim Moore, counsels; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Brian Stout, professional

staff member; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D’Orsie, deputy

clerk; Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Andrew James,

staff assistant; Tony Haywood, minority counsel; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Good afternoon. We are here today to discuss border security.

This hearing has been a long time in the making, as it builds on

the committee’s 2 years of extensive oversight of Customs and Border Protection [CBP], including numerous committee trips to the

southern border and a subcommittee hearing in Arizona.

Ensuring the integrity of our Nation’s borders has always been

important, but since September 11, 2001, it has become essential.

The primary obligation of any government is the safety and security of its citizens, and to fulfill that obligation, we must first be

able to prevent those individuals who seek to do us harm from entering the United States. Our concern is not naive or misplaced. In

addition to the ongoing threat of criminals engaged in human or

drug trafficking, recent congressional testimony from the Department of Homeland Security [DHS], has highlighted intelligence reports suggesting that al Qaeda is considering using the southwest

border to infiltrate the United States.

Concern for the integrity and control of our borders is far from

new, especially along the southern border. This area has long been

targeted by the Federal Government for enhanced security due to

the overwhelming volume of illegal crossings. In 1993, a study comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\21365.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

missioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy concluded

that the southwest border was being overrun, estimating that 6,000

individuals attempted to enter the United States illegally every

night along a 71⁄2 mile stretch of the San Diego border.

As a result, the Southwest Border Strategy was created, calling

for additional personnel, equipment, and infrastructure improvements. The strategy also involved multi-year operations, such as

Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, Operation Hold the Line in El

Paso, Operation Rio Grande in McAllen, and Operation Safeguard

in Tucson to target the most vulnerable and most heavily trafficked

border areas at that time.

More recently, on March 16, 2004, in response to the continuing

high levels of apprehensions in the Tucson sector, CBP launched

the Arizona Border Control [ABC], Initiative, which just recently

moved into phase 2. ABC seeks to coordinate Federal, State and

local authorities to control the Arizona border by detecting, arresting and deterring anyone seeking to enter the country illegally. The

initiative seeks to increase the use of technology and the number

of ‘‘boots on the ground’’ to establish a benchmark for resource allocations and commitments in order to gain operational control of the

Arizona border.

Despite all of the work of Legacy INS and CBP through these

various initiatives, the fact remains that we do not yet have operational control of our borders. These operations have been successful in increasing the number of apprehensions at those targeted

areas of our border. It does not appear, however, that we have been

able to translate the lessons learned into a comprehensive plan

that shuts down our borders to illegal traffic. In fact, we currently

do not even have complete visibility and awareness, there are

many points along our borders where the Federal Government is

effectively blind.

Recently, citizens frustrated by the number of individuals entering our country illegally on the southern border have begun to

band together and start their own citizen patrols. During the

month of April, the Minuteman Project announced the placement

of 857 volunteers along the Arizona border. The project claims their

efforts resulted in the apprehension by the Border Patrol of 335 individuals illegally crossing the border, and we will hear more about

their efforts today.

Officials within DHS have repeatedly stated that we are moving

in the right direction, and I have no doubt that we are. The concern of this committee, and many others in Congress, and the

American public, is the pace and the efficiency of the effort to make

progress. We need to move beyond broad policy statements and get

down to the facts. How will we know when we have achieved operational control of our borders? How many boots on the ground and

cameras in the sky will it take to get there? What are the funding

requirements going to be?

Congress needs to hear the hard truths about the state of the

border so that we know what we must do to achieve our mission.

We need to move beyond discrete initiatives and take what we

have learned to create an effective, agile, layered and comprehensive border security strategy.

3

There is not only great urgency in addressing these needs, but

a vital requirement that we do this right. Therefore, we must not

only work harder and faster, but smarter. Technology applications

such as sensors, cameras, blimps and unmanned aerial vehicles

have the ability to serve as force multipliers, and there is no question we need more of it.

Let me also say this is not the time or the forum to point fingers.

Debates about immigration policy have no place in this discussion.

Whether you favor a more permissive or restrictive stance on immigration, a functioning and structurally sound border is the basic

building block of any workable policy.

We hope to learn today about technological advances and infrastructure improvements that CBP is currently implementing at the

border. We also hope to learn some answers to the question of

whether CBP is adequately staffing and training agents at the border.

Finally, we hope to address the public’s growing concerns about

the capability and the will of the Federal Government to establish

operational control of the southern border.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

4

5

6

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I now recognize Mr. Ruppersberger for an

opening statement.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this

important hearing.

First, protecting our borders must be our No. 1 priority with respect to our national security. We must do everything we can to

stop illegal immigration.

We are here today to talk about our borders and if we are doing

enough to keep our country secure. We are also going to discuss the

actions of private citizens and their efforts to protect our borders.

We all know, the drug dealers know, the terrorists know that our

borders are a sieve. This is a serious concern, and I know that the

Members in the border States have been working on this issue for

awhile. We must look for more agents on the border. We need better technology, and we need a more comprehensive solution.

The question is how we stop illegal immigration. In my opinion,

the only way to stop illegal immigration is to have the manpower

or the boots on the ground to patrol and stop the crossings.

I have introduced legislation to add an additional 2,000 agents

per year for the next 5 years to our borders. That is 10,000 agents

in total. Manpower and boots on the ground is an important tool

to fill the gaps in our border. I would also suggest a comprehensive

border solution where we bring DEA, border agents, customs, CIA,

FBI, and NSA into an interagency task force like we have with the

JTTF, which is a Joint Terrorism Task Force to fight terrorism, or

the Joint Interagency Task Force in Key West that fights drug

shipments.

While that is what we are focusing on in Congress, and hopefully

in our law enforcement, we need to look at what the citizens are

doing. There has been an issue with the Minutemen, and some people are concerned that they might be considered vigilantes. There

are other people who think they are doing the job.

My former job when I was a Baltimore County executive, we had

citizens on patrol, and these were volunteers that worked with police and the only equipment they had were microphones. They were

eyes and ears. They were not involved in any arrests. They worked

tremendously. Whenever we had a citizens on patrol in a neighborhood that had a serious crime problem, crime dropped. One of the

most important issues with the citizens on patrol, as we need to do

with the Minutemen, is that they need to be managed properly.

They need to be managed properly by law enforcement who have

the jurisdiction on the border. Law enforcement needs to know

what they are doing at all times and that they have an agenda because everyone needs a boss, and we have to have that accountability.

My concern is we have well-meaning people with the Minutemen,

but one person who steps out of line and creates a vigilante-type

situation could hurt the entire program. It is management at the

top and making sure that they know what they are supposed to do

and that the people in charge are always there and working with

them. They can be a tremendous asset and tool. They can be eyes

and ears because we do not have enough people working on our

border patrol to deal with this entire problem.

7

We must as a country focus on this issue. We need to remove the

fear and politicization of the issue out of Congress. For too many

years, Congress has used immigration as a tool for votes without

much action and without real solutions. Because of that, people

have sought to fix a problem where there should be a solution to

this issue of illegal immigration. We need to stop abrogating our

role in Congress, and we need to fund more Border Patrol agents

and get more technology on the border. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger follows:]

8

9

10

11

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. We have the chairman of the

Subcommittee on Drug Policy, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you and the ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for holding this hearing discussing the

critical issue of securing our borders.

As chairman of the subcommittee charged with oversight of all

drug control programs, as well as an original member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am very familiar with the challenges of securing our borders.

My subcommittee has focused extensively on narcotics smuggling

activities across the borders. And in July 2002, we issued a comprehensive congressional report which discussed the challenges

about which you will be hearing today.

The southwest border remains a primary conduit of illegal drugs

into our country. With up to three-quarters of the narcotics coming

across it, the problem is not going away. Drug seizures here have

risen significantly during this decade, even as they fell in other

parts of the country. It seems almost every week, law enforcement

agents discover huge shipments of drugs in this area.

Drug smuggling and related crime have taken a toll on the environment and the quality of life for local residents, besides presenting a threat to the entire Nation. According to the Centers for Disease Control, preliminary estimates for 2003, over 25,000 Americans died of drug-related causes. To put this in perspective, we

have never lost this many Americans annually to a post World War

II military or terrorist campaign. This staggering statistic is significant when we consider that we have lost over 1,500 brave Americans in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom began, accounting for

less than 3 percent of those lost to drugs over the same period of

time. We have lost more Americans to drugs than were killed in

all terrorist acts to date.

Therefore, it is vitally important that we maintain vigorous efforts to control the sources and supplies for narcotics as we attempt

to secure our borders. The Department of Homeland Security is an

absolutely crucial player in our efforts to secure the borders. When

Congress created the department in 2002, it combined some of the

most important border security agencies in the Federal Government: The Border Patrol agents, the former INS and Customs inspectors, the Customs special agents, the former Customs pilots,

represent America’s front line against smugglers and drug traffickers.

Although there are certainly other Federal agencies with vital

roles in our fight to achieve some type of border control, the Department of Homeland Security and specifically CBP, is largely responsible for manning the front lines in this mission. Without

them, we would have little or no defense against the smugglers,

people or drugs at our borders. Thus, it is vitally important that

these agencies remain focused and adaptive to various threats as

they attempt to secure the borders and that they be provided the

tools and authority to do their jobs. Several issues have arisen,

however, that need to be addressed to ensure that DHS remains on

track in the struggle to secure our borders and protect against drug

trafficking.

12

In particular, Congress and the administration need to work together to ensure that the structures and procedures at the Department reflect the importance of border security and counternarcotics. No one doubts the individuals currently serving at the

department have a strong personal commitment. In particular, Mr.

Bonner here today, to controlling the borders and stopping drug

trafficking, but we need to make sure that over the long term, the

Department is institutionally committed to these challenges.

The first and foremost obvious issue is what is the plan? Does

CBP have a strategic plan to address border security, a comprehensive, layered interagency plan to address border security? If we do

not have a comprehensive idea of what we want to achieve, which

threats we need to address and which agencies will lead, then we

cannot believe our border security efforts will be successful. For example, at present there are two entities within CBP that have substantial air and/or marine operations, the Office of Air and Marine

Operations [AMO], and the Border Patrol. These entities do not

communicate with each other on a systematic basis about their

fights or marine operations, even when they overlap with respect

to mission and their geographic area. This has created a significant

problem with duplication of effort and a safety issue for the pilots

and boat operators involved. Additional issues of intelligence sharing, coordinated investigations and operational deconfliction must

be addressed if CBP is to maximize its effectiveness along the borders and against drug traffickers.

As the gentleman with us today fully knows, I think that is an

artificial distinction and ICE and CBP need to be combined, and

we will continue on that mission as long as I am in this position

and until it is recognized. And Department of Homeland Security

and everybody in the field knows it, and most of the leaders know

it. We just need to get this done. I am concerned that although

surge operations, as we have just seen, may be temporarily successful in controlling a portion of the land border, we may be at the

same time permitting gaping holes somewhere else in the arrival

zone.

At a recent hearing in my subcommittee, we heard about critical

shortages of marine patrol aircraft to support known drug smuggling activities in the maritime transit zones. Are we giving up our

transit zones to secure the Arizona border? Are we catching the little fish and missing the big ones? We need to closely examine how

well the multiple agencies charged with border security responsibilities are coordinating their efforts with each other and with their

State and local law enforcement partners. We know we still lack

adequate technologies and integrated information systems to maximize our efforts. We are working toward that goal. It is my hope

at this hearing we will learn what steps Department of Homeland

Security and CBP are taking to improve agency cooperation and security in securing our borders.

I also hope to hear about what new initiatives CBP agencies

have put in place to stay ahead of the smugglers and traffickers.

These issues are all very important and extremely urgent. We look

forward to hearing from our witnesses today about ways to address

them. I thank everybody for taking time for this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

13

14

15

16

Chairman TOM DAVIS. All members will have 5 days to include

statements for the record.

Our first witness has a time limit. I know Mr. Kucinich wanted

to say something.

Mr. KUCINICH. I will be brief out of deference to the Chair’s concern about the witness’ time.

I will ask that my opening statement be included in the record.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. KUCINICH. The questions we are talking about dealing with

border security also involve cases which reflect major deficiencies

on the part of our government’s investigation of custom and border

violations. I want to cite two quickly.

First of all, how U.S. Customs handles an investigation of slave

labor allegations regarding a product that we import into the

United States. And as you know, importing products made with

slave labor has been illegal since 1930. Allegations of slave labor

used in the production of pig iron in the state of Brazil came out

in the summer of 2002 as the United States reportedly imports 92

percent of the pig iron produced in Brazil, most of which is produced in Podda. It is probable that this importation violates section

1307 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930. I sent a letter to U.S. Customs

asking which actions have been taken in response to this violation

of law. I got a response back that says that the Amazon basin in

Brazil is in a remote area where the majority of the roads are only

accessible by way of four-wheel drive vehicles. They cannot investigate it, but for some reason, pig iron can get carried out but our

investigators cannot get in.

Finally, there is another case that involves the presence of an

international terrorist, Luis Posada Correas, who has been in the

United States, it is my understanding, for 6 weeks. He crossed the

border illegally. He has arrived clandestinely in our country, and

apparently in violation of many national laws. I would just like to

point that out as you get into the hearing to talk about the work

of U.S. Customs and the Border Patrol.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

[The information referred to follows:]

25

26

27

28

29

30

Chairman TOM DAVIS. All opening statements by Members will

be included for the record.

Our first witness today is the Honorable Robert C. Bonner, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department

of Homeland Security.

It is our policy that all witnesses be sworn.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Your entire testimony is part of the

record.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BONNER, COMMISSIONER, U.S.

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. I would like to make a brief

opening statement and frame some of the issues that I see with respect to our border patrol security situation.

Let me begin by saying, as I think all of you know, this is National Police Memorial Week, and I came this morning from CBP

headquarters where we honored the sacrifice of CBP Border Patrol

agents, three of whom were killed in the line of duty this past year.

It is always a poignant time of the year when we pause to acknowledge the contributions and sacrifices of our law enforcement officers and their families, the sacrifices they make to protection our

Nation and protect our borders.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before the committee

today to discuss U.S. Customs and border protection, and in particular, what it is doing to better secure our borders. I mean, all

of our ports of entry, and between those official ports of entry or

official crossing points along the Mexican and the Canadian border.

In the post September 11 era and the era of global terrorism, securing our borders is not only a matter of national sovereignty, it

is a matter of national security.

As the chairman suggested, in the age of global terrorism, control

of our borders is essential.

A little over 2 years, the personnel and all of the front line border agencies of the U.S. Government were unified into one agency

and that is U.S. Customs and border protection, one of the principal operational agencies of the Department of Homeland Security.

With 42,000 employees, it represents nearly one-fourth of all personnel of the Department of Homeland Security. CBP’s priority

mission is homeland security, of course, and specifically that means

keeping terrorist and terrorist weapons from getting into the

United States, but we also continue to perform some traditional

missions, and that includes everything from interdicting and seizing illegal drugs to arresting and apprehending smugglers of drugs

and people, to apprehending people that are illegally entering the

United States.

As the Nation’s single front line border agency, for the first time

in our Nation’s history, we are able to develop and implement a

comprehensive national strategy for securing our borders between

our ports of entry. As part of that overall strategy, you have asked

me to talk about a part of it, which is the new national border conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\21365.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
31

trol strategy for controlling our borders. That strategy deals with

between our ports of entry.

Let me say this, the strategic goal of the National Border Patrol

strategy, and it has never had one before it came over to CBP, the

strategic goal is nothing less than operational control of our borders.

The new Border Patrol strategy does build upon prior Border Patrol initiatives, everything from Operation Gatekeeper and Hold

the Line, but it goes beyond those concepts. It focuses on five key

objectives. One is centralized command over all of the 20 sectors of

the Border Patrol, something that did not exist when the Border

Patrol was part of the INS.

Second, it focuses on the need for technology to better detect all

illegal intrusions across our borders.

Third, it talks about the capability of the Border Patrol to rapidly

respond to those intrusions.

Fourth, it contemplates a defensive strategy that is lateral to interior check points as well as transit areas coming away from our

border.

And five, and this is probably the most important, adequate

numbers of well-trained Border Patrol agents.

Recognizing the old adage that the chain is as strong as its

weakest link, we have strengthened security at our ports of entry,

our official crossings, and we are increasing our efforts between

those ports of entry, including at the very weakest parts of our

land border, and that is the Arizona border with Mexico. It is the

weakest because last year, 52 percent of all of the 1.1 million illegal aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol crossing into our country were apprehended in Arizona, crossing the Arizona border.

That is close to 600,000 illegal aliens apprehended in Arizona

alone.

Arizona has three primary corridors that illegal aliens and smugglers of drugs use to get either drugs or people into the United

States. One is the west desert corridor, the other is the NogalesDouglas corridor, and the other is the Yuma corridor. The first

phase of the Arizona Border Control Initiative was focused primarily on the west desert corridor.

We did achieve some of our objectives last year with the Arizona

Border Control Initiative in terms of increased numbers of arrests,

reduced numbers of people illegally entering through that corridor,

reduced numbers of deaths in the desert, decreased crime, and decreased damage to the environment, but we did not achieve operational control.

Two months ago on March 25, we launched the second phase of

the Arizona Border Control Initiative, which is a full court press

to reduce the number of illegal aliens crossing our border into Arizona and to reduce the illegal activity at our borders, concentrating

first in the west desert corridor. Our aim is to gain operational control of the Arizona border, and to do that by putting more boots on

the ground and that is directing the deployment of 534 more Border Patrol agents to the Arizona sectors. We immediately deployed

in March 200 additional Border Patrol agents on a TDY basis, so

we have more boots on the ground.

32

We have doubled the number of aircraft operating in Arizona for

air surveillance purposes and rapid air response. We have interior

check points along the highway and are interdicting laterally from

those check points. Border Patrol disrupt units are working with

ICE investigators to disrupt the organizations that illegally smuggle aliens into the United States, and we are using the Border Patrol’s new centralized command structure to rapidly deploy additional resources when and where they are needed to address the

hottest and weakest spots on that border.

Just 2 months into the second phase, we are seeing results. Just

last month in Arizona, the Border Patrol arrested 79,000 illegal

aliens crossing the border in Arizona. Including about 2,000 of

whom were nationalities other than Mexican. Yesterday alone in

Arizona, the Border Patrol apprehended 1,670 illegal aliens. Just

a brief comment on the Minutemen Project and the topic that will

be addressed certainly by your next panel.

Last month, citizen volunteers stationed themselves along a 23-

mile stretch of the Arizona border to help stop illegal aliens crossing our border from Mexico. The Minutemen brought significant

media attention to an extremely important national issue. The actions of the Minutemen were well motivated, and we all know, saying that, that law enforcement is a very dangerous profession and

that border environment is a dangerous environment. We are

grateful there were incidents. There were no acts of vigilantism,

and that is a tribute to the organizers of the Minutemen Project.

Mr. Chairman, we are not going to control our borders overnight,

and it is not easy. I believe we have a sound strategy, a good operational plan, and with sustained enforcement efforts and sufficient

resources, we can and will gain control of our Nation’s borders.

This is not an impossible task. It is doable and we need to do it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robert C. Bonner follows:]

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Commissioner Bonner, you said the Border Patrol will need more agents, but you have not said how many

more, in addition to what I think is currently about 11,000. In testimony before the 9/11 Commission, former INS Commissioner

Ziglar testified that 31,700 Border Patrol agents were needed to

carry out enforcement. Do you have an opinion on his estimate?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I have not had a chance to talk to Jim

Ziglar to hear how he arrived at that figure.

But let me say, we need more Border Patrol agents. There is no

question about that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Would you say a lot more?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Certainly we are talking about two things.

It is not all about agents. It is also about getting the optimal technology to detect interdictions and getting those agents and having

the capability of rapid response to intrusions across our borders. If

we had optimal technology, we are certainly talking about an increase in the numbers of agents. It is, I would say, in the thousands. I cannot go further. We worked up a number. I am addressing that through the appropriate channels through the Department

of Homeland Security. We do have an idea based upon the optimal

level of detection technology the number that is needed, but I don’t

feel comfortable at this point given the need to further brief and

discuss this with Secretary Chertoff, who is very much aware and

on top of this issue in the very short time he has been at the Department of Homeland Security as Secretary.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Ruppersberger talked about the

neighbors on patrol in his opening statement that they used in Baltimore County. In my county, we have neighborhood watch where

citizens can volunteer. They work with the police. They are not

working contrary to them. It is an adjunct to the police, adding

more eyes and ears. They do not have arresting power. They are

not posse comitatus. Do you have any role for that, where you have

people coming forward and volunteering? Have we thought about

utilizing that in any way, shape or form?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Yes. The Border Patrol, and we continue

to value the support of citizens. These are the eyes and ears of the

Border Patrol along the border. This is particularly important in

what I would call the thinly or more rural parts of the border

which are the ones that are the most difficult to control. The Border Patrol has made significant progress in gaining greater control,

not perfect control. These tend to be areas along some of the larger

urban areas.

In a nutshell, the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection,

we value citizen help. We value having citizens that are eyes and

ears to tell us when there is suspicious activity. The question

would be is there a way to let us say better and more effectively

harness the citizen volunteers?

That is something that we are looking at. I don’t have the answer, but we want any kind of force multiplier we can get. But the

border is a dangerous area. We want to be able to provide at least

some insights, possibly even training to any citizens that are volunteering to go down.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We use volunteers for fire service and a

lot of other public service safety areas as well. We are going to hear

46

from people who have been there. It is important that you channel

them appropriately. It sounds like you are thinking this through.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. We think it is worthy to consider how this

might be done.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I am concerned that we are not using the

best capability in our UAV technology to protect the southwest border. We should not be using drones that lack the satellite capability to fly beyond the line of sight missions required to reach the

most remote areas, such as the west desert areas of Arizona. Can

you give us, make available to the committee the results from the

UAV tests from the southwest border?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I am sure that we can work with the committee on that subject. We deployed a UAV last year on a pilot

basis in Arizona. By the way, the jury is out on this a bit. We think

that the UAV or something equivalent to the UAV could play an

important role in terms of continuous aerial border surveillance,

which would allow us to take Border Patrol agents doing surveillance duty on a static deployment basis and allow them to be part

of a rapid response capability to detect and move—not detect, but

to move against detected apprehension. We are moving forward on

essentially——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Do you have a time line for that?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. In terms of talking to our procurement people or getting something else in place, and by the way, I am as anxious to move forward on this as anybody here, but I would say

right now we are hopeful, just given the procurement process, to

have something selected, if you will, by around August. There could

be some slippage in that. But that is how long my procurement

people say it is going to take. We would hope to have something

deployed by September, something up in the air. That is our goal.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bonner, are you familiar with correspondence that you received relative to slave labor occurring in the power state in Brazil

from my office?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I am not as I sit here, Mr. Kucinich. I

heard you talk about the situation in Brazil. I am not specifically

familiar with the details of the potential use of slave labor for the

manufacture of pig iron in Brazil.

Mr. KUCINICH. I sent two letters, and I am going to ask staff to

provide copies to Mr. Bonner, one is dated September 24, 2004, and

one dated May 4, 2005. In response to the letter in September, I

got a reply from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

which among other things, said that the Amazon basins in Brazil,

where the majority of these violations take place, the roads are

only accessible by four-wheel-drive vehicles.

I am calling this to your attention, Mr. Bonner, because there

have been widespread reports about people working as slave laborers in Brazil, particularly with respect to the power region. Reports

have surfaced that indicate that the United States is directly benefiting from the proceeds of slavery, that 92 percent of the pig iron

produced in the forest is exported to U.S. mills, and much of the

smelting is done by forced labor which contravenes section 1307 of

the U.S. tariff act of 1930. You are familiar with 1307.

47

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I am familiar with the law on that subject,

yes, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. Information which has been brought forward suggests there is a violation that has occurred. Is Customs looking the

other way at slave labor in Brazil because it is benefiting U.S. interests?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. It is not, but you use the word ‘‘Customs.’’

There is no U.S. Customs any more. The DHS reorganization, they

took essentially the investigators that had been in Customs and

put them in an entity called ICE. That is why it was not me that

responded to you.

Mr. KUCINICH. ICE has enforcement?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. They have the investigators, and the overseas attaches.

Mr. KUCINICH. Is enforcement on ICE?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. It is a shared responsibility. I have part of

the responsibility here, but if you are talking about investigating

overseas, it is totally ICE. I have no attaches in Brazil. ICE does.

I have no attaches any place in the world. The investigative

responsibility——

Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying you have no responsibility for

these matters whatsoever?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. We do have responsibility. When ICE tells

us there is a shipment of pig iron that is as a result of slave labor,

we seize it. We depend upon getting information from ICE to enforce the laws that are made against products made with child

labor. We do that and we are serious about doing it, but we are

dependent on getting that information from some investigative

agency, and that is ICE principally.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you familiar with whether any materials, pig

iron from the power region of Brazil, have ever been interdicted,

any shipments ever blocked by Customs?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Customs and Border Protection now at the

ports of entry. As I sit here, no.

Mr. KUCINICH. Do you have any interest in this at all?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Yes, I have an interest. I will followup with

ICE and Mr. Garcia, who is the head of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, who has the investigators. I will personally followup

with him for you.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would like to do that, because according to the

information I have, in this one particular area, 534 rural workers

were reported as killed in the last 30 years until 2001. That is 26

times the national homicide average.

U.S. Customs, when they are asked to comment on a story about

a guardian, say, there was no one familiar with the problem available to comment. I trust as a result of this hearing, you will become familiar with the problem enough to give us a report?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I will be happy to. But I want to say on

March 1, 2003, U.S. Customs was split. The investigators were

split out of Customs into ICE.

Mr. KUCINICH. To the extent that you can be responsible for any

of this, will you?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Absolutely. I will followup with you on

this.

48

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you. The next question is with respect to

Luis Posada Correas. Are you familiar with him being in this country?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I have heard that he is in this country.

Mr. KUCINICH. Is he in this country illegally?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I am not sure we know for sure how he entered the United States.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you interested in how he entered?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Of course.

Mr. KUCINICH. Will you find out whether he is in this country

illegally?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I said I will undertake to see if I can get

that information.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. First, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio for

pointing out the almost silliness of separating ICE from the border,

because it is ridiculous to have one group watching the border but

not be able to followup. I hope as they reorganize that Mr. Bonner,

who knows full well these challenges, will be given more authority

to figure out how this interrelates. We even have the air and marine divisions in Colombia and inside, and this clearly, and I know

the Department is looking at it right now, and they need to look

at it aggressively.

I have a couple of things in the line of questioning. Two basic

parts. One directly relates to the Arizona surge. I would like some

idea of how many additional people came through Texas and California while we were moving assets from all over the country for

an Arizona surge. I was in Texas at the time, and saw assets

moved. I was in California at the time and saw assets moved. To

some degree you even had to move assets to watch the Minutemen.

To some degree, while it has the great advantage of focusing attention on the problem, it was relatively counterproductive if what

we do, and particularly, when these things are announced, they

just moved to another area. It is not like we were fixing either with

the surge or with the Minutemen Project. I held hearings at Sells.

I saw hundreds myself moving through. Unless we in Congress

deal with a reasonable immigration policy and start to address

this, your agents are overwhelmed. It is impossible to picket fence

this whole border. We have to get the coyotes and the networks,

and not overreact to every media story.

We held hearings in Douglas and Nogales. I held hearings in

California, multiple places on the Texas border. This problem is not

just Arizona, it is across the board and we have to have a comprehensive backup network. We have to follow as they move in and

see where they are hitting the road and networking like it is a

trucking company. We need to make sure that the drugs and terrorist networks are inside that.

In my original statement, and you responded by saying you had

a Border Patrol strategy. My question was broader. Is Homeland

Security going to coordinate, FBI, DEA? Are you going to get the

Coast Guard involved? Are you going to have a comprehensive border strategy?

49

Second, you did not mention information sharing. We are proliferating the intelligence. Each agency wants its sub area of intelligence. How is this going to be coordinated so we do not have everybody in 10 meetings figuring out how to talk to each other? How

can we coordinate this?

Third, NORTHCOM is looking at getting this in a big way. One

of the fundamental questions here is: Is Department of Homeland

Security going to get organized enough to merge the border and the

ICE people and get this coordinated, or do we have to move it over

to the Department of Defense and NORTHCOM, and have them be

the coordinator of intelligence and use the Guard and so on. I appreciate all of the time you have given me to talk with you about

this. But I want to get on the record some of your thoughts as well.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. You have raised some extremely broad

issues, Mr. Souder. First of all, there is a broad strategy for the

front line border that is not just the Border Patrol strategy. It also

includes all of our official crossing points, so we do have a comprehensive strategy to keep things that we do not want in our

country out. Whether that is illegal drugs or potential terrorist

operatives. Everything we do and have done to improve our posture

on the border to be able to better perform our homeland security

mission, keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out, improves our

ability to keep illegal drugs and drug smugglers out as well.

That said, you touched upon an issue of great importance and

that is, how do we get the best information to our front line border

agency to allow them to respond in the best and most effective way.

You have been to the border.

We seized 2.1 million pounds of illegal drugs on our border. We

are paying attention to this issue. On the other hand, 99 percent

of those seizures were cold hits. Those were as a result of hard

work by front line CBP officers at the ports of entry, across the

southwest border mainly, JFK and Miami, but mainly the southwest border, and Border Patrol agents between the ports of entry.

We could do better if we could organize our intelligence better to

get intelligence and information to our front line Border Patrol personnel, CBP, so we are interdicting more of those drugs based upon

intelligence like we are doing right now in the east pack, like we

are doing right now with air and marine assets of CBP in the

source and transit zone because most of those seizures are intelligence QTs. So we have to do this at the border. It means getting

DEA and ICE. It means the right people at the table that is providing this feedback information to our front line border agency.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing on border security.

The tragic events of September 11 forced our country to acknowledge that border security must address more than just the significant challenges of drug trafficking and illegal immigration, but also

the savagery of terrorism.

This hard-learned lesson demands that we effectively secure our

borders. At the same time, we must hold fast to the values of hope,

diversity and openness that make America great by welcoming

legal immigrants and visitors who enrich our culture while upholding the integrity of our laws.

50

In the post September 11 world, maintaining a robust, multifaceted and responsive border security strategy is essential to our

national security. If there be any doubt of its necessity, bear in

mind that the Department of Homeland Security’s recent testimony

that al Qaeda is considering exploiting our southwest border

vulnerabilities as means of entry into the United States.

Unfortunately, I have serious questions about the government’s

ability to secure our borders. I am deeply troubled by a report

issued during the 108th Congress of the minority staff of the select

committee on homeland security that included the following: The

southern border is porous and more staffing is needed at the southern border. Modern technology must be deployed on the entire

southern border. Border officials are not getting the intelligence

they need to perform their counterterrorism mission. It went on to

say the Department of Homeland Security detention and removal

operation is failing. The administration has failed, it said, to develop a comprehensive, long-term border strategy.

The substantive weakness in our border system also impacts our

ability to interdict drugs from foreign nations. With that said, nearly all of the cocaine consumed in the United States and most of the

heroin consumed on the East Coast originates in Colombia. As

ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, and as a Congressman

who represents Baltimore and Maryland, I have seen firsthand

communities from urban centers to the heartland in the grips of

death and devastation due to drugs. Terrorism fueled by drugs can

be just as destructive as the terrorism driven by religious extremism. President Bush stated during his 2005 State of the Union

address, ‘‘It is time for an immigration policy that tells us who is

entering and leaving our country and that closes the border to drug

dealers and terrorists.’’

While these words are comforting, we must recognize that words

alone are not enough to stop drug dealers and terrorists from

harming the communities we have sworn to protect. I am deeply

troubled that the President’s rhetoric on border security does not

correspond with the priorities in his fiscal year 2006 budget. To

begin, the President proposed to cut funding for important homeland security grants to States at a time of unprecedented threats

to the homeland. Moreover, the President proposed funding for only

210 additional Border Patrol agents even though 2,000 additional

agents were authorized.

I am no less troubled that the President’s budget proposes to

withdraw significant levels of Federal support for State and local

drug enforcement. The President proposes to decimate the high intensity drug trafficking areas programs by eliminating more than

half its budget and moving it to the Department of Justice. At the

same time, he proposes to eviscerate funding for the COPS program and to entirely eliminate funding for the burn grants. These

programs provide a critical line of defense in stopping drugs from

flooding our streets once they have entered our Nation.

51

In the end, the American people expect more than inspirational

speeches. They expect us to effectively secure our border. Sadly, the

administration’s commitment in their budget leaves much to be desired if we are to achieve this worthwhile end. I look forward to

this testimony today.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

52

53

54

55

56

57

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I didn’t really have a question,

but I want to attach myself to the comments just made.

I think there is a growing feeling that we do not take this issue

very seriously. I am hopeful in the coming months that we can all

be proved wrong on that, but there is growing suspicion. Let me

give one example.

We have a serious problem with methamphetamines throughout

much of rural America, although I must say that one of my sheriffs

told me she was convinced that at least a majority and perhaps as

much as 70 to 80 percent of the meth was coming in via illegal

aliens through Mexico. And to confirm her point, I think a few

weeks later there were five illegal aliens driving on Interstate 35

north of Albert Lea, Minnesota, and they had a trunk load of meth.

So this nagging suspicion sort of gets reconfirmed that we do not

take this whole issue as seriously as we should. I think that is a

bipartisan concern. I think it is a concern of those who live in the

big cities, and it is a concern of those of us who represent what

some might describe as more rural districts. I don’t know if you

want to respond to that.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I would like to respond.

I can tell Members that we, Customs and Border Protection, part

of the Department of Homeland Security, do take the issue seriously in terms of the ability of people or drugs to get into the

United States. It is a difficult issue.

I served in the first Bush administration as head of the DEA. I

have seen the ravages of meth and meth labs and the ability to

move meth around. The Mexican trafficking organizations get involved in essentially meth production and the like. I work very

closely with Karen Tandy, who is now the administrator of DEA on

these issues. We do take it seriously, and we take seriously the

control and security of our border.

As we were saying earlier, I think as a country, we always had

a duty and obligation as the Federal Government to control and secure our borders. But in the post September 11 era, it is absolutely

essential that we do so because there is the potential for terrorist

penetration. We have to do this. We are doing everything we can

with our resources to be as effective as possible in interdicting the

flow of illegal drugs and people moving into the United States.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Sanchez.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Commissioner Bonner, both President Bush and

representatives from the U.S. Border Patrol have been critical of

the Minutemen as interfering with law enforcement efforts, posing

a danger to citizens, to legal immigrants and themselves. In fact,

President Bush has described the Minutemen as vigilantes. Would

you describe for the committee some of the specific instances of

Minutemen or similar type citizen patrols interfering with Federal

Border Patrol efforts?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Let me say the President’s comment I

think you are referring to was made before the Minutemen even

arrived in Arizona.

Ms. SANCHEZ. So your opinion is they are not vigilantes? Are

they armed?

58

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. It was in March. I will say this, I was concerned about the potential for vigilantism that might take place

with people coming to Arizona. The reality, and I think it is a tribute to the people who organized the Minutemen Project, there were

no acts of vigilantism.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Was there any interference with Federal Border

Patrol efforts?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I don’t know I would call it interference.

During the project there were—first of all, there were times, I am

told that sensors were tripped.

Ms. SANCHEZ. What does that do to our limited Federal resources

when we have citizen patrol groups that are tripping sensors?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Anything that walks or moves can trip a

sensor.

Ms. SANCHEZ. But when they are falsely positively tripping sensors, what does that do? Do you not respond when the sensors go

off?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I don’t think it is a big issue.

Ms. SANCHEZ. It is not a big issue that Federal resources can be

wasted on nonthreats to our national security?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. If a sensor is tripped, we respond to it. It

may turn out to be something other than a group of illegal aliens.

That happens. You probably want to take a look at the totality of

the circumstances here.

There was some I would say diversion of Border Patrol resources

to responding to sensors that were tripped. But on the other hand,

if you look at the totality, first of all, I am grateful there were no

acts of improper and inappropriate incidents during the month that

the Minutemen Project held forth in that 23 mile area of the border.

Ms. SANCHEZ. So you would not discourage these patrols from

continuing to patrol?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. There is an interesting question about how

do you do this. I am very concerned about people unnecessarily getting hurt or killed.

And I do know and I visited down in many areas of our border,

but certainly it’s particularly true in various parts of the Arizona

border, it is very treacherous and it is a very dangerous place. Border Patrol agents have and are from time to time shot at. Their

lives are in danger. So I think this is fundamentally the control of

the border, patrolling the border. Making apprehensions is a law

enforcement responsibility, and Border Patrol agents should do this

job.

Ms. SANCHEZ. How would you propose to deter citizens from acting as Border Patrol agents and acting perhaps in an appropriate

manner?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. For one thing as I have indicated before,

I do depend upon the eyes and ears of citizens. We will continue

to do that and certainly will encourage that and have hotline and

tip lines to do that. I’m not quite sure, Ms. Sanchez, I’m totally

capturing the thrust of your question.

Ms. SANCHEZ. I have two last questions and will try to get them

on the record and have you respond if you will. Are any of these

folks armed that are out doing these citizen patrols? And my last

59

question is are they patrolling the northern border where there has

been actually specific terrorists that have been apprehended at the

border?

Those would be my last two questions. If you could respond to

them, I would appreciate it.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I believe, of course, it is legal in Arizona

to carry a weapon in the open.

Ms. SANCHEZ. California, it is not.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. And I believe——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Go ahead and answer the question.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I believe that some of them had arms. And

as far as the northern border, look, we have had specific intelligence, it’s not new, but that al Qaeda has considered, has actually

contemplated using the southern border and the ability to illegally

cross our southern border to get terrorist operatives into the

United States. Both borders are a potential threat when it comes

to the terrorist issue.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Marchant.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, I

have a couple of questions and maybe a comment to start. Being

from Texas and having the longest stretch of border between Mexico and Texas, maybe 1,000 miles, is it that long?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Longer.

Mr. MARCHANT. I would say at least 20 percent of my constituent

mail that I get in Washington is about this subject and it is from

the time I served in the State legislature till now, it just is a

straight line. And when we go home and do our town hall meetings, really the people don’t want to talk about Social Security

much. They don’t want to talk about tax reform much. They want

to talk about illegal aliens and what is happening in our hospitals

and our schools, and so it is beginning to really hit us as Congressmen back home in a way that I know you appreciate, but there is

beginning to be a pressure on us so that when we hear buzzwords

like operational control of our borders, we understand that. We respect that here in Washington. I can’t go back and use a buzzword

like ‘‘control,’’ you know, operational control of our borders, because

the definition of my constituency of operational control of our borders is they are not building the new shelter in town for the illegal

aliens to show up in the morning and not get wet because they are

building shelters for them. And that is the—so what does operational control—what would it mean to me living in the suburbs of

Dallas if you achieve—if the Border Patrol—not you, but if the Border Patrol achieves its goal of having operational control? What

will it look like?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Doesn’t mean it would be absolutely impossible for anybody to cross our border because if we set that as a

goal it’s a goal for a certain failure, but what it does mean is a substantially high level of probability that you are going to be apprehended if you are illegally entering our country.

Do you know it when you see it? There are areas of the border

in the El Paso area, in the San Diego County area, not all of it by

the way, but there are areas of the border where I can say and you

can say if you go down and look at them that we have achieved

something, that there is a high level of apprehension and it has

60

staunched the flow of illegal aliens and potentially anybody else

who might be trying to illegally enter our country. I am not saying

we’ve got the border under control. We don’t. We have a long way

to go here.

But I will tell you, I’m from Los Angeles, Ms. Sanchez. And I

went down to the border many times when I was U.S. attorney in

L.A. and I saw at sundown the illegal aliens gathered on the hillsides waiting for the sun to do down and they just rushed across

the border. I mean it was totally, flat out of control. As a result

of efforts of the Border Patrol, some tactical infrastructure, increased numbers of Border Patrol agents, better technology, lighting and other things, most of that border area is under a reasonable degree of control. Not all of it. Frankly, we haven’t been able

to complete a middle section of the fence from—about 31⁄2 miles to

the ocean. You will know it when you see it.

And how else will you know it? Crime goes down. The environmental damage goes down in terms of people illegally crossing and

leaving their junk and debris behind. You know it when you see

it. And we will know as we get greater control of our border.

Again, we’re doing everything we can within our current resources to achieve greater control of our border and we are addressing and we are doing it with greater mobility. Part of the

strategy, national border patrol strategy, greater mobility than we

had before to move more quickly to where and when the Border Patrol needs to be to show up in the weakest areas. So we’ve got to—

and we are doing our best with people and technology and that’s

what it means.

Mr. MARCHANT. The House is trying to assist in that in some of

the legislation we have been passing lately, and we have been trying to get that word back. Can I ask just one more operational

question?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The

gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Commissioner Bonner, two areas I would

like to get into, I think Congressman Souder got into this, he asked

about was there a program for the different agencies to work together and you mentioned it and didn’t get into detail.

Also the issue of information sharing. From a perspective—we

have serious problems on our border. You used Mexico as an example. We have the majority of drugs that come to the United States

that come through Mexico. I’m sure that the same bad guys that

are helping to get illegal immigrants through the border are the

same bad guys that are connected to drugs and the same bad guys

that are probably going to be working with al Qaeda to get people

into our country to deal with the things that we don’t want to deal

with, and that’s terrorism. In order for us to take this issue seriously—and I’m talking more from a security point of view and not

the issue of immigration, there are a lot of issues there, we need

to have a joint group of agencies working together the same way

we do in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to have not only your organization but FBI, DEA, NSA, CIA all working and focusing on

that border, because if you look at the problems we have with

drugs, drugs is probably—not probably, it is a more serious probVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\21365.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
61

lem than terrorism because drugs affects everyone in the world; 85

percent of all our violent crime is drug related.

My question to you, I want you to get into the specifics—do you

have a comprehensive program working with the different Federal

agencies to help you to get you intelligence to make sure we are

focusing on the bad guys that have been so effective in getting people through our borders?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. We have actually a very good method, and

it has certainly vastly improved, of getting intelligence with respect

to the potential terrorist threat, and that is through the Department of Homeland Security working with the Intelligence Community and all aspects of the Intelligence Community and the FBI. So

we have that, and that would apply not just to our border with

Mexico or our border with Canada, all of our ports of entry, people

coming into the United States from abroad and through our airports and so forth. I think that’s working reasonably well and we

have made tremendous progress.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I would like to get into detail. You can say

you are working together, but are you sharing office space? Are you

getting information? Are the people collocated in the same area, because it’s about results and accountability of the performance. And

I’m not sure whether or not that performance is there and I’m not

throwing fault, I’m talking more about giving the resources to you.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I understand what you’re saying. This is

a very important point and that is when you are talking about the

operational effort at the border. You have front-line people, and

that’s the Border Patrol, and at the ports of entry. That is CBP officers. FBI agents don’t do interdiction at the border. DEA agents

don’t do interdiction at the border. What you have is a relationship

between the investigative agencies, which are DEA and FBI and

ICE now, and the front line border personnel, so that you have a

feedback loop of information. So that if there is a drug trafficker—

and by the way, this happens everyday, and it is happening right

now as we speak. We interdict and intercept illegal drugs at El

Paso. We call in one of these investigative agencies. Usually would

be ICE. And it needs to—if there is an investigative potential, it

runs with it or it’s DEA, it runs with that. And when it brings

down that organization, how do the drugs get across? What is the

modus operandi for getting across? It’s that feedback loop of information that I was referring to in Mr. Souder’s question. It isn’t

putting FBI agents or DEA agents or even ICE agents at the border. We have interdicters at the border and you need the sharing

and flow of information.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. My light came on and I want to ask you

this question. Asa Hutchinson, when he was the Deputy Secretary

of Homeland Security, made a comment that we did not have the

resources on the border and he never thought we would solve the

problem unless Congress and the public of the United States is

willing to give the money and the resources. He made that comment. Do you agree with that comment? And if you do, what are

the resources that you think you need to do the job?

I told you before I put a bill in to try to get 2,000 more agents

on the ground for the next 5 years, which is 10,000. That bill hasn’t

gone anywhere yet, but as a result of his comments, do you agree

62

with them, No. 1? And if you do or don’t, what resources do you

need?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. We need more Border Patrol agents.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. How many more?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I would say that we have—you know the

President has added about 1,500 Border Patrol agents in the last

several years. Just very quickly, it’s not all agents, it is technology.

If you are just talking about agents at the border, well, I probably

agree with Mr. Ziglar’s number and that may be south of what we

need. This is the American Shield Initiative as part of the new border patrol strategy with the right number of agents. But even so,

we are going to need more Border Patrol agents.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Gentleman’s time has expired. You have

5 more minutes and you have to meet the Secretary.

Mr. McHenry, you are next.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the

Commissioner being here and I only have 5 minutes. This will

work out nicely for you. I had a question. There’s Phase 2 of the

Arizona Border Patrol Initiative that calls for 200 boots on the

ground and increased 42 aircraft. Where are these resources coming from? Are they being taken from other areas?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. In essence, the 200 new Border Patrol

agents are not new Border Patrol agents. The 200 Border Patrol

agents that I directed be put into Arizona on top of a base of about

2,200 came principally from the sectors in California and Texas.

Now I didn’t move all of the 11,000 Border Patrol agents in Arizona, because I don’t want to detract or degrade the ability to

maintain the degree of control we are maintaining in California

and Texas, and I’m not saying that degree of control is perfect, but

we have to address the weakest spot in our border, while maintaining other sections.

Mr. MCHENRY. California and Texas, where are the aircrafts

coming from?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Essentially the same locations. I’m generalizing. But the aircrafts are highly mobile assets, as you know, and

so we double from about 19 to 42 aircrafts that are doing aerial

surveillance in response in the area. By and large, they came mainly from California and they are temporarily there. When we get

control, which I hope we do, they’ll return. We haven’t

permanentized those assets.

Mr. MCHENRY. If you could provide me with that information,

that would be a great help where the 200 agents came from, and

where the aircraft came from, because it seems like we are neglecting areas in order to focus on narrow areas. But one of the more

interesting things that I would like to hear from you is about Border Safety Initiative. If you could explain to the panel in essence

what you all are thinking by doing this?

[The prepared statement of Hon. Patrick T. McHenry follows:]

63

64

65

66

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. First of all, we’re not neglecting areas.

What you are doing is you are operating smartly. We’re considering

the entirety of our southern border in this case and saying what

do we need to do? Are we going to apply resources to gain, essentially, control of our areas and to do that as wisely and quickly and

as rapidly as possible.

So assets—it is a national border and it is a Federal issue. On

the Border Safety Initiative, I am not quite sure where your question is on that.

Mr. MCHENRY. Explain it to us. As I understand it, instead of

actually using moneys appropriated to defend our border, we are

actually providing water, for instance, in certain areas of the desert

for these folks that are coming across the border, which I think is

really just quite frankly bizarre that we are actually encouraging

people to come in and intrude on our borders by giving them the

resources to do it.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. We don’t provide that.

Mr. MCHENRY. You don’t provide water?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. No, we don’t. We put stations in so illegal

aliens who are in great distress can call us and we apprehend

them. When we find them and they’re dehydrated and almost dead

in the desert, we give them water, but we don’t put water out

there. Those are citizen groups who are doing that who no doubt

are altruistically motivated to the issue.

But on the other hand, you know, we have—we do have a Border

Safety Initiative and have been working with the Mexican Government. The way to prevent deaths in the desert is to control our border, and that’s what we are trying to do. The more we control our

border, the fewer people are going to die in the desert. It has a

safety net. And it will—to the extent we can be more successful,

it will prevent people from crossing the border and fewer people are

going to die crossing.

Mr. MCHENRY. If I may followup.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. That is my safety initiative.

Mr. MCHENRY. I know it’s in cooperation with the Mexican Government, and I think it’s been highlighted in recent news accounts,

the fact that the Mexican Government is providing a booklet on the

safest way to cross the border. Is that part of the Border Safety Initiative?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. No, it’s not, and the Mexican Government

is—there was a guide or a booklet that was put out, it seems to

me it was 4, 5 months ago, and I believe it was inappropriate. I

mean it had a lot of information in it but it tended to encourage

people to illegally enter the United States. And I believe that booklet has been withdrawn by the Mexican Government. That’s my information.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We will try to get—I know you have to go

in just a minute. Ms. Brown-Waite.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much. I would like to ask the

Commissioner if he has yet solved the issue that I brought to your

attention last year and that is that the Customs people still have

conflicting badges with their IDs. I forget whether it is the badge

or the ID still says Treasury Department, which is what Customs

used to be under. This may be a small issue, and I got back a letter

67

that it’s a good thing we didn’t have this hearing last year or I

would still be angry because of the letter I got back. It was a ‘‘don’t

worry, be happy’’ letter. Some smart attorney is going to get somebody off because of this conflict. And I understand it still has not

yet been resolved. That’s question No. 1.

Question No. 2, or statement No. 2, I represent Florida and I can

just tell you that at any given time, and I’m sure my colleagues

here will agree, our people back in the district office handling immigration have upwards of 150 cases of people in our district trying

to have family members come in legally or that they are trying to

extend their visit here legally. They’re trying to do it legally. And

the big joke is, no, I’m sorry, you cannot become a citizen. And I

have had so many of them say to me, I’ll go down to the Mexican

border. The frustration is the amount of time it takes to go through

immigration, the legal process. People are trying very hard to do

what’s right and abide by the law so they’re not illegal. And one

of the last things is that I understand that overtime in the agency

is being sucked up, and let me use that word in quotes, sucked up

by administrators and that the people actually on the ground at

the border, at the airports, at the seaports who do the job are not

getting the overtime. It’s being sucked up, and I’m putting that in

quotes, by the administrators.

And the last question, without any restrictions by the administration, how many more border patrol would you really have requested? I didn’t hear a hard and fast number there. I know it

takes training time and I know it’s not going to be an overnight

fix, but I can just tell you that people in my district, and I think

I hear this echoed on both sides of the aisle, that the taxpayers in

the United States of America do not believe that we are doing

enough.

So tell me what is enough, not just for Border Patrol, but certainly for technology and making their jobs easier, because in California I know that the Border Patrol people are very frustrated. I

have some relatives out there who live very close to some people

who work for Border Patrol out there. They’re very frustrated at

not just this administration’s policy, but previous administrations’

policy of kind of the wink and nod approach to illegal immigration.

And Americans are fed up with it. They are tired of people constantly coming into this country illegally. And you know, a couple

of years ago, we might have all bought that, well, they are doing

jobs that average Americans won’t do, but I’m not sure that still

is the case. I think we filled our quota of jobs that Americans won’t

do. So we have to come up with another excuse why we are so lax,

and I would appreciate your responses.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. Trying to take those quickly in sequence,

the badges, we were the first law enforcement agency at the Department of Homeland Security to issue new badges. We have

30,000 uniformed law enforcement personnel, 11,000 Border Patrol

agents, about 19,000 at the ports of entry, and all of the port of

entry officers have the new CBP Department of Homeland Security

badge. I think we’re well along with all of the Border Patrol agents

to get everybody with a badge. There has been a holdup in the credentials and that was getting—just a decision essentially that took

more time than I would have liked, but I have authorized the creVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\21365.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
68

dentials now and those haven’t been issued, so that there will be

new credentials for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. When will those credentials be issued?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I honestly don’t know. I will be happy to

get that to you. It’s printed and then you have 42,000 employees.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Do those 42,000 employees get paid regularly? I mean is it not something that could be put with their paychecks? Come on. It has been so long and this ID issue is a serious

legal issue.

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I’m not saying it isn’t. I feel we have done

well on badges, but for reasons that I don’t even know that I can

fully explain to get the approval and the credentials from the Department of Homeland Security, we just got the approval recently.

We certainly had been moving forward on that. In any event, it is

done or is in the process of being done. As far as people not being

able to get into the country or get a visa or they are in the country

change of status, the Citizenship and Immigration Services, I mean

that is an entity, a service and benefit immigration entity. It happens to be in the Department of Homeland Security, but it’s not

me. I can’t really help with that particular issue.

The overtime thing, I never heard that before. We use a lot of

overtime obviously to be able to—I will get back to you. And I

think I’ve taken my best stab how many Border Patrol agents we

need short of divulging things.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite follows:]

69

70

71

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We have one more Member who has not

asked questions.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will take a few

minutes. First of all, I agree with what Ms. Brown-Waite has said

and can tell you based on things that I’ve read and heard from others across the country, I think there is probably three or four times

as many illegal immigrants in this country as the government estimates.

I read in Newsweek and read another report, that half the people of the world have to get by on $2 or less a day. The other article

said half the people of the world don’t have a second pair of shoes.

And it made me recall many years ago, and this is my 17th year

in the Congress, one of our agencies did an estimate that said half

of the people in the world want to come here.

Now we can’t take half of the people in the world. That would

be over 3 billion people. So we have to have some sort of orderly

legal system of immigration. And right now we are overrun with

illegal immigrants. And I read in this one report that we have in

front of us that interior enforcement has gone down by 80 percent

since 1998. And always, all the committees, whenever we hear

about a government agency messing up, they blame it on one of

two things or both. First thing they say is that they are underfunded. And second thing, they blame it on the computer system.

They say the computers can’t talk to each other or something.

We found out that 15 of the 19 illegal people involved in the—

hijackers involved in September 11 were here illegally. The INS

said they were underfunded. And our Congressman Gallegly appeared on 60 Minutes said we have given 250 percent increase in

funding to the INS over the previous 8 years. Since that time we

have voted several times in the House to give additional funding

and increases to the Border Patrol for increased numbers of agents,

and yet we keep seeing all these people flood in here.

We have this Minuteman Project who some people have criticized, which I think is in the best American tradition of volunteerism in trying to help out, and we have this quote in this one report

from Mr. Simcox that says the government can’t afford to let this

thing succeed. I know that government agencies don’t like to have

volunteers because they want to get more employees and more

money instead of having volunteers to help them with their jobs.

But I can tell you this, it’s getting frustrating for many of us, and

we are all being flooded with complaints and criticisms and hearing

about people who have wrecks and don’t have insurance.

Why are these enforcements going down and why were the Minutemen able to claim that they achieved such great success? And

I had some complaints and so I kept trying to get the INS to come

up a few years ago, and I had to deal with an office in New Orleans

instead of Memphis or Washington. And I finally got them to come

up and they came up for 2 days and they did two raids, 1 day apart

from each other, and found 1,200 illegal immigrants. And they

could come back the next day and find just as many.

I mean, why do you have so many people who aren’t wanting to

do their jobs in this agency, Mr. Bonner?

Mr. ROBERT BONNER. I don’t think you do. Let me start off by

saying, I guess there is the third excuse now because interior enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\21365.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
72

forcement—you are talking to the border agency here, and I take

responsibility for the border, but interior immigration enforcement

is actually in ICE, in a different agency.

But I will say this. Look, I said we need more Border Patrol

agents. I appreciate the fact, one, that the intelligence bill had

2,000 more new Border Patrol agents in it. That wasn’t a funding

or an appropriation, that was 2,000 more on paper. By the way, I’m

very grateful and will state this right now that Congress has

passed the supplemental and added 500 new Border Patrol agents

in the supplemental that just passed and signed by the President

either today or yesterday and that’s a good start in the right direction.

The Minuteman, by the way, I think I have said positive things

about them, but that was 23 miles of border that we are talking

about there. Based upon phone calls we’ve got from the Minuteman, Border Patrol apprehended about 200 people as a result of

calls where they identified themselves as Minuteman. In the same

period of time in the Arizona border, not the 23 miles but the 300-

mile Arizona border, the Border Patrol apprehended 79,000. You

bet, look, we are talking about numbers that are overwhelming.

And if we are serious about the border, we are going to have to add

some real technology and we are going to have to add some more

Border Patrol agents and get a handle on it.

By the way, I welcome eyes and ears, volunteer citizens if we can

make it work with some smart strategy rather than with something that exposes people to danger, including people that might be

involved in a citizen type Minuteman Project. If there are ways to

do it, it’s certainly something I want to think about and see if there

isn’t some way we can do that and harness what is a lot of concern

by American citizens about the number of illegal people that are

getting into the country.

Mr. DUNCAN. There is a lot of concern about this around the

country.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Commissioner, thank you very much. And

you have a difficult job and I think you have done well here as a

witness. We appreciate your being here. If you could have your

staff contact our committee staff regarding the UAV testing, the

deployment and the responses to Mr. McHenry’s and Ms. BrownWaite’s questions.

We will take about a 3-minute recess as we change panels.

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You are welcome to sit down. I know that

you were just in the next committee.

We have a great panel. We have Mr. T.J. Bonner, president of

the National Border Patrol Council; Mr. Daryl Schermerhorn, the

regional vice president of the National Border Patrol Council.

Thank you both for being with us.

We have Mr. Chris Simcox, the co-founder of the Minuteman

Project, which was talked about previously, and we have Ms. Janice Kephart, former counsel of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. And also I am happy that

today is her birthday. We appreciate you giving us so generously

of your time.

73

It is the policy of this committee we swear in all witnesses. So

if you would rise with me and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Bonner, I understand you are going

to give the testimony and Mr. Schermerhorn will be here for questions?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. I will give the testimony and he will take the

tough questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Simcox, we will go to you and Ms.

Kephart. Thank you for your patience and thanks for being with

us.

STATEMENTS OF T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY DARYL

SCHERMERHORN, REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

BORDER PATROL COUNCIL; CHRIS SIMCOX, CO-FOUNDER,

THE MINUTEMAN PROJECT; AND JANICE KEPHART,

FORMER COUNSEL, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION OF TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES

STATEMENT OF T.J. BONNER

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, other members of

the committee. The issue of border security is one that is in the

forefront of every person’s mind, especially after the events of September 11, and there can be no question that our borders, the U.S.

borders, are out of control. Last year, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended approximately 1.2 million people, but the front line agents

estimate that for every person that we caught 2 or 3 people slipped

by us.

This is a matter of very great concern, because we don’t know

who those people are who are slipping by us. When we married the

fingerprint system of the Border Patrol and the FBI together last

September, in the first 3 months we discovered that 8 percent of

all the people we were catching were criminals. And it’s fair to assume that of the people who are slipping by us, at least the same

percentage are criminals and probably for good measure there are

a few terrorists in that mix. Even if a terrorist is a one in a million

occurrence with several million people coming into the country

every year, they reach that critical mass necessary to carry out another attack of the magnitude of September 11.

This is totally unacceptable from the standpoint of homeland security and national security. We have to gain control of our borders. A number of measures have been proposed to gain control of

our borders, but the National Border Patrol Council, representing

the rank and file, the front line employees, believe that the only

solution that is going to get us where we need to be is the implementation of legislation such as H.R. 98, which would give us a

counterfeit proof employment authorization document allowing employers to know who has a right to work in this country and allowing enforcing agents to enforce that law with stiff fines.

That is the only solution that will turn off the employment magnet. Unless we turn off the employment magnet, we will continue

to have millions of people coming across our borders and mixed in

that, at least 8 percent of them criminals and some terrorists.

74

A lot of opinion polls have been taken of late as to how people

feel about the security of our borders and how concerned they are

about illegal immigration; 75 to 80 percent of all of the respondents

expressed grave concern about the insecurity of our borders. The

Minuteman Project is a manifestation of that frustration. The Federal Government clearly is not carrying its weight. We are not controlling the borders. Our borders are insecure. Ask any front line

agent out there and they’ll tell you that we are simply overwhelmed. It’s not that we’re sitting around doing nothing, but

when millions of people are streaming in every year, there is only

so much we can do. You can only be at one place at one given time.

We have to gain control of the illegal immigration crisis if we are

going to bring any semblance of security to our borders.

So I go back to the point of the hearing that I just came from,

where I was urging your colleagues to adopt a counterfeit proof

form of employment verification to turn off the jobs magnet. People

will stop coming to this country if they realize that unless they

have that card they can’t get a job. They will realize that it does

them no good to trek across the desert for 3 days if at the end of

the rainbow they show up at an employer’s doorstep and he says

I am not going to hire you because I don’t want to pay a $50,000

fine.

This is a matter of national security and homeland security. The

current tactics we’re employing are not working. Putting more

manpower out there is shoveling sand against the tide unless we

deal with the employment magnet.

Of course, we need more manpower once a new law is in place

to turn off the employment magnet, which would enable us to go

after the terrorists and the criminals who are out there, because

that is our No. 1 priority in the Department of Homeland Security.

And I thank you for your time and I urge you to seriously consider these measures. And I’m not here obviously to argue for H.R.

98, because that is a separate hearing, but what we are saying is

that is the real solution to the insecure borders that we have.

While we appreciate the efforts of people like Mr. Simcox, the

support that they give, we do have concerns about citizens taking

the law into their own hands, and I’m not saying Mr. Simcox’s

group did that, but I’m saying other groups may feel that is something that should be done. We would discourage people from doing

that and we do not encourage people to go down to the border

where it’s very dangerous to make their political statement. We

think it’s important that they do so in a manner that protects their

safety. But if the Federal Government continues to turn a blind eye

to this problem, I fear that you’ll see more and more people turning

to desperate measures.

[The prepared statement of Mr. T.J. Bonner follows:]

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Simcox, welcome.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS SIMCOX

Mr. SIMCOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and

thank you to the committee. I’m here to bring a very simple and

direct message from we the people that too many citizens of

Cochise County and other communities along the border have testified before these committees previously. We have sent letters, emails, faxes and have shown up at town hall meetings to no avail.

This is about public safety and our national security, and we are

done waiting bluntly for the Federal Government to do its job.

Despite the efforts by many groups to portray our political statement as a racially motivated or anti-immigrant effort, we brought

it back to what this is really about, which is national security and

public safety. This great republic was founded and formed on immigration. When you come legally, you’re welcome. What we have

now is out of control, and the citizens basically have had enough.

We hope this will encourage everyone to do something, because

while you’re waiting and while you are making up your minds

what to do we are going to continue with Minuteman type projects.

We are going to basically reinvent the civil defense movement that

aided our country during World War II. We are basically under attack and there’s an invasion. We have enough home grown criminals in this country, let alone the criminals that are coming in.

I find it curious that there is so much worry about and speculation about vigilantism which, by the way, there have been zero incidents as of yet, but I hear little worry about the real terrorism

that we deal with, such as the families of detectives Donald Young

and Jack Bishop, who were murdered in Denver this week, law enforcement agents who are dying at the hands of criminals that

come into this country.

The citizens of Cochise County have made a statement, a clear

statement, and I want to show you a half page ad that they took

out in the local newspaper on Mother’s Day thanking the Minuteman. From grateful residents of the Sierra Vista-Hereford area,

thanks for doing what our government won’t do, which is close the

border to illegal aliens and criminals. It was the quietest month we

have had in many years. It was nice to once again have the freedom to hike our mountains without being armed. You made us feel

very safe because the border was closed. We didn’t have to worry

about manmade fires, which we have another fire raging out of

control now in our area, created by illegals trying to get away from

Border Patrol and they felt secure.

I think if there has ever been a mandate, this is a mandate from

the citizens. We are going to continue to abide by the law and work

within the law, but honestly, we don’t need, as I heard comments

about that we need to be regulated, I think we have proven that

citizens that participate in the Minuteman Project were of the utmost highest character and standards of American citizens. We’re

there to defend our property, our private property, our Nation, to

defend the sovereignty of our borders, and a country is not a country without borders.

83

So again, and I ask why are our borders dangerous? I keep hearing this from, with all due respect, the Border Patrol. If the Department of Homeland Security almost 4 years after the attacks of

September 11 were doing their jobs, our borders would be safe.

Why should American citizens sitting in lawn chairs with cell

phones and binoculars have to fear for their safety on U.S. soil?

That is intolerable and unacceptable from our point.

I’m very impressed with the security at the airports and here in

Washington. I have never seen so much security. I think the citizens who live along the southern border would like to see the same

kind of security right on the line. And when we talk about Border

Patrol what we see and what we have proven during April is that

you need border guards, not a Border Patrol. We need static observation posts set up along that 2,000-mile sector. We give you our

permission, the citizens of this Nation give you permission to spend

whatever it takes to man Border Patrol and what we would like

to see is that immediately done, and that means using military reserves and our National Guard.

I don’t think the families of Donald Young and other Americans

who have fallen victim to the crime that have come across that border would care about the rules of posse comitatus, and we don’t accept that argument. We are not asking for our military to be used

against American citizens. We are asking that it be used to protect

our country, our neighbors and private property.

So that’s the message we bring. We have another Minuteman

Project working this weekend, and I would invite all of the committee members, any time you want to come down and see what the

border is really like, you should do it unannounced. We will be

more than happy to show you the lack of homeland security on any

given day. The rank and file Border Patrol agents, I have worked

with them for 3 years, they are great people and work hard. Whoever is managing them is not doing the best job, and we the citizens have proven there is a better way.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simcox follows:]

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Ms. Kephart,

thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF JANICE KEPHART

Ms. KEPHART. Thank you Chairman Davis. Thank you for holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity to discuss with you

both terrorist travel and the national security mission of our border

agencies.

From my vantage point of spending 15 months devoted to figuring out how the September 11 terrorists conducted their travel operation into the United States so easily, it is clear to me that if national security is to become a reality for our border agencies, we

must put old thinking aside, incorporating all we know about terrorist travel. We must put together a long-term plan that

seamlessly integrates policies across our border apparatus, maximizing security and efficiency. Yet a comprehensive and cohesive

long-term border plan will not be an easy goal to reach as long as

the seven elements of our border system remain fragmented into

three departments and six agencies, and this is just one of the

many reasons why I have proposed consideration of the creation of

a Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

But let’s step back and understand what terrorist travel is. Start

with the fact that foreign terrorists carefully plan their attempts

to enter and stay in the United States based on a relatively sophisticated understanding of our border system. Terrorists will use any

infiltration tactic if it works, from hiding in a ship’s hole or a car

trunk to fraudulently seeking legitimate U.S. visas and passports

as the hijackers. These terrorists do not just represent al Qaeda.

Hamas and Hezbollah and lesser known terrorist organizations

operatives also engage in all varieties of immigration fraud.

Once in the United States, terrorists seek legal status. They resist removal through shared marriages, claims of political asylum

and applications for naturalization. A terrorist managed to stay in

the United States when his spouse won the visa lottery. They seek

United States and State issued identifications to establish themselves in communities and travel more easily. And wherever a vulnerability exists from visa issuance to admission standards at our

ports of entry to our immigration benefits adjudication system, terrorists take advantage of it.

While we work on long-term solutions, we cannot wait to fix severe deficiencies that have existed for a decade prior to September

11. Solutions are required now. We are once more in crisis on our

hard borders, both north and south. The Minuteman Project has

made that clear. The project has also made clear that the American

people get what we said on the 9/11 Commission, that border security is national security. We must now seek out ways to relieve

these good people of these duties and help the government do the

job it is supposed to be doing.

For now, it is here that we must focus our efforts to prevent potential clandestine entry by terrorists. Clandestine entry permits

terrorists the anonymity we are lucky the September 11 hijackers

did not have.

In addition, information I acquired on the commission along with

comments in recent weeks by Admiral Loy and FBI Director

97

Mueller all indicate that terror organizations do seek illicit entry

into the United States. Remember, for example, the Lebanese

Mexican human smuggler Bougadaro, who brought in over 300

Hezbollah sympathizers by way of false visas in Tijuana in the last

few years. He served a short 11 months in U.S. jails and is now

serving time in Mexico.

Also Hezbollah operative Mahmoud Kourani, who pled guilty to

terrorism charges last month in Detroit, crossed over the southwest

U.S. border in a car trunk in February 2001.

There was also Nabil al-Marabh, a likely member of al Qaeda,

who was caught trying to cross over the northern borders at Niagara Falls in the back of a tractor-trailer in June 2001. Not only was

al-Marabh a frequent border crosser and had a fake Canadian

passport, but he also held five U.S. driver’s licenses acquired in 13

months along with the commercial driver’s license and a permit to

haul hazardous materials.

In light of the national security interests in securing our hard

borders, the Border Patrol has needs that need to be met now and

they include centralized operational intelligence, centralized command and control, streamlined business processes to enable agents

to spend less time in offices and more time in patrolling, tracking

communication devices to ensure greater safety and efficiency in

operations, forensic support for false documents, access to USVISIT and aggressive use of expedited removal.

In conclusion, terrorists are creative and they are adaptable. Yet

we have the ability to counter them by being adaptable in our

thinking and providing front line officers with the tools they need

to do the job they are all eager to do.

My written testimony lays out many, many recommendations

that I believe will infuse the rule of law and integrity into the system that can deter terrorists and illegal entry. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kephart follows:]

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I want to thank all of you. Mr. Bonner,

let me start with you. Even—and I pick the idea of the card that

Mr. Dreier has talked about today is a good day. But even without

a card, someone coming here illegally, if they have their kid in the

United States, their child is a citizen, isn’t that right?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Someone born in the United States is a U.S.

citizen.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If you want to get your kids in here—if

you want your kids born here for a better life. Second, if you

present yourself in an emergency room, they’re not going to ask

you for proof of citizenship, right?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. That’s correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And if you’re here and you can get into

the population, you can get your kids into the public school and

they’re not going to ask them. They are going to have to educate

them, right?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Depending on where you are. If you’re close to

the border, they are going to require proof that you actually live

in the United States.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But not here illegally?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Right.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The card doesn’t solve all those problems,

but goes a long way and from your perspective having that card,

once people are inside the border that is a nice check, is that what

you’re saying?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. The real magnets here are the jobs. People

aren’t coming here to take advantage of our education or health

system. They are coming because in most of these countries, Mexico is a good example, the average unskilled worker makes $4 a

day and they can go a few yards north of the border and increase

that 20, 30 times easily. So they’re coming to improve their economic lot in life. And I’m not saying I blame them, but it creates

a huge problem, because it’s very labor intensive to deal with millions of people crossing the border. It’s not just a game where you

say tag, you’re it. What you have to do is process these people, detain them, run criminal checks and then send them back and that

takes up our resources and in the meantime other people are coming in. They don’t give us a time out.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What do you think of the Minuteman

Project?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. I think the Minuteman Project is, as I said earlier, a manifestation of the frustration that average Americans are

feeling and it’s not something new. There was a project called Light

Up the Border in San Diego back in the late 1980’s, early 1990’s,

where citizens drove down to the border and shined their headlights on the border to highlight the problem of the lawlessness on

the border. The Border Patrol installed first temporary and then

permanent lighting in fences and it brought an end to that lawlessness in that part of the world.

Now I think that the Minuteman experienced some success down

there in Arizona, in that during the time period that they sat out

in their lawn chairs in that 23-mile stretch of border very few people came through. I think a large part of that success was due to

the fact that the Mexican military was down south of that telling

124

people don’t cross through here. Now we can’t depend on the Mexican military to blockade the entire southern border.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Do you think the Mexican military is

complicit with some of the people crossing the border?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Absolutely. Our agents have been shot at by

the Mexican military as a diversion to keep us away from some of

the drugs being smuggled across. We caught—down in Santa Teresa, NM, we caught two Humvees with armed Mexican soldiers

who were shooting at us on U.S. soil, chasing our agents and shooting at us.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. They do that at North and South Korea.

But I guess it occurs all the time down there?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. I wouldn’t say all the time but it occurs often

enough and it is a matter of great concern to our agents.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What is the level of drug smuggling across

the border, do you think, of the people coming over?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. It is tremendous and let me turn over the

microphone over to Daryl Schermerhorn, who just apprehended the

largest narcotics seizure on the Canadian border last week.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Congratulations and thank you.

Mr. SCHERMERHORN. Along the northern border the BC buds are

going for such a high price that the Canadians are growing it and

bringing it across daily. We are apprehending some of the loads.

Many are getting by. Three nights ago, Border Patrol apprehended

45 pounds of Ecstasy valued at over $1 million. It’s a daily occurrence that drug loads are coming through.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Simcox, on the one hand we have a

lot of frustrated citizens and all of us go out into our districts and

hear there needs to be a greater presence on the border. On the

other hand, we have critics who think that the southern border is

no place for private citizens or vigilante enforcement and Members’

opinions are varied as well.

From your judgment, what is the reality of the situation on the

southern border, particularly in Arizona where you were?

Mr. SIMCOX. The reality is we do not have enough Border Patrol

agents.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Or listening devices?

Mr. SIMCOX. A lot of the equipment and a lot of the supposed

sensors that we were setting off were found to be inoperable and

we worked with the Border Patrol previous to our mission to ensure that we were not in those areas. But it’s manpower. The

equipment works. In fact we have been pleased with cameras, camera poles that have been erected right in areas we have led them

to.

Remember, the Minuteman patrols have been going on for almost

3 years and we started in Cochise County and we assisted Border

Patrol with over 4,600 apprehensions, and that represents people

from 26 different countries. And we have made 150 lifesaving rescues. It is every night day after day. And if Border Patrol had the

resources, they should be on the border. We should not have to be

citizens calling in groups of 20, 30, 40 people, 10, 15, 20 miles

north of the border. And that was our goal during the Minuteman

Project. Bodies on the line are a deterrent to prevent people coming

into the country in the first place.

125

Chairman TOM DAVIS. My time is up. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to yield to Mr. Van Hollen.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I recognize Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleague Mr. Cummings and I have another meeting, so I would like

to submit a statement. One additional point, and this goes to some

of the comments our witnesses are making. In this body, just a

very short time ago, we had the emergency supplemental appropriations before us and there was a motion made by Mr. Obey,

Congressman from Wisconsin, to increase the funds for border security and border patrol so we could put more people on that border. I supported that motion, and a lot of our colleagues supported

that motion. Unfortunately, it did not carry. But I hope all of our

colleagues will agree with you that we should put more resources

into that effort and increase our border security.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Cummings.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Van Hollen follows:]

126

127

128

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield now to Ms. Sanchez.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Cummings. I have another engagement but this is a question I feel is important enough

to ask and I would ask it of Mr. Simcox. You just stated in a response to one of the questions that supposedly whatever sensors

you are tripping at the border or that your members or the Minuteman are tripping are found to be inoperable. But to the extent that

you guys are tripping sensors that are operable and you are diverting scarce Federal resources at the border, which everybody agrees

there aren’t enough agents or resources, to the extent that you are

diverting those because you are tripping these sensors, aren’t you

in fact making the border less secure because you are causing them

to respond to you who are not a real threat? I don’t see the wisdom

in getting together people to try to do a job that you are specifically

not trained to do and getting in the way of the scarce number of

Federal agents and resources that are available at the border, and

I would love for you to answer that question.

Mr. SIMCOX. Our operation was highly publicized and we worked

with Border Patrol months in advance to alert them to the locations we would be working in. That was Border Patrol’s choice to

continue to monitor our activities in that area. We worked with

Border Patrol. We identified each of the observation posts. There

was no one coming through that area. Border Patrol knew that.

One of the most heavily traveled routes was completely shut down.

Why was border patrol there?

Ms. SANCHEZ. So your response is if you guys are there, Border

Patrol need not be there, even though you are not trained? You

guys go through no training in terms of border security. So if citizens, nontrained citizens, are there, you maintain Border Patrol

need not be there?

Mr. SIMCOX. They would be there to respond to our calls if we

witnessed someone coming. The border road is a public right of

way. All citizens have access to the road. They drive on that road

every day.

Ms. SANCHEZ. With respect to tripping sensors and diverting attention away from the regular Border Patrol duties because citizens are there and are causing that to happen, you don’t think that

is a problem?

Mr. SIMCOX. Our presence shut down those sectors. There was no

need for Border Patrol to be there because the Mexican military,

working with the advertisement of the Minutemen Project, worked

to deter people from coming through that area. How about if we

were to advertise that across the entire 2,000-mile border and

worked with the Mexican Government? People will not be coming

in in the first place.

Ms. SANCHEZ. So your testimony is wherever the Minutemen are,

there is no need to send Border Patrol to those areas?

Mr. SIMCOX. We would be force multipliers that would create a

deterrence to allow Border Patrol to be used in other areas.

Ms. SANCHEZ. I don’t happen to agree with you.

I yield back to the distinguished ranking member.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Linda T. Sanchez follows:]

129

130

131

132

133

134

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one question. You are saying if Border Patrol is present, if your group is present, then Border Patrol is not

needed. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. SIMCOX. In this instance, the areas which we were occupying, the illegal immigration flow dropped to almost zero. What we

wanted to do was prove that an obvious presence—we would like

to be relieved from duty. We would like to see the U.S. military or

Border Patrol set up the same strategy which would create the

same deterrence to anyone to cross the border.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Have you gotten any complaint from DHS or

Border Patrol?

Mr. SIMCOX. Only from Sector Chief Michael Nicely. The rank

and file were absolutely supportive.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What was that complaint?

Mr. SIMCOX. We were setting off sensors and diverting resources

to our area unnecessarily.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have great admiration

and respect for the work the Minutemen have done. I think it is

in one of the best traditions of our country. I think it was a very

patriotic thing that Mr. Simcox and his associates did. The way I

feel about this was summed up best—read the first two or three

sentences of that ad again, what you read.

Mr. SIMCOX. The ad, along with hundreds of e-mails and letters

of support that came to the organization, citizens were grateful.

‘‘Thanks for doing what our government won’t do, which is close

the border to illegal aliens. It was the quietest month we have had

in many years.’’

Mr. DUNCAN. I spent 71⁄2 years as a criminal court judge trying

felony criminal cases before I came to Congress, and whenever a

defendant took off or skipped bond, the bonding companies went

after them. That is done all over the country. I don’t think people

realize how much law enforcement is done in this country through

private agencies or citizens or businesses.

In addition to that, it is clear to anybody who studied this that

we get our biggest bang for our buck in law enforcement from our

lowest-paid law enforcement officials, the local law enforcement officials. I think if we took half of the money we are spending now

on border enforcement and turned it over to local enforcement

along the border, we would probably apprehend more illegal aliens.

I am not advocating that because it is a Federal responsibility,

but over the last 10 years or so, we have given INS, the Border Patrol, Customs, all of the agencies involved, whopping increases in

spending, probably at least at a minimum 10 times the rate of inflation over those years, yet they continually cry about being underfunded. I think they hire too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I am proud of what you have done, and I wanted to stay here

and tell you that. Thank you very much.

Mr. SIMCOX. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I think your concept is great. I think when

we as government—and government cannot do all things. When

citizens step up, I think it is very positive.

135

My concern is the management of you working with Border Patrol, because if, in fact, we do not have the proper management and

focus on what our end goal is to stop the immigration problem,

there could be an incident that someone is hurt, and that could

hurt your whole process.

My question really, and I am not sure who to ask this to, but do

you have an agreement of understanding if you are going to go to

a certain area, are the Border Patrol—are they working with you?

If you see a situation, do you have communication, resources to get

the Border Patrol there to do what they have to do?

Mr. SIMCOX. Yes. On all of our patrols, we have always alerted

Border Patrol to our presence in that area so there is no confusion.

Communications work fine through cell phones.

Ms. Sanchez talked about training. There is not a lot of training

involved other than being alert and vigilant. And when you recognize suspicious activity, you call Border Patrol, and they respond

quickly.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I talked about citizens on patrol in our

community in my opening statement. We publicize it and make

sure there are communications to the police. That is basically your

format also?

Mr. SIMCOX. Neighborhood watch group.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And you are not doing the apprehension?

Mr. SIMCOX. No.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I think it is important that people understand that. You are not doing the apprehension. If that is the case,

I think it is a very positive program.

Where are you getting your resources for communication to contact the Border Patrol when they are someplace else?

Mr. SIMCOX. Cell phones. At this point, that is the only communication. We have worked in previous years with Border Patrol by

giving them our basic FRS radios that you can buy at any store,

and they have worked very well with us. We monitor an area, report to them, and they do the job. They do the apprehension.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Bonner, you made a comment about

the real problem. We all think we need more resources and boots

on the ground, and also technology. But the bottom line has to do

with the employers. There are certain programs. There is a guest

program right now that is out there where the employers have the

obligation to make sure everyone who comes has identification, I

assume it is a work permit or whatever needs to be done. We are

never going to solve this problem just by dealing with the borders

because people are willing to risk their lives because of jobs. It is

about jobs. Yet the President’s position is there are a lot of jobs

that are unfilled. In Maryland we have a crabbing industry. There

are people who came over for the temporary jobs, and the industry

was going to have real problems. They could not get anybody to fill

the temporary jobs. From what I understand, these people are coming over, and they are temporary. They are identified, and they go

back.

Do you have an opinion on that type of program, what needs to

be done?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. The guest worker program will only work if

you have a theoretical fence, because a guest worker program is a

136

gate, if you will, and without a fence around the property, people

will just go around. That is why the Bracero program failed back

in the 1960’s because it was easier for someone to just walk across

the border and get that job.

I think a guest worker program could easily work in concert with

tougher employer sanctions where you could actually identify who

has a right to be here. Then you could bring people in if there are

jobs.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And hold the employers more accountable.

People come and then they leave, and you don’t know who or where

they are.

Ms. Kephart, the thing that concerns me greatly is the issue of

narcoterrorism. What resources do you think we need as far as the

border as it relates to the terrorism issue?

Ms. KEPHART. Let me back up and give a little background on

what I testified to. What I referred to was what I came across

when I was on the Commission, an unclassified Border Patrol alert

that is now a year and a half old that said the Colombia FARC was

meeting with al Qaeda in Madrid, Spain, to seek Mexican Islamic

converts to come through the southwest border clandestine.

That was of very great interest to me and my colleagues on my

time on the 9/11 Commission, and we began to look at the human

smuggling aspect, the international terrorist travel aspect, what we

needed to do to work with other governments to make sure we

have law enforcement to prevent the human smugglers from coming into the United States, stronger laws against human smuggling.

For example, one of the things you will hear is former drug couriers who have been arrested would turn to human smuggling because the sentencing is so low. You heard me mention Bougadaro

who only got 11 months in the United States. We need tougher

sentencing. We do have a human smuggling center right now. We

need to give them the resources, and we need to make sure that

it becomes a priority for our DHS law enforcement.

Right now at DHS, the FBI still has the counterterrorism mandate. The DHS and ICE folks do not have that mandate. They have

a great role to play in counterterrorism, and that was not really

fought for them, and they can have that role. So it is a combination

of things.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Marchant.

Mr. MARCHANT. Ms. Kephart, in your interviews that you conducted with the Border Patrol, what was the most common problem

that they identify as shortfalls in their tools? What was the largest

impediment to them doing their job?

Ms. KEPHART. Remember that the September 11 hijackers came

in through airports of entry. The majority of my focus was there.

However, part of my role was to figure out why the INS had failed

in counterterrorism and why they had no policy there. So I did look

at the Border Patrol and interviewed the Border Patrol Chief, but

did not go out to the field just to clarify. However, what we were

talking about were the same things they were talking about a decade ago, a lack of human resources, a lack of up-to-grade technoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\21365.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
137

logical resources; for example, told me in the early 1990’s they were

still working from manual typewriters to type up their reporting.

Right now sometimes they are dealing with five different forms to

fill out once they bring, for example, other than Mexican into their

station. It takes them 3 to 5 hours to process those folks. They

need that streamlined so they can be out in the field.

So they do not have the technology in the field for the rapid response, as Commissioner Bonner was saying. They do not have the

business processes. They do not have operational intelligence that

is centralized. They have none of it. They are operating, sector by

sector, pretty much as people come across. They do not have centralized command and control.

We talk about, and Mr. Simcox talks about, the military being

on the border. The military would never put up with not having

centralized command and control, but the Border Patrol does not

have that. So part of my answer was my own analysis, and part

of it is what the Border Patrol has told me before.

Mr. MARCHANT. This question is for Mr. Bonner.

Mr. Bonner, when someone walks across the border from Mexico

or from Canada, what is their legal status?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Their legal status? They are in our country illegally when they cross that border. The first offense is a misdemeanor.

Mr. MARCHANT. What is the degree of the criminal act?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. The first offense it is a misdemeanor; and subsequently it is a felony.

Mr. MARCHANT. What court is it adjudicated in?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. It is not. Typically we offer people to voluntarily return to their country of origin unless we have identified

through our fingerprinting system that they have entered, and depending which sector you are in, up to 25 times before you will initiate any action, and that is just a formal deportation hearing.

Mr. MARCHANT. So the recidivism rate is 20, 25 before they are

successful.

Mr. T.J. BONNER. People keep trying until they make it. The

ones that get by us, we have no record of them. I think it is a safe

assumption if you catch somebody eight times and you do not see

them again, they got by you. They did not just give up and say,

I will go back to my $4-a-day job at home.

Mr. MARCHANT. Obviously there have been Border Patrol officers

killed.

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Nearly 100.

Mr. MARCHANT. So there is some aggressiveness on the part of

the criminal, in my view.

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Sure. This has escalated in recent years. Because of our court system being so lenient on people who assault

Federal officers, we find people are more willing to shoot it out

with Federal officers. When I came in 27 years ago, the drug smugglers would be armed to protect themselves against each other, but

when they were apprehended by Federal officers, they would ditch

their weapons. Now they are more inclined to shoot it out with

Federal officers.

Mr. MARCHANT. What is permissible use of force for a Border Patrol agent?

138

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Whatever is appropriate to the situation. If

someone is firing at you, you are authorized to fire back.

Mr. MARCHANT. That is defense. What is proper procedure for

one to apprehend?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Only that level of force necessary to effect apprehension. We start out with verbal commands, ask them to stop.

If they run, we are allowed to grab them and bring them under

control. If they resist arrest, we are allowed to use the level of force

appropriate.

Mr. MARCHANT. Stun guns, rubber bullets.

Mr. T.J. BONNER. No stun guns or rubber bullets. We have pepper spray and collapsible steel batons as intermediate weapons.

Mr. MARCHANT. So if a guy gets 25 or 30 feet away, you are either faster——

Mr. T.J. BONNER. You are going to have to outsmart that person

or be faster. You are not authorized to use force just to stop someone from running.

Mr. MARCHANT. So a normal police method in a city or a county

for a sheriff cannot be employed by a Border Patrol agent?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Well, it depends on what you are talking about

as a normal city or county. If a shoplifter is running away, most

jurisdictions do not authorize any type of force to stop that.

Mr. MARCHANT. So an offense is considered an offense similar to

shoplifting?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. I think that is one way to characterize it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

We will do just a couple more questions.

Let me ask Ms. Kephart, this committee has worked tirelessly on

the issue of terrorist travel, something you are acquainted with.

We have sought to strengthen domestic identity requirements for

individuals to strengthen our intelligence function, to better identify and track individuals of interest. As we strengthen security in

these areas, it appears likely that terrorists and other criminals

will not seek to enter through official channels, but through holes

in our border. What does our intelligence tell us about the intent

of al Qaeda and other groups that seek to enter our country illegally and do us harm, and what are the weaknesses that they have

identified that we have not rectified yet?

Ms. KEPHART. In terms of current intelligence, I cannot speak to

it because I am not privy to it anymore. We had documents upon

documents.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Just go back a year.

Ms. KEPHART. The thing that we need to understand about al

Qaeda is they had a very sophisticated travel operation. When I

started on the Commission, our congressional mandate was to look

at border security. But as we started looking at detainee reports,

it became clear it was actually a travel operation. As I put together

the chronology in our staff report, September 11 and terrorist travel, it became clear that the travel operation started back in Afghanistan and moved—it started with the recruit, and that recruit

would go to Afghanistan through a specific travel operation, false

passports through Iran or Pakistan, and they would come out and

be instructed where to go and what to do. They had travel

facilitators all over the world helping them. We discussed the intelVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Jul 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\21365.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
139

ligence that we have about that, Riyadh, the facilitator, etc., specific biographies of those folks.

So we know they were sophisticated in their travel operation.

The thing that I learned, sort of my own analysis from looking at

this, that Mohammed Atta—the pilots came in first. The muscle

came in the 2001, but the pilots were here for about a year before

that with a couple of exceptions. Mohammed Atta was sort of testing the system as he was moving through it. He came in three

times before any of the muscle came in. He figured out length of

stay was 6 months if you are a tourist, so ask for a tourist. If that

meant bringing the hijackers, the muscle, in the spring and summer of 2001 meant they had a legitimate length of stay while they

were here, it was clear he did not want his folks to go illegal in

the immigration system. It was also clear that identifications were

extremely important to them to embedding. He also sought immigration benefits for himself, changing of tourist status to student

status. They even went so far as to go into an immigration benefit

service center, he and one of the other pilots, I believe, in May

2001, asking for a longer length of stay for one of the pilots until

September 8, 2001.

So what we have then for our intelligence is an understanding

that terrorists travel operationally very carefully. If the fraudulent

passport does not work or getting the visa does not work, they will

be prevented from going where they go, or else they will seek another point of entry. From that point of view, we did establish that

terrorist travel exists.

Weaknesses in the system, I think I would be here all afternoon.

But I do lay out a series of about five pages of recommendations,

some of which are very discrete, about our ports of entry, about our

immigration benefits, and immigration enforcement and our Border

Patrol, things that we need. But mostly I think the biggest weakness is tremendous fragmentation in the system.

Before September 11 we had three departments and three agencies running immigration and border security. Now we have three

different departments and six agencies running it, and we do not

have holistic policymaking. Nobody has an idea of the structure at

the top and what we are looking for.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Is it still very stovepiped?

Ms. KEPHART. We are more stovepiped than we were. When I

hear discussions of mergers of ICE and CBP, yes, that would be

helpful to some degree, but it is only part of the problem. We still

have immigration benefits, consular officers at the State Department; we have the Coast Guard, which is in a different part of

DHS; and we have a President who recognizes that border security

is national security, but there are so many layers of bureaucracy,

a wholehearted approach on how to achieve border security truly

with overarching policies is just nonexistent. That, to me, is the

biggest weakness right now.

Mr. TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Kephart, I just listened to what you said. It

sounds like we are worse off from a security standpoint than

maybe we were prior to September 11. Is that accurate or inaccurate?

140

Ms. KEPHART. We have made some strides ahead. I think we

have pulled back in other ways. I don’t think we have a holistic approach to border security right now, and I think it is hurting us.

We are approaching things to some degree myopically, looking at

just the Border Patrol or just immigration benefits without looking

at the whole thing and how to make it right.

But we do have a recognition now of the importance of border security and national security, which is extremely important. And it

has made people, for example, very encouraging, biometrics insisted upon, new rules for our passports, new rules for our identification set that is now being passed, US-VISIT which is at our

ports of entry and needs to get out for exit data as well. So we have

some real positives, but we need to bring it all together. That is

my frustration.

Mr. CUMMINGS. When I listen to the testimony here, it reminds

me of a situation where it is like a circle. We seem to be covering

maybe about three-fourths, maybe even 90 percent of the circle, but

there is an opening called border, and as we think that we are

guarding everything, people are slipping in through that opening.

That leads me to you, Mr. Bonner. When you listen to Mr.

Simcox, and then I think about the testimony you just gave a few

minutes ago about the fact that folks are toting guns, that is some

of these folks trying to cross the border, and then I combine it with

what my colleague said comparing the Minutemen to Citizens on

Patrol, is that your perception?

If I have people with guns, and I have everyday citizens—and,

Mr. Simcox, one of the documents says keep your guns in your holsters?

Mr. SIMCOX. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you feel comfortable with that as a professional representing these people?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. Border Patrol agents undergo 19 weeks of intensive training. It makes us nervous when citizens are out there

armed because things go bump in the night when you are out

there. Untrained people might do things that a trained person

would not do. The fact that people are out there armed, and I realize in Arizona that is permissible under their State law, and other

parts of the country it is not, but it certainly is something that concerns me.

And I have talked with some Minutemen, some nice grandmothers, and I am concerned that they go down there, and they are

really down there to make a political statement, but they get

caught in the crossfires of one of these drug smugglers who thinks

that they are shooting at Border Patrol, and they kill some nice

grandmother who leaves behind a family, and all she was trying

to do was make a statement that she wanted the U.S. Government

to step up to the plate and secure our borders.

There are a number of concerns that I have about this, as the

movement grows, as people think they are going to make a difference, if you blockade the border, and if you have people out

every few yards, that will deter people from coming in. That is not

our experience. What we found in San Diego, it pushed the traffic

over to Arizona. It did not make it go away, it just pushed it to

a different part. We also found in San Diego when the smugglers

141

became frustrated enough, they would modify their tactics. They

would gather groups of several hundred people and run right over

the top of us.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What I am concerned about is a lot of what was

just said. If I have somebody who sees that their opportunity for

success, for their children’s success, and they are already hopeless,

and they see anybody standing in their way—I see it in my district

with people trying to get drugs. Sometimes they will kill their family members to get money for drugs. We have people trying to get

to the United States because they think that it is going to be the

great place of opportunity. I am concerned with some of the same

concerns.

Mr. SIMCOX. We are very concerned, and it certainly shows the

frustration and compassion of American citizens; for instance, 80-

year-old World War II veterans and what we call vigil grannies

who were sitting in lawn chairs. They take it very seriously. Citizens are putting themselves in harm’s way if there is a real threat

at the border, but that is the passion and the frustration level, and

it should send a clear message to Congress and to the Border Patrol and to the Federal Government and to the President that we

want this problem solved.

They are willing to take that risk. A majority of our volunteers

are retired law enforcement officers and military veterans, well

trained, who are willing to give service to their country again. I

think if we had an opportunity to train ex-military, military police,

law enforcement officers; I would hate to see an 80-year-old grandmother—I would hate to see her blood spilled on that border because we cannot control it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Do you have any Minutemen grandmothers?

Mr. SIMCOX. Almost 40 percent were women. The majority of the

volunteers were 50 or older, many in their 70’s or 80’s.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I don’t think that is old.

Mr. CUMMINGS. If you had to guess percentagewise, how many

were carrying a gun?

Mr. SIMCOX. Forty percent of our volunteers were carrying sidearms only for self-defense purposes. Ninety-nine percent are concealed weapons card-carrying, well-trained individuals who understand the law when it comes to self-defense.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Have you had anybody in Minutemen hurt?

Mr. SIMCOX. Not at all. Not one incident ever.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Any gunfire?

Mr. SIMCOX. None in the 31⁄2 years that we have been coordinating.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. So your coordination with Border Patrol is

working?

Mr. SIMCOX. Yes.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And you are there as a deterrent to communicate where there is a problem, and the vigilante argument

that is out there, there are no facts to support that?

Mr. SIMCOX. No facts to support that. We work within the law

to support the law. We do not take the law into our own hands.

That would defeat the purpose.

142

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. This whole immigration problem is very serious, and we as a government have not made it a priority. What

compounds the problem is now the issue of terrorism, where people, the same drug dealers that are getting the drugs in, are going

to be able to get al Qaeda into our country.

Mr. Bonner, I think you have so many illegal immigrants in the

United States right now. You have people who come here on a temporary visa and then stay, and that is from all over the world. If

you were a Member of Congress, what would your priority be?

We need a system to somehow identify the illegal immigrants

within the United States. We have a problem, and the President

has taken this position, it is my understanding, that we would really shut down a lot of business if we did not have the guest worker

visas. That is an issue.

How do we put together a program that works with immigration,

because we have not put the resources at the border, we do not

have a data base on illegal immigrants, and if they stay and have

children, they become citizens of the United States? It is a very

complex problem.

The bigger picture that I threw out to you, what do you recommend from your expertise in this field?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. It has been my experience that illegal aliens

are not independently wealthy. They come here because of the

work. If you cutoff the access to jobs and limit it to U.S. citizens,

aliens who are lawfully admitted into this country on a permanent

basis or as guest workers, you solve 98 percent of the problem. I

think a guest worker program can work hand in glove.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Because we would have a serious problem

as far as certain industries without the guest work program. But

how do you enforce it?

Mr. T.J. BONNER. By legitimizing it and saying you cannot get

a job unless you have permission.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. They can have identification cards, but

even though you have a card, you do not go back. There has to be

some kind of mechanism. I guess the employer has to take responsibility.

Mr. T.J. BONNER. I think it is a self-enforcing one. If you are

here on a temporary guest worker permit, anyone who employs you

beyond the expiration of that is in violation of the law, so no one

will give you a job. Your choice is to sit in the street and beg or

go home. Most will go home.

Mr. SIMCOX. I take a very pragmatic approach. We need to seal

the border so people cannot come in illegally. We need to deport the

criminals in our prisons, and we need to enforce the laws on the

books. That is the problem. I can show you boxes full of Social Security cards, fake IDs that we find in the desert at lay-up areas.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. If we put the same priority in all of our

agencies, and we would put that resource—and it is not always

when they get over to the border, it is getting to them before.

Ms. Kephart, it seems to me the best defense against terrorism

is intelligence. If you go get this information ahead of time, and

you deal with the people, and you get the Mexican Government to

stand up and help us, we would be better off. We have not made

that a priority.

143

Mr. SIMCOX. I would like to see a Social Security verification system for employers so employers are held accountable for hiring illegal aliens in this country, and how about an employer-sponsored

guest worker program, not sponsored by the taxpayers.

Ms. KEPHART. May I make one comment about the guest worker

program?

First of all, I want to make clear, I don’t think citizenship and

immigration services is built to be able to handle a guest worker

program. Until you get the bureaucracy in line to be able to handle

a huge surge in immigration benefits, you are going to have a problem.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Guest workers are temporary.

Ms. KEPHART. But they still have to be adjudicated through the

system.

Second of all, you have to ensure there is security vetting for

criminals and terrorists and those who have otherwise disobeyed

our laws previously. Otherwise you are going to be giving legitimacy to folks we do not want to give legitimacy to.

Third, you have to have a system that authenticates identities

and ensure that people are who they say they are. That is my 2

cents on that.

Mr. TOM DAVIS. Mr. Simcox, you talked about where do you go

next. Do you look at the Canadian border, too?

Mr. SIMCOX. Yes. We have 15,000 volunteers in the queue. We

are moving to the northern border. We will be packaging our success and assisting other States to develop their own neighborhood

border watch groups.

Mr. TOM DAVIS. Mr. Bonner and Mr. Schermerhorn, thank you

for the job you are doing. Your members are out there every day

putting their lives on the line for us, and we appreciate it.

Mr. Simcox and Ms. Kephart, we appreciate all of the ideas.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Chris Cannon, Hon. Darrell E.

Issa, Hon. Jon C. Porter, and Hon. Lynn A. Westmoreland, and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:]

144

145

146

147

148

149

Æ