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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–565 PDF 2008

CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND VIOLENCE

ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 16, 2006

Serial No. 109–96

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLIE DENT, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio)

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Investigations: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 4

The Honorable Gene Green, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15

The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress From the State of 

Texas ..................................................................................................................... 11

WITNESSES

PANEL I 

Mr. T.J. Bonner, President, National Border Patrol Council: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 55

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 57

Mr. Rick Flores, Sheriff, Webb County, State of Texas ........................................ 28

Mr. D’Wayne Jernigan, Sheriff, Val Verde County, State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 36

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38

Colonel Russell Malesky, Counter-Drug Commander, Texas National Guard: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 23

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25

Mr. Steve McCraw, Director, Governor’s Office of Homeland Security, Texas .. 18

Mr. Alonzo Pena ̃, Special-Agent-in-Charge, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 29

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31

Mr. Gordon Quan, Resident, Houston, Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 52

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

PANEL II 

Mr. Robert Eckels, County Judge, Harris County, State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 73

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 77

The Honorable Adrian Garcia, Member, Houston City Council, State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 94

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 98
Page

IV

PANEL II-Continued 

Mr. Harold Hurtt, Chief of Police, City of Houston, State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 100

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 102

Mr. John Moriarty, Inspector General, Department of Criminal Justice, State 

of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 92

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 93

Mr. Michael O’Brien, Sheriff’s Office, Harris County, State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 88

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 90

Mr. Charles Rosenthal, District Attorney, Harris County, State of Texas: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 83 

PANEL III 

Mr. Jaime Esparza, District Attorney, El Paso County, State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 134

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 137

Mr. Dennis Nixon, Chairman, International Bank of Commerce: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 128

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 131

Mrs. Carrie Ruiz, Resident, Houston, Texas ......................................................... 125

Mr. Steven Stone, State Trooper, Department of Public Safety, State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 123

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 124 
(1)

CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND VIOLENCE 

ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER 

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:38 a.m., at Civil 

Courthouse, 201 Caroline Street, Houston, Texas, Hon. Michael 

McCaul [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representative McCaul. 

Also Present: Representatives Jackson-Lee, Poe, and Gene 

Green. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Good morning. The Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Investigations will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on criminal activity 

and violence on our southern border. 

First, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Ms. JacksonLee, Mr. Green, and Mr. Poe be permitted to sit and to question 

during the hearing today. Hearing no objection so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that statements by Shelley SekulaGibbs and George Benton be included for the record. Hearing no 

objection, so ordered. 

I have also been requested to state that photography and cameras are limited to accredited press only. 

First, I want to thank everybody for being here today. I want to 

thank the witnesses have attended this hearing. As a former Federal prosecutor, I sort of feel like I am back in Federal court again, 

although I have never sat at this level as a judge, although Judge 

Ted Poe has in his prior career. 

It has taken a lot of work to put this together, and I appreciate 

the interests. 

Because this is an official congressional hearing, as opposed to a 

town hall meeting, we have to abide by certain rules of the committee and of the House of Representatives. So we kindly ask that 

there be no applause of any kind or any kind of demonstration with 

regards to the testimony. It is important that we respect the decorum and the rules of this committee. 

Now today we will examine the expanding crisis of violence and 

criminal activity on America’s border with Mexico. We will hear 

what I expect to be sobering testimony from Federal, State and 

local government officials and law enforcement, as well as the victims of violence committed by those in our Nation illegally. It is my 

hope that this hearing and the testimony will open the eyes of 
2

America to the violence, crime, drugs and overall far-reaching impact of our unsecured borders. Today we will hear the facts and understand the true effects of illegal immigration on our society. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing here today, 

many of whom I have worked with when I was a Federal prosecutor. I am grateful for your presence here today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

The violence our border patrol and local law enforcement encounter continues to increase at an alarming rate, and the organized 

criminal element on Mexico’s side of our southern border is heavily 

armed and very dangerous. From 2004 to 2005, violent incidents 

against border patrol agents on the southern border increased more 

than 100 percent. Since October of last year there have been 630 

violent incidents against our border patrol agents. 

In January 2006, the Department of Homeland Security sent a 

confidential memo to border patrol agents warning that they could 

be the targets of assassins hired by alien smugglers. The point is, 

America’s border with Mexico is a violent and dangerous place 

today, and this is largely due to the drug trafficking along our 

southern unsecured border. 

Increasing violence on the border is directly related to the increased narcotics seizures. Last year, the border patrol seized more 

than 1 million pounds of marijuana, nearly 20 percent more than 

last year. Today, there is also a 10 percent increase in cocaine seizures compared to last year. 

On top of this, the number of illegal aliens entering our Nation 

each year is staggering. Last year, well over a million illegal aliens 

were apprehended along our borders. But this number represents 

only those caught by the border patrol. It is estimated the number 

of those caught represents only a fraction of the illegal aliens who 

really enter the United States. 

This perpetual flood of illegal aliens into our country is also adding to the health care crisis and to increasing problems we are having in America’s jails and prisons. Overall, the influx of illegal immigrants into our Nation is causing an increasing strain on nearly 

every social program in the United States, and at the end of the 

day, it is the American taxpayer who is economically dealing with 

that increasing stress. 

This threat posed by an uncontrolled border, narcotics smuggling 

and rising violence is the reality facing American communities. For 

instance, immigration investigators broke up a 16-member smuggling ring in El Paso that brought thousands of illegal aliens into 

the United States. They were squeezed into two truck trailers with 

virtually no food and only one bottle of water. 

Powerful criminal organizations support their operations by torturing, kidnapping and murdering citizens on both sides of the border. 

Last year, 42 American citizens were kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo 

alone. Los Angeles county sheriff’s deputy, David March, was brutally murdered by a three-time deported illegal alien during a routine traffic stop. David March’s murderer escaped back to Mexico. 

Some 4 years later, Teri March is still awaiting the extradition 

of her husband’s killer. 
3

According to the U.S. DEA, 65 percent of all meth consumed in 

the United States now comes from Mexican drug cartels and is distributed by gangs such as the MS–13. The gang, which is prevalent 

in Texas, MS–13, is engaged in violent crime on both sides of the 

border. 

And in the post-9/11 world, border security is not simply about 

immigration, but rather, it is an issue of national security. Before 

running for Congress, I was chief of counterterrorism in the U.S. 

attorney’s office. I had the Mexican border in my jurisdiction. My 

job was to determine whether terrorist cells were in this country 

and if so where. But that question cannot be fully answered, and 

many, including myself, are concerned that they are already here. 

Our Nation’s borders are our last line of defense in the war on terror. 

Just yesterday, an Afghanistan national was caught crossing into 

Hidalgo County. He is now being detained and questioned. 

Hezbollah has already brought sleeper agents into the U.S. 

across our southern border. On March 1, 2005, Mahmoud Youssef 

Kourani pled guilty to Federal charges of raising money for 

Hezbollah terrorist activities in Lebanon. Kourani was an illegal 

alien who had been smuggled across the border after he bribed a 

Mexican consular official in Beirut to get him a visa to travel to 

Mexico. Kourani and a Middle Eastern traveling partner then paid 

coyotes in Mexico to get into the United States. 

In another case, a cafe owner in Tijuana, Mexico was arrested for 

smuggling more than 200 Lebanese citizens illegally into the U.S., 

including several who are believed to have terrorist ties to 

Hezbollah. 

The Val Verde county sheriff’s office warned that drug traffickers 

are helping terrorists with possible al-Qa’ida ties to cross the Texas 

Mexico border into the United States. 

An estimated 400,000 people who have been ordered out of the 

U.S., including many convicted criminals or those from terrorist 

States, are still living in the U.S. because Federal officials have 

failed to ensure their removal. 

Terrorist organizations, including al-Qa’ida, are seeking to exploit our porous border. Last year alone, 135,000 people who are 

not of Mexican descent were apprehended entering Texas illegally. 

The McAllen border patrol sector alone reports that it released 

more than 42,000 other than Mexicans, or OTMs, in 2005 and more 

than 90 percent of those failed to show up at their court hearing. 

Mexican officials recently apprehended four Iraqis headed across 

the Texas-Mexico border. 

Our government recently seized an enormous cache of weapons 

in Laredo, Texas. U.S. authorities confiscated two completed improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, materials for making 33 more, 

military style grenades, 26 grenade triggers, large quantities of 

AK–47s and AR–15 assault rifles, 1,280 rounds of ammunition, silencers, machine gun assembly kits, 300 primers, bulletproof vests, 

police scanners, sniper scopes, narcotics and cash. 

But Texas is doing something about the violence along its border 

with Mexico. This year, Texas Governor Rick Perry launched operations Rio Grande, Del Rio and Laredo in response to the increasing criminal activity and violence along the Texas-Mexico border. 
4

I look forward to hearing about these border security initiatives 

from the Texas homeland security director, Steve McCraw. 

Despite the lack of a real Federal response to the violence on the 

border, we in the House have worked hard to pass legislation 

aimed at securing America’s border. Last year, the House passed 

a border and immigration bill which makes border security a paramount priority for America, as it should be. H.R. 4437 authorizes 

additional border agents, mandates detention thereby ending the 

catch and release program, supports our local law enforcement, including our border sheriffs to assist in securing the border. The bill 

also adds new penalties for alien smuggling and passport fraud, 

provides for the use of state-of-the-art technology and military assets on the border, and authorizes fencing along the southern border. 

The House immigration reform bill secures the border without 

amnesty. Today’s illegal immigration crisis in the United States is 

a product of the failed amnesty policies of the past and the lack of 

enforcement of our laws on the books. 

However, in any attempt to secure America’s border with Mexico, 

the Mexican government must cooperate. We share a common border with Mexico and a responsibility for developing effective policies to deter highly organized and armed criminal elements which 

threaten both of our Nations. We must hold our friend and our 

neighbor to the south to a high standard of cooperation and responsibility. This organized criminal element threatens the security and 

well-being of the citizens of both of our great Nations. 

The first duty, paramount duty, of the United States government 

is to protect and defend its citizens. Our borders cannot become the 

gateway for criminal enterprise, drug trafficking and terrorist activity. 

In closing, it is my sincere hope today, that we will work towards 

providing real results to these real and deadly problems and more 

safe and secure borders for America. There are those who will try 

to politicize the testimony and facts presented by the witnesses. 

For anyone to politicize this issue would mean playing politics with 

our national security, and in my view, that is unacceptable. 

[The statement of Mr. McCaul follows:]

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL T. MCCAUL

Today, we will examine the expanding crisis of violence and criminal activity on 

America’s border with Mexico. We will hear what I expect to be sobering testimony 

from federal, state and local government officials and law enforcement, as well as 

victims of violence committed by those in our nation illegally. It is my hope that 

this hearing and the testimony will open the eyes of America to the violence, crime, 

drugs and overall far reaching impact of our unsecured border. Today we will hear 

the facts and understand the true effects of illegal immigration on our society. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing here today, many of whom I 

have worked with when I was a federal prosecutor. I am grateful for your presence 

today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

The violence our Border Patrol and local law enforcement encounter continues to 

increase at an alarming rate, and the organized criminal element on Mexico’s side 

of our Southern border is heavily armed and very dangerous. From 2004 to 2005, 

violent incidents against Border Patrol agents on the Southern border increased 

more than 100%. Since October of last year, there have been 630 violent incidents 

against our Border Patrol agents. 

In January 2006, the Department of Homeland Security sent a confidential memo 

to Border Patrol agents warning that they could be the targets of assassins hired 

by alien smugglers. The point is, America’s border with Mexico is a violent and dan-
5

gerous place today, and this is largely due to the drug trafficking along our Southern unsecured border. 

Increasing violence on the border is directly related to increased narcotics seizures. Last year, the Border patrol seized more than one million pounds of marijuana, nearly 20% more than last year. Today, there is also a 10% increase in cocaine seizures compared to last year. 

On top of this, the number of illegal aliens entering our nation each year is staggering. Last year, well over a million illegal aliens were apprehended along our borders. But this number represents only those caught by the Border Patrol. It is estimated the number of those caught represents only a fraction of the illegal aliens 

who really entered the United States. This perpetual flood of illegal aliens into our 

country is also adding to the health care crisis and to increasing problems we are 

having in America’s jails and prisons. Overall, the influx of illegal immigrants into 

our nation is causing an increasing strain on nearly every social program in the 

United States. And, at the end of the day it is the American Tax Payer who is economically dealing with that increasing stress. 

This threat posed by an uncontrolled border, narcotics smuggling and rising violence is the reality facing American communities. For instance: 

• Immigration investigators broke up a 16-member smuggling ring in El Paso 

that brought thousands of illegal aliens into the U.S. for as much $6,000 each, 

depending on the point of origin. They were squeezed into two truck trailers 

with no food and one water bottle. 

• Powerful criminal organizations support their operations by torturing, kidnapping and murdering citizens on both sides of the border, 

• Last year, 42 American citizens were kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo alone, 

• Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy David March was brutally murdered by 

a three time deported illegal alien during a routine traffic stop. David March’s 

murdered escaped back to Mexico. Some four years later, Teri March is still 

awaiting the extradition of her husband’s killer. 

• According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 65 percent of all 

meth consumed in the United States now comes from Mexican drug cartels and 

is distributed by gangs such as the MS–13, 

• The MS–13 gang is in Texas, and is engaged in violent crime on both sides 

of the border. 

In the post 9/11 world, border security is not simply about immigration, but rather it is an issue of national security. Before running for Congress, I was chief of 

counter terrorism in the US Attorney’s office in Texas. I had the Mexican border 

in my jurisdiction. My job was to determine whether terrorists cells were in this 

country, and if so where. But the question cannot be fully answered, and many are 

concerned that they are already here. Our nation’s borders are our last line of defense in the War on Terror: 

• Just yesterday an Afghanistan national was caught crossing into Hidalgo 

County, is detained and is now being questioned, 

• Hezbollah has already brought sleeper agents into the U.S. across our southern border. On March 1, 2005, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani pleaded guilty to federal charges of using meetings at his home in Dearborn, Michigan to raise 

money for Hezbollah terrorist activities in Lebanon. Kourani was an illegal 

alien who had been smuggled across the border after he bribed a Mexican consular official in Beirut to get him a visa to travel to Mexico. Kourani and a Middle Eastern traveling partner then paid coyotes in Mexico to then get into the 

United States, 

• In another case, a cafe ́ owner in Tijuana, Mexico was arrested for smuggling 

more than two hundred Lebanese citizens illegally into the U.S., including several who are believed to have terrorist ties to Hezbollah, 

• The Val Verde County Sheriffs Office warned that drug traffickers are helping terrorists with possible al-Qa’ida ties to cross the Texas-Mexico border in 

to the United States, 

• An estimated 400,000 people who have been ordered out of the United States, 

including many convicted criminals or those from terrorist states, are still living 

in the U.S. because federal officials have failed to ensure their removal, 

• Terrorist organizations including al-Qa’ida are seeking to exploit our porous 

border. Last year alone, 135,000 people who are not of Mexican descent were 

apprehended entering Texas illegally, 

• The McAllen border patrol sector alone reports that it released more than 

42,000 OTMs in 2005, and more than 90% failed to report to court, 

• Mexican officials recently apprehended four Iraqis headed across the TexasMexico border, 
6

• Our government recently seized an enormous cache of weapons in Laredo, 

Texas. U.S. authorities confiscated two completed Improvised Explosive Devices 

(IEDs), materials for making 33 more, military style grenades, 26 grenade triggers, large quantities of AK–47 and AR–15 assault rifles, 1,280 rounds of ammunition, silencers, machine gun assembly kits, 300 primers, bullet-proof vests, 

police scanners, sniper scopes, narcotics, and cash. 

But Texas is doing something about the violence along its border with Mexico. 

This year, Texas Governor Rick Perry launched Operations Rio Grande, Del Rio and 

Laredo in response to the increasing criminal activity and violence along the TexasMexico border. I look forward to hearing about these border security efforts from 

Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw. 

Despite the lack of a real federal response to the violence on the border, we in 

the House have worked hard to pass legislation aimed at securing America’s border. 

Last year, the House passed a border and immigration bill which makes border security a paramount priority for America. HR 4437 authorizes additional border 

agents, mandates detention thereby ending the catch and release program, and supports out local law enforcement, including our border sheriffs, to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws. The bill also adds new penalties for alien smuggling 

and passport fraud, provides for the use of state of the art technology and military 

assets, and authorizes fencing along the Southern border. 

The House immigration reform bill secures the border without amnesty. Today’s 

illegal immigration crisis in the United States is a product of the failed amnesty 

policies of the past, including amnesty and the lack of enforcement of the laws on 

the books. 

However, in any attempt to secure America’s border with Mexico, the Mexican 

Government must cooperate. We share a common border with Mexico, and a responsibility for developing effective policies to deter highly organized and armed criminal 

elements which threaten both of our nations. We must hold our friend and neighbor 

to the South to a high standard of cooperation and responsibility. This organized 

criminal element threatens the security and well being of the citizens of both of our 

great nations. 

The first duty of U.S. government is to protect and defend its citizens. Our borders cannot become the gateway for criminal enterprise and drug trafficking and 

terrorist activity. 

In closing, it is my sincere hope today that we will work towards providing real 

results to these real and deadly problems, and more safe and secure borders for 

America. There are those who will try and politicize the testimony and facts presented by the witnesses. For anyone to politicize this issue would mean playing politics with our national security and that is unacceptable.

Mr. MCCAUL. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, for any statement she may have. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I thank the chairman very much. 

Good, morning. I would like to ask for a moment of silence for 

National Guard Specialist Kirsten Fike. She was 2 hours into the 

first day of a border surveillance mission near Yuma when she collapsed and died in the 100-plus degree weather in Yuma, Arizona. 

She is from Pennsylvania and she is survived by her 13-year old 

son Cody. 

[Moment of silence.] 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your service to this 

Congress and to this Nation. I have great respect for this committee and this Congress as a member of the Homeland Security 

Committee, and the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, two committees charged with the responsibility of listening 

to the American people on the question of comprehensive immigration reform. Thank you for accepting our invitation and my invitation to come to Houston, Texas. 

Houston, Texas, of course, the fourth largest city in the Nation, 

is blessed by its diversity and the ability for all of us to live harmoniously together. If it is not through our city council and mayor, to 

our Harris County commissioners and leaders of our Harris County 
7

government, it is to our city clubs and neighborhoods. We do live 

together harmoniously. 

We are very grateful for a very effective law enforcement system, 

both the county and the city, that works effectively together. We 

are some hundreds of miles away from the border. So the question 

of border violence is certainly a national question, but we in Houston are attuned to the fact that our responsibilities of our law enforcement officers are to ensure the protection of our local citizens. 

You are right, Mr. Chairman, this is not a political question. But 

I simply disagree with the perspective that has been put forward 

by the Republican majority. 

There is a House bill and there is a Senate bill. Out of regular 

order, the appropriate procedures would be that we would be in a 

conference, adjusting both of the legislative initiatives so that we 

could reconcile the issues and needs of the American people. 

As I expect to hear the testimony of many sheriffs from the border, they know that we have had vigorous discussions in Washington, and I have joined in their effort to be reimbursed on the 

work that they have had to do because of the failing funding of 

those who are on the front lines, the Federal authorities that are 

on the front line, and we thank those sheriffs who themselves have 

been engaged because of the Federal failures that we have had. 

Today, we will hear from 17 witnesses about criminal activities 

and violence along the borders. I would only say that that is an important question but we have a disagreement. 

We want to ensure that our borders, whether they are airports, 

ports, the northern border or the southern border are secure. I 

would simply say that immigration is a very important issue to the 

great State of Texas, as well as the Nation, but the concept is comprehensive immigration reform. 

As I indicated, as the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and as an attorney, I know firsthand 

the complexities of the issue. That is why I am saddened by the 

simplistic and sometimes caustic rhetoric regarding immigrants 

and comprehensive immigration reform. 

I would hope that we would not engage as the chairman has 

asked us in traveling road shows and mock hearing and really digest and discuss how can we solve this problem, how can we secure 

our borders, how we can engage in a discussion of comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

This committee knows that 99 percent of all immigrants coming 

to this country do so because they want to work, improve their opportunities for success and reunite with their families. 

I was reminded of the Irish who fled Ireland in the 1800s because of the potato famine and that there is some fifty thousand 

undocumented Irish in this country, all, I hope, seeking an opportunity for status, not attempting to be a felon. 

President Bush recognized that fact in his May 15 address to the 

Nation calling for the passage of the Senate immigration bill. 

It is not lost on me that this hearing has been convened in a 

courtroom, more so than at a university or city hall. Let me thank 

Harris County for its hospitality, but, of course, many people think 

of a courtroom as an adversarial setting rather than one designed 
8

for the free-flowing exchange of ideas with the community members 

directly impacted by immigration. 

Mr. Chairman, I accept your challenge. I want to work with you 

to make sure that our borders are secure enough to keep out 

OTMs, al-Qa’ida and others, who might be interested in doing us 

harm, who might be left to run amock amongst the population. 

Let’s stand united together for border security. But as we go 

through this hearing, it is my wish that we not smear the overwhelming number of decent persons who are hard working, tax 

paying, law abiding immigrants. 

We must also acknowledge that our border patrol agents and law 

enforcement officials do their best along the border but face challenges that include lack of support from this administration and 

the Congress. 

I want to congratulate the border patrol agents, because, in fact, 

they have stopped over 1.7 million-plus individuals who are attempting to come into this country illegally. Having walked along 

the borders of California and Mexico and New Mexico, I know their 

hard work and the confidence of the citizens along that border have 

been there in terms of their intent their decency and their commitment and their patriotism. I salute them and I thank them. 

I thank the National Guard that has been called into duty, even 

though their resources have been depleted and most of their resources as we learned in Washington State, some 60 percent of that 

State’s resources of the National Guard are behind the front line 

in Iraq. 

This is a difficult challenge for America. There are some who 

paint as criminals all who cross the border. Yet while the Republican leadership in Congress focus on the southern border with 

10,000 border patrol agents stationed along the 2000-mile border 

with Mexico, only one-tenth of that amount is on the Canadian border, one that is 2.5 times as long as the Mexico border. Recent 

news stories document how people fly, drive, walk, sail, ski and 

sled across the northern border all the time. That, is why we must 

have a unified comprehensive approach to immigration reform. 

Now I know there is violence along the southern border. Criminal enterprises are trying to control their turf with trafficking and 

smuggling of human beings and drugs. We have seen the violence 

and tragedy in losing 19 individuals in a stuffed, if you will, conditions coming across the border, but we also know there is violence 

and there is trepidation on the northern border. We congratulate 

the Customs and Border Protection officer that stopped the individual coming across, the bomber. If had not been for their intuition, their insight and the ability to turn that person over to secondary, we might have had enormous tragedy on New Year’s Eve 

of 2000. 

But that was because they had the resources to secondary. Mr. 

Chairman, the Customs and Border Protection are suffering because they do not have a enough resources for what we call secondary investigation. That is why the Congress needs to go back 

to work. That is why Congress and the President must do more 

than give lip service to securing the border. Since 9/11, House Republicans have rejected seven Democratic amendments that will in-
9

crease, strengthen our borders by increasing staff and funding for 

necessary security measures. 

If Republicans had not defeated these Democratic efforts to enhance border security over the last 4 years, there would be 6,600 

more border patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 

more immigration agents on the border. 

On December 16, 2005, all 219 House Republicans voting that 

day opposed a Democratic proposal to improve border security and 

immigration enforcement by fulfilling the 9/11 border security recommendations. 

The proposal would have hired more border patrol agents, ended 

the catch and release practice by authorizing 100,000 additional detention beds and incorporating state-of-the-art surveillance technology, including cameras, sensors, radar, satellites and unmanned 

aerial vehicles in order to ensure 100 percent border coverage. That 

happened to be H.R. 4437 and it was captured from my legislation, 

H.R. 4400, that I offered as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security Committee. 

I introduced H.R. 4044, the Rapid Response Border Protection 

Act, which calls the White House and call the Congress and indicate that there is a crisis in their State. It allows for the United 

States Government then to dispatch a thousand border patrol 

agents to that particular area. That bill was to meet our border security needs by providing the border patrol with the personnel, 

equipment and resources they needed to secure the border. Yet our 

Republican leadership in Congress has not allowed this bill to move 

forward. 

When the administration and Congress obstructs efforts to secure the border, State and local governments are left holding the 

bag. In fact, the reimbursement dollars that we have supported 

over the years, called SCAAP money, have been zeroed out by this 

administration. That would allow our district attorneys to be reimbursed for any of those individuals that might not be in status or 

incarcerated in our jails. Cities and States have to choose between 

funding schools versus doing the Federal Government’s job of securing the borders. 

The President has acknowledged that our border security needs 

more than just fences and deportation, but we need leadership, not 

rhetoric, on this issue. 

The public needs to know these facts so that it is not duped into 

believing that Congress and the administration is now doing, or in 

the 5 years since 9/11, has not been doing all it can to protect our 

borders. 

In a forum yesterday, I was asked the question why do not these 

people just go into the United States military. Having just recently 

come back from Iraq, I can answer the question they do. On the 

front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have soldiers who are not 

yet citizens, but they have been willing to carry the flag of the 

United States of America. 

I look forward to hearings that will confront their service in a 

reasonable, rational way: full funding for border security, comprehensive immigration reform, pathway to citizenship that allows 

those from Ireland, India, Pakistan, and places south to be able to 
10

get in line and assume their rightful place and commitment to the 

United States of America. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about real tools that 

they need to secure our borders, and I look forward, as I said, to 

upholding the flag of the United States for all of those who choose 

to carry the flag, respect it and love it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time. 

[The statement of Ms. Jackson-Lee follows:]

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

Thank you Mr. chairman, and welcome to my district. 

I want to begin by asking for a moment of silence to honor fallen National Guard 

Spc. Kirsten Fike. She was two hours into the first day of a border surveillance mission near Yuma when she collapsed and died in the 100+ degree weather in Yuma, 

Arizona. She is from Pennsylvania and is survived by her 13 year old son, Cody. 

Today, we will hear from seventeen witnesses about criminal activities and violence along the border. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, Houston is quite a ways from the border. Nevertheless, immigration is a very important issue to the metropolitan city of Houston, to the great 

State of Texas as well as to the Nation. Moreover, I think it is imperative that we 

in Congress deal jointly with the inseparable issues of border security and comprehensive immigration reform rather than stall the process of much needed legislative reform. 

As the Ranking Member for the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims and as a Member of the Committee on Homeland 

Security, I know firsthand the complexities of the issues surrounding border security and immigration reform. That is why I am saddened by the simplistic and 

sometimes caustic rhetoric regarding immigrants and immigration reform which is 

too often articulated in an attempt to fuel anti-immigrant sentiment. 

Mr. Chairman, 99% of all immigrants coming to this great country do so because 

they want to work, improve their and their families’ opportunities for success, and 

reunite with their families. President Bush recognized that fact in his May 15th address to the Nation calling for the passage of the Senate immigration bill. 

It is not lost on me, Mr. Chairman, that this hearing has been convened in a 

courtroom rather than at a university or at City Hall. In other words, Mr. Chairman, we are in an adversarial setting rather than one designed for the free flowing 

exchange of ideas with the community members directly impacted by immigration. 

As we go through this hearing today, it is my wish that we not smear the overwhelming number of decent persons who are hard-working, tax-paying, law abiding 

immigrants. 

We must also acknowledge that our Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officials do an incredible job along the border, despite facing tremendous challenges 

which include lack of personnel, equipment, resources, and other types of support 

from this Republican Administration and Congress. 

There are some who paint as criminals all who cross the southern border. Yet, 

While the Republican leadership in Congress focuses on the Southern border with 

10,000 Border Patrol agents stationed along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico, only 

1/10th that amount is on the Canadian border, a border that is 2.5 times as long 

as the Mexican border. Recent news stories document how people fly, drive, walk, 

sail, ski, and sled across the Northern border all the time. Furthermore, Operation 

Frozen Timber, a multi-agency probe targeting cross-border aerial drug smuggling 

along the U.S.-Canada border, uncovered one of the most brazen criminal schemes 

ever in which a network of criminal smuggling organizations used helicopters to 

ferry tons of drugs to remote wooded locations in Washington and British Columbia. 

Now I know there is violence along the Southern border. Criminal enterprises are 

trying to control their turf for the trafficking and smuggling of humans and drugs. 

That is why Congress and the President must do more than simply and 

opportunistically give lip service to securing the border. Since 9-11, House Republicans have rejected 7 Democratic amendments that would have strengthened our 

borders by increasing personnel and funding for necessary security measures. 

If Republicans had not defeated these Democratic efforts to enhance border security over the last four years, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 14,000 

more detention beds and 2,700 more immigration agents on the border. 
11

On December 16, 2005, all 219 House Republicans voting that day opposed a 

Democratic proposal to improve border security and immigration enforcement by 

fulfilling the 9/11 Commission’s border security recommendations. 

The proposal would have hired more border agents, ended the ‘‘catch and release’’ 

practice by authorizing 100,000 additional detention beds, and incorporated stateof-the art surveillance technology, including cameras, sensors, radar, satellites, and 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in order to ensure 100% border coverage, [HR 4437, Vote 

#660, 12/16/2005, 198—221]. 

In addition, I introduced H.R. 4044, the ‘‘Rapid Response Border Protection Act’’, 

to meet our border security needs by providing the Border Patrol with the personnel, equipment, and resources they need to secure our border. Yet, the Republican leadership in Congress has not allowed this bill to move forward. 

When the Administration and Congress obstructs efforts to secure the border, 

states and local governments are left holding the bag. Cities and states have to 

choose between funding schools versus doing the Federal governments job of securing the borders. 

The President has acknowledged that our border security needs more than just 

fences and deportations. But we need leadership, not just hollow rhetoric, on this 

issue. 

The public needs to know these facts so that it is not duped into believing that 

Congress and the Administration is now doing—or in the five years since 9/11 has 

been doing—all it can to protect our borders. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses honest, complete, and balanced testimony about the real tools they need to secure our border. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. MCCAUL. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas who is probably more accustomed to sitting where I am rather than in the witness chair, Judge Ted Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having this 

hearing. 

It is great to be back in a Harris County courtroom, somewhat 

going through withdrawals. As soon as I walked in the door, I said 

get a jury to the bailiff, and then we get a jury made up of members of the press. I have never had a jury like that before. 

But it is great to be back here. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

As a member of the International Relations Committee and the 

subcommittee on terrorism, this is a vital, important hearing that 

the country knows exactly what is taking place on both our northern and southern borders, and I think if the American public was 

a jury, and they were deciding whether or not our government is 

guilty or not guilty of securing the border, our American jury would 

find the government guilty of failure to secure the national sovereignty of the United States on both borders, and that is why this 

hearing is extremely important. 

The issue is not legal immigration. The issue is those that come 

to this Nation illegally and what, if anything, should be done about 

that situation. You know, it is still illegal to come to the United 

States without permission and that permission is from the American people, the American Government, and the Federal Government has failed to secure the sovereignty of the United States. 

All of our troopers that are here in this room to testify later 

today do as good a job as the Federal Government will let them do, 

and because of people who come here illegally, some of them come 

here and commit crime. That should not be a surprise to anyone. 

We know that three drug cartels that work in Central America 

and Mexico have found a haven for their product in the United 

States, and they cross our southern border to sell that cancer 

among our people. We know those coyotes—what an appropriate 
12

name for those people, for money, smuggle other people, that 

human cargo, into the United States, but we know those coyotes, 

for a fee, will smuggle anybody in this country, including those people who wish to cause us harm, we call those people terrorists, and, 

of course, the gangs and the cartels work alongside these individuals. 

It is great to have one of my favorite sheriffs here, Sheriff Flores, 

because the Texas sheriffs do a tremendous job on border security, 

and thank you, Sheriff Flores, for being here today to testify. 

But we know that lawlessness on the border breeds more lawlessness in the hinterlands of America, including Houston, Texas. 

There are shootings on the border. There are burglaries. Our 

ranchers down on the Texas border lose property, livestock. Their 

homes are burned. That is all crime in America because of those 

people illegally coming in here. 

The GAO now has released a report that has stated that 25 

homicides a day are committed by people in the United States illegally in the United States. Twelve of those homicides are vehicular 

homicides for the drivers under the influence of some type of intoxicants. The other 13 are just old fashioned murders that occur in 

the United States. That is a staggering number of people murdered, both citizens, legal immigrants and, yes, even illegal immigrants by people illegally in the United States. It is because of the 

failure of our government to secure the dignity and sovereignty of 

our border. 

There have been 231 incursions by military police in the last 10 

years into our southern border. Some people deny that this is the 

Mexican military by saying it’s people playing dress up and wearing Mexican uniforms that come into the United States. Tremendous problem. 

This weekend, I spent the weekend with Sheriff Luca Trevino of 

Hidalgo County, another right-thinking American that is very concerned about the crime that occurs in Hidalgo County. He informed 

me of a little known fact that just a little over a month ago down 

at Hidalgo County two of his deputy sheriffs came under fire from 

automatic weaponry on the Mexican side of the river. These deputies received 300 to 400 rounds of automatic fire, fired from the 

Mexican side of the river, and of course, it is a little-known fact because for some reason, we do not print the truth that occurs, the 

lawlessness, on our borders. 

50,000 OTMs were arrested in this one county in 2005. 42,000 

of them were released back into our community, and as you have 

said, Mr. Chairman, most of those people with the promise to come 

back to court to have their deportation hearing, they did not show 

up. Why are we surprised? And they were from Iraq, Iran, Indonesia and from China, all over the world. 

The United States protects the borders of other Nations. Why do 

we not protect our own border? The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the border and prevent incursions of those 

people who come here without permission. 

Our community has become a haven for people who are illegally 

here, and some of those people are committing felonies. 

The United States Government has prosecuted and ordered deported 135,000 convicted felons that are from eight Nations that 
13

refuse to take people back. One of those Nations is China. Another 

Nation is India. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that these 

people have gone to our penitentiaries in the United States, 

135,000. They have been deported or ordered deported and eight 

Nations refuse to take them back. So what happens to those individuals? These convicted felons, illegally in the country to begin 

with, are released back into the community because of our government’s failure to encourage other Nations to take lawfully deported 

individuals back. 

We must do a lot. It is not rhetoric. It is not politics. We have 

the problem. We can solve the problem if the Federal Government 

has the will to support the effort to protect our borders. 

And I do want to thank all of the witnesses here from the military, to our local folks, to the sheriffs and to the individuals that 

work for the Federal Government, and I yield back the remainder 

of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Gene Green, for any statement he may have. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank 

both you and our colleague Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, who 

serves on the Homeland Security Committee. Both Congressman 

Poe and I serve on other committees, and I want to thank the 

chairman for allowing me to have an opening statement, because 

of this effort on these hearings around the country I was told about 

a month ago that unless I showed up at my Energy and Commerce 

hearing, which I was a given a week’s notice for the hearings in 

Georgia and Indiana, I could not participate in these hearings. So, 

Mike, let me thank you for working our differences out in a Texas 

way. 

Like Judge Poe, I came to the courthouse for many years on behalf of the company I helped manage, but I was never on this side 

of the bench. So it is nice to sit here. I was always in front of the 

bench. It is much better, I can see, sitting here than out in front. 

Immigration has been one of the major political topics, not only 

nationally but in the Houston area, for decades. I have been honored to represent districts, with most significant Hispanic and 

Anglo populations, for many years, varying districts in the State 

and in Congress. 

I wanted to be present particularly today to express my support 

for my constituents from the 29th district, Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz, who 

will testify in the third panel, who lost a daughter in a terrible 

murder that occurred by someone who was here, as far as we 

know, illegally. 

I am glad to see the committee in Texas listening to our local 

concerns, but I am also worried that these hearings will be used 

to prop up some inaccurate stereotypes and promote some counterproductive policies. 

Of the estimated 12 million undocumented people in the United 

States, some of these people have certainly committed crimes, including terrible ones like the murder of the Ruiz’s daughter, and 

we are working with local Federal law enforcement officials and 

the government of Venezuela to apprehend and bring this accused 

back to trial. 
14

Undocumented workers and legal residents should know by now 

that if they commit a serious crime or violent crime in our country, 

it is the fastest way to be deported after you pay your penalty and 

serve your time. 

I certainly hope that the majority’s purpose with this hearing is 

not to try to blame Texas’ crime on our Hispanic undocumented immigrants. Almost all of the crime in Nuevo Laredo and along the 

border involve drug traffickers, not immigrants. 

I also hope this hearing is not an attempt to support a ballot initiative that may or may not be on the ballot in the city of Houston 

to require the Houston police department to do the work of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs enforcement. The initiative is an 

unfunded mandate, and I think we will learn more about that 

when our second panel with council member Adrian Garcia, Houston Police Department Chief Hurtt testifys. 

Requiring the HPD to enforce Federal civil immigration law 

would mean they would have less time and resources to enforce our 

own State and local criminal law. If the ballot initiative passes, 

witnesses who are undocumented would not want to talk to the police or testify. We know that from the history. Legal residents and 

U.S. citizens in these communities will also be afraid of HPD because they may have undocumented members of their family. 

We do not want a 16-year old citizen who has witnessed gang violence, to refuse to talk to the police for fear that his mother may 

be deported. 

I have great sympathy for our witnesses from the border areas 

who are seeing a huge increase in border violence due to drug and 

kidnapping gangs and support their efforts. 

Congress promised an initial 8,000 beds in the 9/11 Intelligence 

Reform Act, but Congress failed to put our money where our mouth 

is. Conflicts overseas and recent tax cuts have left little money on 

the table to fund border security properly. America must secure our 

borders and we have to sacrifice to do that, and that we should consider. If we are going to protect our country, we have to do that. 

The Democrat minority in Congress has offered several amendments to add 600 additional border patrol agents and 14,000 detention beds along the border. When Judge Poe talked about the countries that will not take their folks back, then there is no reason 

they should be released into the population. They are felons. They 

ought to be detained here until that country, whatever country, 

will decide to take them back. We need to have that bed space. 

Our Texas colleague, Charlie Gonzalez, also offered a recent 

amendment to the House immigration bill to increase fines on employers that hire undocumented workers but the majority rejected 

this amendment. 

In 1999, the Clinton administration initiated fines against 417 

companies for hiring undocumented workers. In 2004, the Bush administration issued fines to a grand total of three companies. I do 

not think it is gotten any better since 1999. So I think we may be 

blaming the wrong folks for the increase in crime. 

The solution to our undocumented worker program is an increase 

in border security and enforcement on employers. I hope some of 

the hearings around the country will hear also not just about the 
15

criminal problem, but I want to talk about an incident, a case in 

my own district that I hope will get into the testimony. 

I had a young United States Marine from our district that was 

killed in Iraq, the first time the Marines went in Fallujah. He was 

a U.S. citizen as one of his sisters. In working with his family, we 

found out that one sister was not a citizen and is not a legal resident. His two parents who have been coming back and forth across 

the border for probably 25 or so years were not legal and actually 

had been picked up twice, and under our civil law now, if you are 

picked up once you are deported and you have a 5-year bar. You 

can never come to the United States in 5 years, no matter what 

the reason. If you are picked up a twice, you have a permanent bar. 

So they have a permanent bar under current law ever coming to 

the United States. 

I would ask you, those parents are here but do we want to have 

the parents of their son who died in Iraq, who volunteered as a 

United States Marine, be deported to Mexico? I do not think that 

is an issue. I think we ought to have a law that would address this, 

and we cannot do it unless we pass comprehensive immigration reform. 

We need to stop the leaks on the border. We need to deal with 

the undocumented population that is here. We need to deport the 

criminals and find the ones who have been here and not broken 

any criminal laws but may have broken our civil laws. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for being fair. That may not 

be the case, in lots of jurisdictions under our committees. 

[The statement of Mr. Green follows:]

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN

Thank you Chairman McCaul and Congresswoman Jackson-Lee for allowing me 

to participate today. 

Immigration has been one of the major topics of political debate in the Houston 

area for decades. 

I have represented districts with significant Hispanic and Anglo populations for 

many years, so I am very interested in this hearing. 

I also wanted to be present to express my support for our constituents in the 29th 

District, Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz, who lost a daughter in a terrible incident and will be 

testifying today on the third panel. 

I am glad to see this Committee in Texas listening to our local concerns, but I 

am worried these hearings are being used to prop up some inaccurate stereotypes 

and promote some counter-productive policies. 

Of the 12 million undocumented people in the United States, some of these people 

have certainly committed crimes, including terrible crimes like the murder of the 

Ruiz’s daughert 

Undocumented immigrants or legal residents should know by now that committing a serious or violent crime is the fastest way to be deported after you pay your 

penalty or serve your time. 

I certainly hope that the majority’s purpose with this hearing is not to try to 

blame Texas’ crime on Hispanic undocumented immigrants. 

Almost all the crime in Nuevo Laredo and along the border involves drug traffickers, not immigrants. 

I also hope this hearing is not an attempt to support a ballot initiative this November to force the Houston Police Department to do the work of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

The initiative is an unfunded mandate that will make us less safe. I hope we can 

learn more about that issue from our panelists like Councilmember Adrian Garcia 

and HPD Chief Harold Hurtt. 

Requiring HPD to enforce federal civil immigration law will mean they have less 

time and resources to enforce state and local criminal law. 
16

If the ballot initiative passes, witnesses who are undocumented will not want to 

talk to the police or testify. Legal residents and U.S. citizens in those communities 

will also be afraid of HPD because they may have undocumented family members. 

We do not want a 16-year old citizen who witnessed gang violence to refuse to 

talk to the police for fear that his mother will be deported. 

I have great sympathy for our witnesses from the border areas who are seeing 

a huge increase in border violence due to drug and kidnapping gangs. 

Congress promised an additional 8,000 detention beds and 2,000 more Border Patrol agents in the 9/11 Intelligence Reform Act, but Congress has failed to put our 

money where our mouth is. 

Conflicts overseas and recent tax cuts have not left enough money on the table 

to fund border security properly. America must secure our borders, and if we have 

to sacrifice to do that, then we should consider it. 

The Democratic minority in Congress has offered several amendments to add an 

additional 6,600 Border Patrol agents and 14,000 detention beds on the border, but 

these votes have failed due to the Republican majority’s opposition based on budgetary reasons. 

Our Texas colleague Charlie Gonzalez also offered an amendment to the recent 

House immigration bill to increase fines on employers that hire undocumented 

workers but the majority also rejected his amendment. 

In 1999, the Clinton Administration initiated fines against 417 companies for hiring undocumented workers. In 2004, the Bush Administration issued fines to a 

grand total of three companies. 

The solution to our undocumented worker program is to increase border security 

and enforcement on employers. 

We need to stop the leaks along the border and then we can deal with the undocumented population that is here—deport the criminals and fine the law-abiding ones.

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Gene. And it is my intention at this 

hearing, really, to get to the facts. No spin zone, no politics, let’s 

just hear the facts. 

With that being said, I think it is fitting to set the stage at the 

very beginning of this hearing before the testimony to watch a 

video of real life down on the border in Nuevo Laredo, which illustrates the state of violence better than anything I could say up 

here. I would like to show this video, and Sheriff Flores, since you 

are the one who tendered the video, if you would narrate the video 

for us. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire, is this to be 

played on the record. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yes, it is. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Can the video testimony be submitted into the 

record. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yes it can. Please proceed. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. McCaul, distinguished members of the panel, I 

do not think the video is doing justice because of the volume. I 

think if you would have seen the beginning, the actual volume of 

this video, you will get to hear the gunfire of this incident that 

happened in Nuevo Laredo, and this is one of many incidents that 

have occurred in Nuevo Laredo. 

This one specifically is with the AFI, the Mexican equivalent to 

the U.S. FBI, against one of the narco-trafficking cartels that is 

taking place on the Mexican border. Right now there is a turf battle between two cartels that, at least, I understand is in Texas, all 

the way up to California, between two cartels, which is the gulf 

cartel and the seno lauro cartel and that is gun battle. The AFI, 

which was the Federal police against the gulf cartel, and as you 

can barely hear, this gun battle took some time, and just listen to 

all the rounds that were spent during this battle. 
17

There was cars that was blown up, people that were killed, murdered in the streets, and you will actually get to hear one of the 

individuals stating that he is working for his cousin and calls him 

Lobo, Si Quinta Sia, which is known to be one of the cartel leaders 

of the gulf cartel. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Sir, can you describe the type of weapons involved. 

Mr. FLORES. As far as we are concerned they are high powered 

weapons, AK–47s, even up to maybe 50 calibers, RPGs. As you can 

see the cars being blown up. 

Mr. MCCAUL. By rocket propelled grenade. 

Mr. FLORES. Yes. The cartel is heavily armed. They have got the 

resources. They have more resources than we do. It is unfortunate, 

but I would like to add that these people who are causing this terrorism on the border are not from Nuevo Laredo. These are people 

that are coming from the Interior of Mexico who want to take control over the border and pretty much have taken control over the 

border but these are not people from Nuevo Laredo and actually 

the people from Nuevo Laredo are moving out of their communities 

and coming across into Laredo do to live, due to the fact of safety 

issues and concerns. 

We are talking businesses are opening up in Laredo do, closing 

Nuevo Laredo because of the safety and security. Mr. McCaul, you 

can see some of the bodies there but because we are not being able 

to listen, at any time if you wanted to, you can go ahead and stop 

the video. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I believe the sheriff is correct. I think everyone 

who sees this video and the destruction of bodies get the point of 

the level of violence that we are dealing with. This is the reality. 

This is what is bleeding over into our communities. This is the violence coming into the United States, and with that having been 

said, I will ask that we stop the video. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me simply acknowledge the 

video can be submitted, but I do want to acknowledge on the record 

that the videotape is of Nuevo Laredo in Mexico, another sovereign 

nation. The video is not of Laredo, Texas, and I think it is important that distinctions are made, having had a hearing in Laredo, 

and Sheriff Flores was there. The officials in Laredo indicated that 

they feel that they have their city under control, and this does not 

reflect the violence in Laredo, Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Your comments are duly noted, Ms. Jackson-Lee. 

We will hear more about that from sheriff Flores on that issue. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I would like to say, a picture speaks a thousand 

words, and I think the pictures behind me are speaking 1,000 

words about the state of violence across the border that impacts 

our border, that impacts our communities all across this Nation. 

With that having been said, I am pleased to have a distinguished 

panel of witnesses before us today on this important topic, and I 

want to remind the witnesses that their entire written statement 

will appear in the record. We ask, due to the number of witnesses 

on our panel, that you try to limit your testimony to five minutes. 

The chair now recognizes the Texas homeland security director 

Steve McCraw for his testimony.
18

STATEMENT OF STEVE McCRAW, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MCCRAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee. 

On behalf of Governor Perry, I want to thank you for conducting 

this hearing here in Houston today. We think it is very important 

you do so, to get out in the field, and it is a reminder, and I see 

Chief Hurtt over here, is that what happens on the border certainly 

impacts the border, but also impacts Houston, Texas, and Houston 

police officers and the Travis County Sheriff Department are also 

faced with the residue that comes from the violence at the border. 

Quickly, you did a great job, all members, in terms of assessing 

the threat. I think you have got it nailed. You asked what’s different than if you worked it 10 years ago, or 20 years ago or from 

your career, Chairman, is that the, I will call it, ruthlessness and 

violence is it is a different breed in terms of impact. 

In fact, it is better categorized, there is less Mexican drug trafficking organizations and more organized crime families, not unlike 

what we saw previously at the height of the cosa nostra, the Sicilian mafia, and Russian organized crime because they are no longer 

focused on drugs, and they no longer just leave their drugs along 

the side of the road and run for cover. In fact, they get a piece of 

all the action that goes on between those corridors. 

That is why, as Sheriff Flores pointed out most appropriately, 

and he has to deal with it, they are competing in the Nuevo Laredo 

to gain that corridor. Why? Because it is organized crime. It makes 

money and it is not just in terms of drug trafficking that it matters. Human smuggling. They are getting a piece of it, and it is a 

very lucrative market. People do not realize that you can make 

anywhere from $2,000 for a foreign national from Mexico up to 

45,000 and beyond depending upon country of origin. 

So that is what you are up against right now. That is your 

enemy, Mexican organized crime families that are competing, and 

unfortunately they are the same names I recall 10 years ago when 

there was Vicente Furio Fuentes or Cardenas. We know who the 

enemy is. The difference is they are more ruthless and more powerful and well financed, and they are deeply engaged in intelligence 

collection on both sides of the border and can we say, yes, they are 

involved in corruption, and that is the situation that we face right 

now. 

The most significant threat to Texas is two things: catastrophic 

hurricane, number one, and this is the same, one in one, and an 

unsecured unprotected 1246-mile border. Customs and Border Patrol protection deserve great credit. The men and women everyday 

are risking their lives. They have been outstanding. We are very 

proud to work side by side with them. 

There are other parts of this threat, and you mentioned it very 

well: Number two, criminals. I think Congressman Poe brought 

that out. It is not just the ones that are attached to organized 

crime. America is the opportunity certainly for the economic emigre 

but it also the opportunity for criminals around the world. People 

from 134 different Nations were arrested along the southern border 

of the U.S. from different countries and some of those embedded in 

there unfortunately are criminals. 
19

The third, OTM, other-than-Mexican nationals, Texas, 135,045 

were arrested in 2005 by border patrol, apprehended. That constitutes roughly 85 percent of the OTMs that are captured Nationwide, including the northern border, and although the northern 

border, we could agree, is important, we need to recognize in terms 

of the impact on the southern border. The most significant threat 

in the prioritization has got to be southern border. In fact, 98.5 percent of all illegal apprehensions at the border including coastal, 

occur along the southern border. That is where Mexican organized 

crime do better. 

The other thing is transnational gangs. I never would have believed it. In 1995, we saw the first of it when Arellano Felix started 

working with San Diego-based gangs, but who would think that we 

would have MS–13, 80,000 members strong, and 10,000 members 

in the U.S. and moving across the country. In fact, you know, the 

Canadians have a problem with MS–13, and they are not getting 

there with help from Alaska. They are coming through the southern border into Canada and other parts of the east coast. That is 

a concern. 

That said, what do we do? What is the governor to do? Because 

two things that line up here. It is a national security threat because we know that al-Qa’ida and now Hezbollah intends to exploit 

the southern border of our country and Texas to get in. So what 

do we do? And not just do something in terms of declare an emergency. Actually do something. 

One thing we found obviously, and I think the sheriffs, two of 

them here today deserve great credit in terms of leadership, hey, 

why don’t we, one, work together and, two, what about increased 

patrol presence. It works in urban areas. What about along the border? And sure enough, they have demonstrated that guess what it 

does work along the border. Increased patrol presence decreases 

crime, all crime. That is very important. 

These traffickers, organized crime families, they do want to lose 

their human loads or drug loads. It forces them to shut down when 

this patrol presence is in there, and it is not just about the crime 

on American citizens. It is also crime on illegal aliens. 

People sometimes forget those that are most often raped, robbed 

and murdered are the illegal immigrants coming here for economic 

reasons, on both sides of the border that cross the border. In fact, 

their biggest friends is law enforcement in terms of rescuing them 

from these types of atrocities that occur. That is who comes to their 

rescue, border patrol, the sheriffs out in the middle of you know nowhere and desolate areas. 

It is important to remind that when it comes to the threat we 

are not talking about Laredo proper. We are talking about between 

the ports of entry and the sustainment in terms of movement 

across. Those are the key things we just wanted to talk about. 

The other part in terms of increased patrol presence if we look 

at the governor’s strategy and you mentioned Rio Grande, trying 

to watch my time here, Mr. Chairman, the other parts of it is very 

simple. Increase patrol presence, okay, we have got that. What 

about centralized intelligence, intelligence-driven operations? Absolutely. There is no reason not to do that. Bad guys do it. We need 
20

to be doing it as well. We need to get inside the decision-making 

cycle. 

The third one simply is command and control. We don’t need to 

be competing as law enforcement agencies. If the border patrol does 

something and sheriffs do something and highway patrol does 

something, it needs to be coordinated. 

Last, technology, leverage it, information share it across the 

board. Why not? We are confident and I will get back to the one 

recommendation you will get from Texas is simply leverage locals, 

leverage these professionals that know the threat better and are 

charged with protecting their citizens from all threats, foreign and 

domestic. 

[The information follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE MCCRAW

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on an issue of such vital 

importance to the nation. My name is Steve McCraw and I am Governor Rick Perry’s Director of Homeland Security for the State of Texas. 

Criminal activity and violence along the porous Texas/Mexico border is not new 

to Texans; however, what is new is the escalating national security, public safety, 

and public health implications to our nation. In December of 2000, I had an opportunity to testify before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime where I discussed the significant threat posed by the convergence of organized crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism. As I testified then, the convergence was a result of worldwide economic, political, social, and technological changes that resulted in a more 

dispersed, complex, and asymmetric threat to our nation. I specifically cited the 

Carrillo-Fuentes Drug Trafficking Organization based in Juarez, Mexico, to illustrate how violence had become an integral part of drug trafficking activities along 

our southern border. At the time, there were 300 drug related disappearances in 

Juarez, Mexico, including 27 U.S. citizens. In El Paso, there were 120 drug related 

homicides and 73 drug related disappearances. I also discussed the emerging alliance between Mexican drug traffickers and U.S. based gangs. 

Much has changed since 2000; most significantly, the events of 9–11. Border related crime has also changed as Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations have 

transitioned into powerful and ruthless Organized Crime Families that now dominate the lucrative U.S. drug and human smuggling market. 

Over a year ago, Governor Rick Perry tasked me to conduct a comprehensive border threat assessment as a result of the increased incidents of violence on both sides 

of the Texas/Mexico border to include the kidnapping and disappearances of U.S. 

citizens who lived in our border cities. That assessment will be the basis of the 

threat portion of my testimony today. 

The border threat is multi-dimensional and can be viewed as five interrelated 

parts; Mexican Organized Crime; transnational gangs; foreign criminals; foreign nationals from countries with a known al-Qa’ida, Hezbollah and Hamas presence; and 

evolving public health concerns. 

For over a decade, U.S. law enforcement has successfully identified the leadership 

and hierarchy of Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations which at one time isolated 

their criminal activities to drug trafficking in specific smuggling corridors along the 

southern border. These organizations were referred to either by the name of the organization, such as the Amado-Carrillo Fuentes organization, or geographic location, 

such as the Juarez or Gulf Cartels. These cartels engaged in other criminal activity 

such as violence in support of their drug trafficking operations and therefore were 

not considered Poly Crime Organizations similar to the La Cosa Nostra or Sicilian 

Mafia. 

Now many of these same drug trafficking organizations dominate all aspects of 

the drug trade; production, transportation, and distribution and have expanded 

their operations to other crimes, such as the lucrative human smuggling market 

where foreign nationals are charged anywhere from $2,000 to $45,000 per person 

based upon their country of origin. 

The fact is that Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations of old have evolved to 

the point that they are best characterized as Mexican Organized Crime Families 

rather than drug cartels. 
21

To protect and expand their criminal operations, Mexican Organized Crime Families maintain a highly developed intelligence network on both sides of the border 

and have hired former military commandos. The best known group is comprised of 

former Mexican military commandos known as Los Zetas whose trade mark is overwhelming violence and they are universally feared by their adversaries and all levels of the Mexican government. Once they were strictly hired killers and now they 

profit from their own smuggling operations. 

The employment of former military commandos has had a reverberating impact 

along the Texas/Mexico border in particular, Nuevo Laredo, where Organized Crime 

families are battling for the highly treasured I–35 corridor into the U.S. At one 

time, members or associates of Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations would drop 

the drugs or abandon their vehicles when confronted by U.S. law enforcement. Similarly, human smugglers would simply give up when approached or stopped on the 

highway. The Mexican Organized Crime Families no longer tolerate such compliant 

behavior and loads of both, drugs and humans, are protected by direct confrontations, high speed chases and stand offs at the Rio Grande River. Border Patrol 

Agents are shot at from across the river and Troopers and Sheriffs’ Deputies are 

challenged to duals with automatic weapons by members and associates of Mexican 

Organized Crime while others retrieve their drug contraband. Mexican Organized 

Crime now employ new highway tactics in Texas and when Police Officers attempt 

to stop a suspect vehicle they are rammed in a coordinated attack by other vehicles 

providing counter surveillance. 

Mexican Organized Crime Families have also corrupted certain Mexican military 

units to transport drugs into the U.S. A Texas Ranger investigation confirmed that 

this has occurred on at least one occasion and that there have been other border 

incursions that the evidence strongly indicates were done so by Mexican military 

units. 

The Mexican Organized Crime families that directly impact Texas are well known 

to U.S. and Mexico law enforcement. Osiel Cardenas Guillen, Ignacio CoronelVillarreal, Joaquin Guzman-Loera, Juan Esparragosa-Moreno, Arturo BeltranLeyva, Ismael Zamada-Garcia, Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, and Benjamin FelixArellano. 

The five Organized Crime Families of Coronel-Villarreal, Guzman-Loera, 

Esparragosa-Moreno, Beltran-Leyva and Zamada-Garcia have joined together to 

fight for control of the I–35 corridor in Nuevo Laredo. This consortium has been referred to as the ‘‘Alliance.’’ The Cardenas Guillen and Felix-Arellano families have 

joined forces to combat the Alliance. The result is unrelenting violence in the streets 

of Nuevo Laredo. 

The second area of concern is transnational gangs who now work for and with 

Mexican Organized Crime to conduct enforcement operations on both sides of the 

border. They also conduct their own criminal operations including retail drug distribution and human smuggling. 

These gangs include the Mara Salvatrucha, aka MS–13, Mexican Mafia, and the 

Texas Syndicate. MS–13 is the most problematic with approximately 80,000 members internationally and approximately 10,000 members and growing in the U.S. 

They have long been associated with the Mexican Mafia and are well known for 

their use of torture, dismemberment, rape, and execution. Approximately 90% of 

U.S. MS–13 members are illegal aliens and depend upon the Texas/Mexico border 

smuggling corridor to support their criminal operations around the nation. The 

Texas Syndicate is a Texas prison gang whose members also serve as mercenaries 

for Mexican organized crime on both sides of the border and street level drug distributors in Texas cities. 

The third aspect of the border threat is foreign criminals who come to the U.S. 

seeking crime opportunities. As these violent criminals cross the border, they rob, 

rape, extort, invade homes, and vandalize, forcing Texas land owners off their property. At one time, illegal aliens were non-threatening and appreciative when Texas 

land owners left them water and food provisions. This is no longer the case as Texans are now threatened by armed criminals on their own land. Recently in Tyler, 

Texas, two illegal aliens shot a DPS Trooper five times at point blank range after 

a traffic stop. When they were finally captured, it was discovered that they were 

fully armed wearing bullet proof vests and each had been arrested and deported to 

Mexico on two separate occasions. Foreign criminals also prey on other illegal aliens 

who rob, rape, kill, or abandon. On July 17, 2006, Victor Rodriguez was sentenced 

to 20 years in prison for his involvement in the death of 19 illegal immigrants he 

was smuggling into the U.S. And on the same day, three criminals from Mexico 

were sentenced for smuggling young women and girls from Mexico to the U.S. and 

then using threats, deception, physical force, and coercion to compel their services 

as prostitutes in Houston area bars. 
22

Since the events of 9-11, Americans have been appropriately concerned about the 

ability of foreign nationals from countries with a known al-Qa’ida presence to leverage Mexican Organized Crime capabilities to enter the U.S. undetected. Mexican Organized Crime is motivated by money and they do not vet paying customers. In fact, 

there is no such thing as a ‘‘no walk list.’’ We even have a new term, Other Than 

Mexican Nationals (OTMs) to better delineate this problem. When assessing border 

crime it is important to recognize that International Terrorism Organizations are 

well financed and the high paying customers of Mexican Organized Crime are the 

least likely to be apprehended when smuggled into the U.S. The Customs and Border Patrol Fiscal Year 2005 apprehension statistics illustrates well why all Americans should be concerned about the criminal activity along the southern border. 

In Fiscal Year 2005, 98.5% of all illegal alien apprehensions occurred along the 

southern border and 85.84% of all the OTMs arrested occurred on the southern border. Texas alone accounted for 87.12% of the OTM apprehensions. 

Crime along our southern border brings with it another threat that we should 

closely monitor, disease. In Fiscal Year 2005, the Customs and Border Patrol apprehended illegal aliens from 134 different countries including several with known disease problems. As the specter of pandemic flu looms, it will be increasingly important to secure our borders from this public health threat as well. 

Based upon the above assessment, Governor Perry ordered the development and 

execution of an evidence-based strategy to assist the Federal Government in securing our border and that it be done so with the sense of urgency it warrants. 

State efforts began in November of last year by first leveraging the local law enforcement expertise of the 16 Border Sheriffs to conduct increased patrols between 

the ports of entry in their Counties funded by the State. In addition, Texas Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol Troopers increased their patrols in the border 

area. Governor Perry expanded the scope of Texas border security operations in February, 2006, when he launched Operation Rio Grande which is comprised of four 

essential components; increased patrol presence, centralized command and control, 

centralized intelligence, and leveraging technology. Governor Perry’s objective is to 

decrease all crime within the area of operation which includes all jurisdictions within 100 miles of the 1,240 mile Texas/Mexico Border. This, in turn, will decrease 

crime in other areas of Texas and the nation. It has long been demonstrated, whether in a rural or urban setting, increased visible patrols decreases all crime and is 

applicable to the Texas border region. In addition to more ‘‘boots on the ground’’ the 

State is conducting fully integrated, threat based, intelligence driven operations to 

attack criminal activity and deny foreign criminals and terrorists easy access to 

Texas and the rest of the United States. The focus is on targeted, short duration, 

high-intensity operations in predetermined hi-value areas. For example, in Operation Del Rio, Mexican organized criminal activity ceased in a three county area 

along the border and the crime rate in Val Verde County was reduced by 76% and 

by 27% in Maverick County. Similar results were achieved in Operation Laredo. The 

five county Laredo area operation realized an overall crime rate reduction of at least 

65%. The fact is these intense operations work. 

In Operation Del Rio, four Federal agencies, the Texas Army National Guard, 

DPS and Border Patrol SWAT Teams, four separate aviation components, four separate water patrol units, including the Texas Parks and Wildlife, and seven different 

local law enforcement agencies participated in this unified effort. The same level of 

participation was evident in Operation Laredo and continued in Operation El Paso. 

Before I continue, I would like to publicly commend, on behalf of Governor Perry, 

the brave men and women of the Border Patrol who serve as the cornerstone of all 

successful border operations. 

I am aware that there are many well-intentioned people who view increased patrol presence along the border as a threat to law-abiding citizens here legally. Some 

have even downplayed the presence of those here illegally based on the fact that 

many are simply trying to feed their families and survive economically. While we 

can all sympathize with the desire, the fact is that you cannot look at someone who 

is crossing the border illegally and determine whether that individual is here merely 

seeking employment and opportunity, or to engage in criminal, or even terrorist activity, to harm our citizenry. In a post 9-11 threat environment, it is imperative that 

those who cross our border illegally are properly vetted. 

The Texas Border Security Operations Center was established to centralize the 

coordination of border enforcement activities and operations in order to maximize 

the impact on the criminal organizations and terrorists while at the same time 

leveraging all available resources in a coordinated manner. The Texas Border Security Operations Center also provides a centralized intelligence capability providing 

a uniform view of the threat picture and operating environment on a 24/7/365 basis. 

We have learned that our adversaries have an extensive intelligence network and 
23

it is vitally important that we do as well. In fact, I can assure you they are monitoring this hearing today in Houston. 

Our Nation’s adversaries also leverage technology and so must we. The technology 

plan for the Governor’s strategy focuses on four essential areas: establishment of a 

virtual neighborhood watch; establishment of an integrated web-based information 

sharing tool for all law enforcement personnel in Texas; radio interoperability capable of supporting border enforcement operations; and the placement of live scan fingerprint booking stations in every county in Texas. The border is receiving many 

of these technologies on an expedited basis because of the threat to public safety 

that exists there. 

There has been an underinvestment in border security for decades which is no 

longer acceptable in a post 9–11 threat environment. Moreover, the scope and magnitude of the terrorism and crime threat to our state and the nation requires immediate action leveraging local and state expertise and resources. Governor Perry has 

announced that he will work with the Texas legislature to obtain $100 million dollars in state funding to support border security activities. The funding is needed to 

support increased numbers of local commissioned officers throughout the border region to include salary and benefits and the necessary equipment for these officers 

to include vehicles and weapons and air support. 

Let me close by saying this: while it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce our immigration laws, it is wholly within the purview of state and 

local law enforcement to address illegal and criminal activity that occurs on Texas 

soil. And there are numerous instances in which a state or local officer, in stopping 

someone for a violation of our state law, determines that a person is in violation 

of federal law by being here illegally. 

This is unavoidable; not only along the border, but in cities and towns all across 

Texas as law enforcement faithfully executes its responsibilities. We make no apologies for implementing an aggressive criminal apprehension and prevention effort 

that in effect helps federal officials enforce our immigration laws even though that 

is not the specific purpose of our operation. 

Thank you. I would be happy to take your questions.

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. McCraw, and I want to commend 

you for your efforts at the State level and the governor for your enforcement operations which should be a Federal responsibility. I 

think you all have really stepped up to the plate and you should 

be commended for that. 

Our next witness is Colonel Malesky and the Chair now recognizes you.

STATEMENT OF COLONEL RUSSELL MALESKY, 

COUNTERDRUG COMMANDER, TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD 

Colonel MALESKY. On behalf of Major General Chuck Rodriguez, 

I want to thank you for inviting us to provide testimony for this 

panel. 

As the commander of the counterdrug task force, I have been involved with supporting law enforcement agencies at the local, State 

and Federal agencies for about 16–1/2 years now. I want to grab 

a Yogism here from Yogi Berra, who is the one who said you can 

observe a lot by watching. I have been in a very unique position 

as a member of the Armed Services serving for the governor and 

the adjutant general as a member of the Texas National Guard to 

watch law enforcement, observe how they do their business, how 

committed they are to the job, and how daunting the threat is to 

a small amount of protection to our security. 

By providing additional services through the Texas military 

forces, the Texas Army Air National Guard, through the county 

drug program, we provide force enhancement with regard to providing aircraft, one vehicular airplane, some helicopters, some folks 

doing investigative case and analytical support to the various 
24

Interagencies, and in fact, one of those soldiers is sitting beside Mr. 

Pena from immigration and Customs of course. He is one of 223 on 

the counterdrug task force. 

In addition to the counterdrug task force, I have some limited 

oversight of the border support mission. One of the other uniform 

service members, they are in the back of the auditorium, who is the 

commander of the jump start mission, which represents approximately 25 percent of 6,000 soldiers and airmen from the National 

Guard who are working in support of border protection. So both of 

those missions we put together and call our law enforcement support cadre for the country. 

Texas represents 10 percent of the National Guard’s counterdrug 

program. Congress capped that program back in 1990 at 4,000 soldiers and airmen. Today there are approximately 1,900 soldiers 

and airmen serving across the 54 States and territories on that 

counterdrug program. 

I would like to give you some facts, and it is the neat thing about 

being in uniform is that we can stay away from the politics and 

just stick to the facts. 

That one RC–26 that flies out of 147th fire wing in the last 10 

months provided these numbers to me: 298.7 hours on the southwest border, which is 60 percent of their assigned mission hours. 

In that time, the results are the supported apprehension of 5,430 

pounds of marijuana, 30 pounds of meth, 1,122 pounds of coke, 10 

drug related arrests, and the byproduct, which we cannot claim because we are a counterdrug program, are the undocumented alien 

apprehensions of 173 bodies and 97 that were not apprehended because we couldn’t get people to respond to the crossing and so on. 

Cash of $40,000, vehicles of eleven, and this one stands out in my 

mind, 16 fully automatic empty firearms cases in one recent takedown or weapons and 2,200 rounds of ammunition in that particular one. 

That is just one element of the counterdrug task force in the 

State. That one airplane flies 1,200-plus miles of the border of 

Texas, and in this case, was able to fly the 200-mile segment of the 

border over 4 hours when the crossings took place, like a soda 

straw, as to focus in that one area. I myself fly the airplane and 

have been on that mission when we have been following crossings. 

While other sensors are going off and the border patrol agents in 

that area are focused on what we are looking at, there is further 

response with the additional guardsmen supporting a jump start 

hoping we could kind of help support law enforcement in getting 

a handle on those numbers. 

But the bottom line is the counterdrug task force is very small, 

a very small footprint. The operation jump start mission, slightly 

larger footprint on the southwest border. Geared to shut down in 

2 years as border patrol hires the agents to replace those guardsmen who are in support roles to them. So it is force enhancement, 

force multiplier. 

The counterdrug program 17 years ago was stood up to being a 

force enhancement, a force multiplier for just a couple of years. 

Here we are 16 years later, still focused because over those 16 

years we have developed military unique skills that work hand in 

hand with the Interagency partners of law enforcement. 
25

I am sure Mr. Pena would stand up since he has got a guardsman in the room and support what the National Guard has provided. Just 2 days ago, at one of the points there in Falfurrias 

4,000 pounds of marijuana was apprehended in a tractor trailer. 

The guardsmen on the Operation Jump Start mission helped support that. That marijuana in that case was turned over to the DEA 

in Corpus Christi, where counterdrug investigative and analytical 

support personnel like the sergeant here are assigned to now further work that case for the DEA. 

So as the National Guard, we get the very unique opportunity to 

cross the Interagency barrier with uniforms that don’t say DEA, 

Customs and border protection, FBI, narcotic, DPS, or whatever. 

We are the Texas Air National Guard, and we help in many ways 

bring the Interagency together through our relationship. 

As I close my testimony, I will end with a Yogism, the future 

ain’t what it used to be. That is another way of saying in our realm 

tomorrow is a lot more scarier than it was yesterday because I 

have had a chance to see it firsthand. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The information follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL MALESKY

Purpose and scope: Provide an overview of the Texas Military Forces Joint 

Counterdrug Task Force (JCDTF) and demonstrate adaptability of Counter 

Drug resources to Homeland Security (HLS). 

1. The mission of the JCDTF is to provide highly trained and experienced military personnel and equipment to support the Law Enforcement Interagency effort as well as community organizations to reduce supply and demand of and 

for illegal drugs. The JCDTF currently consists of 148 Army National Guard 

soldiers and 75 Air National Guard airmen on full time National Guard Duty 

active duty status and seven Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) 

officers, all serving pursuant to 32 USC, under the Command and Control of 

the Governor and Adjutant General of Texas, Major General Charles G. 

Rodriguez. These personnel additionally serve in drilling/reserve status in their 

military occupations while also in support to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) 

and Community Based Organizations (CBOs).

a. The Texas National Guard provides CD support to the Texas Department 

of Public Safety, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Postal Service, DHS–CBP/ICE, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, other Federal and State drug law enforcement forces, interagency Task Forces, County Sheriff’s Offices, and local police departments 

throughout Texas. We are a broad interagency support Task Force detailed 

in an annual State Plan approved by the Adjutant General, State Attorney 

General and Governor. Activities can be categorized into three major functional areas: Supply Reduction, Demand Reduction, and oversight of the 

National Guard Substance Abuse testing program. The commander of 

Counterdrug also maintains over sight of the Texas STARBASE and ChalleNGe programs and is appointed by the Governor as Texas’ Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) Coordinator to transfer surplus federal equipment to State and local agencies. Specific program mission categories include support to CBOs and educational institutions, youth leadership development, coalition development and support, information dissemination, investigative case support, intelligence analysis, linguist support, photo development and interpretation, aviation and ground reconnaissance, and marijuana eradication. All of these programs are funded by a Fiscal Year 2006 

(FY06) budget of approximately 17.0 million dollars with the exception of 

the separately Federal and State funded ChalleNGe and STARBASE programs in Galveston and Houston, TX.

b. The mission of the Drug Demand Reduction (DDR) program is to organize and/or expand community efforts to form coordinated and complementary systems that reduce substance abuse in Texas. In FY05, TX–CD 
26

reached more than 50,000 people in Texas with a drug prevention message. 

Over 95% of these individuals are teenagers.

c. Supply reduction activities consists of a variety of CD missions in direct 

support of local, State, and Federal law enforcement throughout Texas. Providing unique military-oriented skills, the program is clearly a force-multiplier for LEAs. The types of support provided are diverse, focusing primarily on investigative and interdiction efforts. For FY05, the JCDTF was 

involved in locating and seizing 1,277 marijuana plants, 1,610,731 pounds 

of processed marijuana, 138,672 pounds of cocaine and 313 pounds of methamphetamine, 32,627 doses of ecstasy and other drugs for a total street 

value of $934,222,550.00. To date in FY06, the JCDTF has been involved 

in locating and seizing 20 marijuana plants, 198,245 pounds of processed 

marijuana, 84,171 pounds of cocaine, 269 pounds of methamphetamine, 

5,862 doses of ecstasy and other drugs for a total street value of 

$716,149,451.00. 

(1) Investigative support is provided in several different categories and 

helps tie Federal, State, and local agencies together by a network of 

Guardsmen spanning the interagency effort. Case support primarily focuses on file documentation and management, while LEA tasked and 

supervised Guard intelligence analysts employ advanced analytical 

skills to provide the interagency effort with tactical interdiction and investigative options.

d. As part of its supply reduction efforts, surface and air reconnaissance/

observation draws on unique military skills and equipment that various 

LEAs do not possess. Highly trained personnel and aviators monitor activities in remote drug corridors to include the Border. Rotorcraft and fixed 

wing aircraft with thermal imaging equipment, night vision devices, and 

high-tech communications equipment operate to provide invaluable information and support to LEAs. 

(1) The JCDTF operates four TXARNG OH–58 helicopters as part of its 

Counter Drug Aviation Element (CDAE). These aerial reconnaissance 

helicopters are equipped with an infrared thermal imaging system, a 

daylight TV camera, a law enforcement compatible Wulfsburg radio, 

and a Global Positioning System. After dark, they can be flown using 

Night Vision Goggles as well as a 30 million candlepower Nitesun. Additionally, they possess a video downlink capability. 

(2) The JCDTF tasks one ANG Fairchild RC–26 reconnaissance aircraft 

assigned to the 147FW, Houston, TX. Capabilities of this aircraft include a color TV imager with up to 900mm zoom and a state of the art 

thermal imaging system with remarkable clarity. Reconnaissance accuracy is significantly enhanced by the RC–26’s moving map display and 

high-resolution digital and color photo capability. The aircraft can stay 

airborne for several hours at a time and is ideally suited for aerial detection and monitoring. The radio communications suite includes secure 

voice Global Wulfsburg and 800Mhz capabilities. In times of National 

emergency, Counterdrug Aviation Element (CDAE) (OH–58) and RC–

26 aircraft provide critical command, control and coordination to law 

enforcement and rescue/recovery operations, such as during the February 2003 Shuttle Columbia accident and the September, 2005 Hurricane Katrina search and rescue operation. 

(3) The Special Observation Detachment (SOD) conducts low visibility 

observation and reconnaissance of Named Areas of Interest (NAIs) in 

support of Federal, State and local CD operations. (SOD) provides initial mission planning and coordination, command and control, field operators, and support personnel. (SOD) can deploy a single operator, a 

small element, or the entire detachment in support of the approved request. These personnel can be available within 2 hours of the request 

for deployment anywhere in the state of Texas to provide discreet 

photo, video, microwave and thermal imagery while establishing its 

own short range, secure voice VHF communications net that quickly 

adapts to interface with law enforcement VHF nets. (SOD) also trains 

LEAs in military skills critical to CD operations extremely applicable 

to Homeland Security.

e. The Program also provides oversight for National Guard substance abuse 

testing as part of the Internal Substance Abuse Prevention Program in 

Texas which consists of over 20,000 soldiers and airmen. The Counterdrug 

Commander manages the substance abuse program for the Texas Army and 
27

Air National Guard. The substance abuse staff assigned to the program provides administrative and logistical support to units while overseeing the 

execution of individual drug testing programs. Counterdrug personnel also 

provide qualification training and expertise to drug testing personnel at the 

unit level.

f. The Texas Counterdrug President’s Budget (PB) for FY06 is $16.4 million. This budget is disbursed from federal funding supporting all of the 

program’s supply and demand reduction activities to include 100% of the 

223 service members’ salaries. Every year the National Guard Bureau disburses a Congressional supplemental at their discretion. In the past, Texas 

has received a 10% budget increase; this year Texas only received a 5% increase to the budget. 

2. Considerations for Future JCDTF Application: This year the JCDTF was 

heavily depended upon to leverage the initiation of the Operation Jump Start 

(OJS) mission although funding was required to be kept separate. National 

Guard Bureau Legal Counsel determined Operation Jump Start was not sufficiently related to narcotics, thus, for fiscal law reasons, the two missions must 

be kept separate. In years past the JCDTF has supported the Border Patrol 

under a clear drug nexus along the Southwest Border. The ‘‘by-product’’ of CD 

support involved deterring illegal immigration and facilitating counter-terrorism. Historical mission requests show that prior to OJS, legal concerns were 

not emphasized that detoured Counterdrug resources from supporting non-CD 

illegal activities as long as original intent was CD focus. The OJS mission, 

though separately funded, is already being partially measured according to volume of additional illicit drug traffic seized. The National Guard’s current support of OJS is significantly multiplying the effectiveness of USCBP and other 

law enforcement agencies along the southern border with Mexico. 

a. In closing, based on seventeen years of JCDTF experience several key 

factors are evident: 1) the capabilities brought through operational daily 

National Guard activity support roles to LEAs; 2) unique military skill sets 

and technology provided to LEAs that otherwise would not be available; 3) 

and the continually developing and evolving unique Counterdrug domestic 

military adaptability built through a daily, operational active duty synergistic support with the Interagency effort has matured the Joint Army and 

Air National Guard Counterdrug mission into a premiere interagency planning, coordination and executing support capability. Strictly defining 

JCDTF’s mission capability according to funding restrictions limits Homeland Security, stalls the flexibility of funding necessary to keep the mission 

continually adaptable, and creates unnecessary legal impediments to commit proven capabilities to requirements (broader yet related somewhat to 

CD) that are critical during time-sensitive scenarios. The Counterdrug mission can remain the Counterdrug mission while adapting through increased 

authority and further incremental funding for it’s law enforcement support 

role, to provide Homeland Security through 1) Counterdrug, 2) Counter-Terrorism and 3) Other assigned civil-military security measures under local, 

State and Federal tasking modeled after the highly successful CD mission. 

So that one agency is not prioritized over another, percentages might be assigned to support the various Interagency partners who have come to depend on Counterdrug capabilities according to what they are capable of 

doing. Today, Counterdrug is a funding statement and not a capability. It 

is now time to broaden explicitly the allowable use of Counterdrug personnel and resources for employment broadly against fast evolving threats 

to our homeland brought on by adverse natural conditions and sinister enemies, none who are bound by self imposed funding application. The JCDTF 

capability should be re-titled as National Guard Support to Homeland Defense and Security.

Purpose and scope: Provide an overview of the Texas Military Forces Joint 

Task Force Texas Border Support (JTFTX–BS) support to the United States 

Border Patrol.

1. The mission of the JTFTX–BS is to provide highly trained and experienced 

military personnel and equipment to support the United States Border Patrol 

in five sectors along the Southwestern Border of Texas. The five sectors are Rio 

Grande Valley, Del Rio, Laredo, Marfa, and El Paso. Within the five sectors are 

forty-three locations were the Texas Military Forces are providing support to 

Border Patrol, but are not engaged in direct law enforcement duties. The JTFX–

BS currently consists of approximately 1,500 Army National Guard soldiers and 
28

Air National Guard airmen on full-time National Guard duty status all serving 

pursuant to 32 USC, under the Command and Control of the Governor and Adjutant General of Texas, Major General G. Charles Rodriguez.

2. JTFTX–BS provides assistance to the Border Patrol in the following missions: 

Clerical / Administrative, Law Enforcement Communications Assistant (Dispatcher), Welder, Fleet Porter, Control Room Operator, Mechanics, Supply 

NCO, Light Set Servicing, Electronic/Technical Support, Camera Operator, Sensor Support, Scope Truck, Sky Box / Sky Watch Tower Operators, Security, 

Range Safety Officer / Armorer, Engineering, Checkpoint Support, Criminal 

Analysis, Information Analyst, and Entry Identification Team.

3. JTFTX–BS support to law enforcement has resulted in 165 United States 

Border Patrol agents being returned to duty outside station headquarters.

4. With regards to the deployment of soldiers in assistance to U.S. Border Patrol, apprehensions of Undocumented Aliens are down in each of the five Border 

Patrol Sectors compared to the same time in 2005 and 2004. There has been 

a considerable increase in the seizures of narcotics in both the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso sectors, as measured and reported by USCBP.

5. Each BP Sector is reporting a noticeable increase in the effectiveness of their 

wheeled vehicle garages. Sectors are reporting they are receiving vehicles repaired and back in the field anywhere from 35% to 50% more quickly since the 

arrival of the Texas National Guard in their sectors.

6. JTFTX–BS also is supporting the U.S. Border Patrol with aviation and engineer support based on requests from the Border Patrol Chief within each of the 

five sectors in Texas.

In closing the Texas Military Forces are having a positive effect on the security of 

the Southwest Border of Texas. The relationship between Texas National Guardsmen with the United States Border Patrol has been excellent.

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Colonel, and I want to thank you for 

your efforts and the Texas National Guard. I had the good fortune 

of working with your unit before I was elected to Congress, and I 

want to applaud your efforts and I am fully supportive. 

Next, we will hear from our good friend from Laredo, Sheriff Flores.

STATEMENT OF SHERIFF RICK FLORES, SHERIFF, WEBB 

COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. FLORES. I wrote a speech and told I had 5 minutes. I am not 

going to go with my speech. I am going to speak from the heart. 

We have been having the battle with this type of terrorism along 

our border, and I am saying we, our colleagues, the Sheriffs Coalition, the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition or the Southwest Sheriffs 

Coalition, have been battling with narco-traffickers and drug cartels for a very long time. We have been dealing with these people 

for a very long time. 

And I am going to qualify what Ms. Jackson-Lee said. I am not 

concerned about the violence that is occurring in Nuevo Laredo. 

What I am concerned about is that these people have more resources than we do on this side. These people have rocket propelled 

grenades. They have got automatic assault weapons. They wear 

level four body armor and Kevlar helmets, actually, what our people in Iraq are wearing, and we don’t have that type of equipment 

along the border. 

We are first responders. Anytime somebody calls 9/11, it is we, 

local law enforcement, who respond to the calls. It is not border patrol. It is not ATF. It is not FBI, DEA. It is local law enforcement 
29

who respond. We do not have the resources along the border to protect our border or to continue to protect our borders. 

And she is absolutely correct, the violence is not in Laredo. 

Thank God that we have it contained, but you know what, these 

people are willing to make a quick buck with people who are interested in coming to Mexico and use Mexico as a jumping board to 

come into the United States of America. The country that I love, 

that we all love Ms. Jackson-Lee, and I am concerned about the 

fact that the people are making their way through Mexico are people that are not interested in coming to work. 

Mexicans, and I will say this and make this clear, Mexicans are 

not terrorists. Many, most come to work. It is the other than Mexicans that we are concerned with, that I am concerned with, and 

that these people are willing to pay narco-traffickers to come into 

this country. 

I have got a wife and two kids, and I work along the border. Do 

you think that those people want my head on a plate? Well, let me 

just tell you, in the 18 months that I have been in office, we have 

confiscated $17 million worth of narcotics, just the sheriff’s department alone, $1.5 million in cash. And if they really wanted, they 

could get to me, they could get to Sheriff Jernigan and the rest of 

the sheriffs who are trying to protect our borders and who are interrupting their business. 

Thank you. 

The Mr. Flores’s prepared statement is maintained in the committee file. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Sheriff, thank you for your heartfelt, sincere testimony. I want to personally thank you for what you do everyday on 

the front lines in this great struggle and in what I believe is a war, 

and as you know, in the bill we passed out of the House, we do provide funding and resources for the sheriffs. 

Notes 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Next, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Alonzo Pena, 

the Special Agent In Charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

STATEMENT OF ALONZO PENA ̃ , SPECIAL-AGENT-IN-CHARGE, 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. PENA. Chairman McCaul, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee 

and the other Members, thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak with you today about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, our efforts to combat border violence in south Texas. 

ICE is the largest investigative agency within the Department of 

Homeland Security, and our mission is to protect the American 

people by combating terrorism and other criminal activities that 

cross our borders and threaten us here at home. The men and 

women of ICE accomplish this by enforcing our Nation’s Immigration and Customs laws. 

Our southern border is particularly vulnerable to cross-border 

criminal activity committed by criminal enterprises whose primary 

motive is to make money. The crimes we see, murder, hostage tak-
30

ing, alien smuggling, contraband smuggling and money laundering, 

are all methods that the criminals use to gain and expand their 

market share to maximize profits of their criminal enterprises. 

At this time, I also would like to show a short video clip of the 

2003 arrest of Oziel Cardenas-Guillen in Matamoros, Mexico, the 

border city located directly across the international bridge from 

Brownsville, Texas. The video provides a graphic image of the level 

of violence utilized by the cartels across the border. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. PENA. Thank you. ICE is acutely aware of the violence along 

both sides of the border. In January of 2006, in direct response to 

an increase in the violence, Secretary Chertoff announced the creation of an ICE-led border enforcement security task force, better 

known as BEST. The first task force was established in Laredo, 

Texas, to address the growing incidence of violence associated with 

cross-border smuggling. 

The BESTs routinely develop intelligence-driven investigations 

which focus on primary targets engaged in cross border crime. The 

BEST in Laredo incorporates personnel from ICE; Customs and 

Border Protection; Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the Drug Enforcement Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; the 

U.S. Marshal Service; police in Mexico, Laredo police department 

and other key State and local law enforcement agencies such as the 

Webb County Sheriff’s Department, who is represented here today. 

This coordinated approach among Federal, State and local law 

enforcement officers has led to significant enforcement successes. 

For example, in January of this year, ICE agents from our Laredo 

office, along with ATF agents, Laredo Police Department Officers 

assigned to BEST, arrested several suspects for Federal firearms 

violations and executed Federal search warrants at two local residences and a commercial storage locker, resulting in the seizure of 

10 live hand grenades, nine pipe bombs, a cache of fully automatic 

weapons to include AK–47s, parts to manufacture automatic weapons, a silencer, 86 grenade casings and numerous other grenade 

components. In addition to the weapons, methamphetamine and cocaine was also seized at the residence. 

Since the announcement of the BEST in Laredo, and in light of 

its great success, ICE and Customs and border protection has 

launched a second BEST in Arizona. We anticipate the additional 

task forces will be established along the southwest border in locations between 2006 and 2007. 

ICE agents face numerous challenges in the battle to combat 

crime and violence along the border. However, the violence often 

extends beyond the border and into the interior of our country. 

Transnational street gangs, often comprising foreign born members, pose one of the biggest threats to the safety and security of 

our towns and cities. Many of these violent gangs actively engage 

in human contraband and human smuggling, bribery, extortion, 

rape and murder. 

In response to this threat, in February of 2005, ICE initiated 

‘‘Operation Community Shield.’’ As part of this effort, ICE frequently partners with State and local law enforcement and other 
31

Federal agencies, including ATF, Customs and Border Protection 

and the FBI, to combat violent street gangs. 

To date, ICE’s efforts in Community Shield have resulted in the 

arrest of 369 transnational gang members in Texas and 3,354 nationwide, and the majority of these individuals are foreign nationals, illegally present in the United States, and approximately half 

of these apprehended have violent criminal histories. 

As I stated earlier, criminal enterprises are businesses that engage in criminal activity to make as much money as possible. ICE 

is uniquely equipped with the skills and expertise to target these 

and focus our investigations on the financial lifeblood of these violent criminal border organizations. We aim to hit them where it 

hurts, and that is their wallets, to undermine their ability to fund 

their criminal activity and to employ their accomplices. The value 

of assets seized in immigration related cases has increased dramatically from little to none before ICE was created in March of 

2003 to $34.3 million in fiscal year 2006. 

I hope my remarks have been helpful and informative, and I 

thank you for inviting me, and I am glad to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Pena. I appreciate your efforts as 

well. 

[The statement of Mr. Pena follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALONZO PENA ̃

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Etheridge and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak with you today 

about the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) efforts to combat border violence in Texas and throughout the 

United States. 

ICE is the largest investigative agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Our mission is to protect the American people by combating terrorism 

and other criminal activities that cross our borders and threaten us here at home. 

The men and women of ICE accomplish this by enforcing our nation’s immigration 

and customs laws. Working overseas, along our borders, and throughout the 

nations’s interior, ICE agents and officers are demonstrating that our merged immigration and customs authorities constitute an effective tool against those who attempt to, or succeed in, penetrating our borders. Using these combined authorities, 

ICE has built a robust enforcement program along the borders and within the nation’s interior and is working with our partners at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to identify criminal activities and eliminate vulnerabilities that pose a threat to our nation’s borders, as well as economic, transportation and infrastructure security. However, to 

fully address these threats, we need comprehensive immigration reform that increases border security, establishes a robust interior enforcement program, creates 

a temporary worker program, and addresses the problem of the estimated 11 to 12 

million illegal immigrants already in the country. 

Our southern border is particularly vulnerable to cross-border criminal activity 

committed by criminal enterprises whose primary motive is to make money. The 

crimes we see—murder, hostage taking, robberies, drug smuggling and money laundering—are all methods that criminals use to intimidate and/or dominate rival 

criminal groups and law enforcement to maximize the profits from their criminal 

activities. 

ICE is acutely aware of the violence along both sides of the border. In January 

2006, in direct response to this increased violence, Secretary Chertoff announced the 

creation of ICE-led Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs). The first 

task force was established in Laredo, Texas to address the growing incidence of violence associated with cross-border narcotics smuggling. With ICE and Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) as core partners, the BESTs routinely develop intelligencedriven investigations that focus on priority targets engaged in cross-border crime. 

The BEST in Laredo incorporates personnel from ICE, CBP, the Bureau of Alcohol, 
32

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorney’s Office, and key state and local law enforcement agencies. 

This coordinated approach among federal, state, and local law enforcement officers has led to significant enforcement successes. For example, in late January of 

this year, ICE agents from our Laredo office, along with ATF agents and Laredo 

Police Department officers assigned to BEST, arrested one suspect for federal firearms violations after he sold a fully automatic AK–47-type assault rifle and approximately 26 grams of cocaine to an undercover ICE agent. along with this arrest, 

BEST agents executed a federal search warrant at a residence and seized a cache 

of automatic weapons, parts to manufacture automatic weapons, a silencer, and 

other firearms related items. The agents also seized 1.5 pounds of methamphetamine, approximately one pound of cocaine, and other paraphernalia related to 

drugs and guns. 

The next day, BEST task force agents—acting on information from the FBI—executed a federal search warrant for a commercial storage locker used by the defendant’s associates. Agents seized five grenade shells, nine pipe bombs, 26 grenade triggers, 31 grenade spoons, 40 grenade pins, and other parts that are used to assemble 

explosive devices. 

A week later, ICE agents from Laredo, working with ATF agents and Laredo police officers, executed a federal search warrant at a related residence and seized 81 

grenade casings, ten live grenades, two AK–47 assault rifles, on Uzi submachine 

gun, and miscellaneous items. Following these seizures, BEST task force agents arrested a second subject for federal firearms violations four days later. 

Since the announcement of the BEST in Laredo and in light of its great success, 

ICE and CBP have launched an additional BEST in Arizona. We anticipate that additional task forces will be established in other Southwest border locations throughout 2006 and 2007. 

ICE actively investigates all manners of smuggling. In a recent incident in 

Hudspeth County, Texas, several individuals wearing military-style camouflage 

clothing and carrying long guns provided protection for a cross-border narcotics 

smuggling attempt. At least one vehicle employed by the smugglers was a militarystyle vehicle more popularly known as a ‘‘Humvee’’ or ‘‘Hummer.’’ Regardless of the 

affiliation of the individuals involved, the Hudspeth incident was dangerous in light 

of the repeated and regular incidents of violence by armed smugglers and the tensions this creates for U.S. law enforcement agencies and citizens who live near the 

border. 

ICE agents face numerous challenges in the battle to combat crime and violence 

along the border. However, violence often extends beyond the border and into the 

interior of our country. Transnational street gangs, often comprising foreign-born 

members, pose one of the biggest threats to the safety and security of our towns 

and cities. Many of these violent gangs actively engage in human and contraband 

smuggling, robbery, extortion, rape, and murder. 

In response to this threat, in February 2005, ICE initiated Operation Community 

Shield. Initially, Community Shield targeted the MS–13 street gang, one of the largest and most violent gangs of its kind. However, because of ICE’s great success in 

combating MS–13, the program as soon expanded to encompass investigation of all 

transnational criminal street gangs. As part of this effort, ICE frequently partners 

with state and local law enforcement and other federal agencies—including ATF, 

CBP, and the FBI—to combat violent street gangs. 

To date, ICE’s efforts in Community Shield have resulted in the arrest of 369 

transnational gang members in Texas and 3,354 nationwide. The majority of these 

individuals are foreign nationals illegally present in the United States, and approximately half of those apprehended have violent criminal histories. Under Community 

Shield, ICE has initiated the removal of those gang members who are illegally 

present in this country or who have otherwise violated their immigration status. 

The violence associated with illegal immigration and our borders is not limited 

to transnational gang members, however. It also affects innocent victims who are 

smuggled into and throughout the United States, and of course, those who die during their journey. In case after case, smugglers and traffickers show an utter disregard for the lives of those they exploit. Many try to flee poverty or abuse, only 

to be forced to travel in squalid conditions without adequate food, water, or even 

air. Moreover, their smugglers frequently subject them to brutal abuse, forced labor, 

and sexual exploitation after arriving at their destination. 

In one human smuggling case in Houston, Texas, a smuggler attempting to extort 

a smuggling fee dragged a relative of one of the migrants to his death behind a 

speeding car. The smuggler then threatened the migrants themselves with a handgun and, after a struggle, his weapon discharged. Fortunately, ICE’s investigation, 
33

conducted in collaboration with the Houston Police Department, led to the rescue 

of the smuggled migrants and the arrest of the smuggler. Of note, the investigation 

disclosed that the gun used in this incident had been used in another murder of 

an undocumented migrant in Texas. 

In one particularly disturbing trafficking case in McAllen, Texas, two smuggled 

women from Central America were found on the side of a road beaten and without 

clothing. Their captors intimidated the victims by firing bullets into the walls and 

ceiling as they raped them. ICE’s enforcement efforts led to the rescue of two additional victims and the arrest of seven traffickers. The lead defendant was sentenced 

to 23 years imprisonment, one of the longest sentences ever obtained under the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act. 

As I stated earlier, criminal enterprises are businesses that engage in criminal 

activity to make as much money as possible. ICE is uniquely equipped with the skill 

and expertise to target and focus investigations on the financial lifeblood that sustains the violent criminal border activities. We aim to hit them where it hurts—

their wallets—to undermine their ability to fund criminal activity and employ their 

accomplices. The value of assets seized in immigration-related cases has increased 

dramatically, from little to none before ICE was created in March 2003, to $34.3 

million so far in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. 

From the start of FY 2005 to May 31, 2006, ICE human smuggling and trafficking 

investigations yielded approximately 4,900 criminal arrests, 2,400 indictments, and 

2,500 convictions. Last fiscal year alone, our drug investigations resulted in the seizure of more than 275,000 pounds of cocaine, 1 million pounds of marijuana, nearly 

3,300 pounds of heroin, 3,400 pounds of methamphetamine, and thousands of 

pounds of other smuggled drugs. These successes have disrupted violent smuggling 

organizations by taking away their product and their profits. 

While ICE is a relatively new agency, with newly integrated authorities, many of 

our agents and officers have a long history in the field, with extensive experience 

gained from previous federal law enforcement service. We are leveraging the best 

of the former agencies’ expertise, cultures, and techniques to build ICE into a federal law enforcement agency that is greater and more effective than the sum of its 

parts. In case after case, our agents and officers put into practice the powerful advantages that flow from our merged authorities and use them on behalf of the 

American people. The net result is a greater contribution to the Nation’s national 

security and public safety. 

I hope my remarks today have been helpful and informative. Thank you for inviting me, and I would be glad to answer any questions you may have at this time.
34
35
36

Mr. MCCAUL. Next, I would like to introduce another sheriff, a 

great American, Sheriff Jernigan from Del Rio, Texas.

STATEMENT OF A. D’WAYNE JERNIGAN, SHERIFF, VAL VERDE 

COUNTY, TEXAS 

Mr. JERNIGAN. Good morning, Chairman, committee members. I 

want to thank each of you for your service to our country and what 

you all are doing. 

My written testimony and its attachments provide you just a 

thumbnail view of the organizations and their weaponry that is 

currently engaged in the violent trade of illegal drugs and human 

smuggling on the Texas/Mexico border. 

Just recently in Val Verde County, illegal aliens were apprehended during a burglary near the port of Langtry. One of the 

aliens fled on foot and was apprehended by deputies and agents of 

the Border Patrol. The alien who was apprehended inside the residence was later identified as a career criminal with a 24-page rap 

sheet. His criminal career included offenses in Florida and Texas. 

His clothing was still wet from his illegal entry, crossing the Rio 

Grande River. 

June 7, 2006, just recently, saw an increase in the violence in the 

city just across the river from Del Rio, Cuidad Acuna. Armed subjects attempted to take a male subject who was in the custody of 

Mexican police officers in their marked police vehicle. A uniformed 

officer was killed and several officers were wounded and one of the 

armed subjects, who was identified by Mexican authorities as a 

narcotrafficker, was also killed in the confrontation. 

Prior to this incident, I had been visited by several professional 

people from Acuna and elected officials from Acuna, warning of the 

violence that they anticipated would be occurring shortly in Acuna 

and warning us on the U.S. side; and also they were pleading for 

help from the U.S., stating that they could not trust their own officials. This violence continues to grow as the cartels, as was testified earlier by others, struggle for control of this area up and down 

the river. 

The Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition is very concerned about the 

unique problems along our border that I have addressed in my 

written testimony. The United States Border Patrol is doing the 

best that they can with the resources that they have been provided, 

but immediate help is needed for them and for the protection of our 

country. 

We have implemented Operation Linebacker, a second line of defense in the protection of our country. We have conducted several 

operations in concert with our Federal and State partners. 

Our governor, the Honorable Rick Perry, did not wait for a peace 

officer to be killed along the border to take action. He, just as the 

border sheriffs, is very much concerned about the violence up and 

down the border. To date, he has provided approximately $9 million to the border sheriffs to conduct increased enforcement activities. This much-needed assistance provided by Governor Perry has 

already produced measurable results in those counties that have 

performed the operations, but this assistance is only a stopgap 

measure. 
37

Mr. Chairman, help is necessary if we are to see an acceptable 

level of security exist on the border. The problems along the border 

will continue to grow exponentially unless our Federal Government 

does something about it soon. I question, how many officers and 

how many citizens must die before our Nation will act? 

I have addressed many of the enforcement issues facing the border today in my written testimony, but another crisis faces us. The 

judicial system on the border is strained to failure. In Val Verde 

County, for instance, the annual budget for jury trials was just recently exhausted before the end of the fiscal year, and an examination of the caseload of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas demonstrates this crisis irrefutably. 

I have attached a report that demonstrates the 10-year record of 

civil filings within the Western District of Texas. I have marked it 

as Attachment 6. 

The number of filings of civil cases across the district has remained fairly level with only some minor increases consistent with 

population growth in other places. 

If you examine the criminal filings, however, in Attachment 7 for 

the same period, an alarming trend is quite evident. The two U.S. 

district courts on the border have seen dramatic caseload increases 

with little or no population increase. 

Attachment 8 shows the caseload of the two United States magistrates in Del Rio. As you can see, each of their caseloads equals 

the caseload of the other magistrates in the Western District combined. 

The other district courts in the Western District have seen some 

small increases in their caseloads. What is not in these statistics 

is the number of criminal subjects who are apprehended with commercial quantities of drugs, but who fall under the quantity threshold arbitrarily established by the United States attorney’s office. 

These subjects who have been apprehended by authorities are released without prosecution. Remember that only a percentage of all 

drug and alien traffickers are apprehended, and then a portion of 

those apprehended are released without prosecution due to budgetary constraints up and down the border. The criminals grow 

more educated by the system each time they are handled. 

We must restore justice to the border by immediately providing 

additional district judges, magistrates and prosecuting attorneys, 

as well as economic subsidies to the affected State district courts 

and the prosecuting attorneys that have become incapacitated by 

the increasing crime on the border. 

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that by funding additional deputy 

sheriffs on the border our Nation will accomplish a cost-effective 

and immediate solution to the burgeoning scourge of violence that 

is creeping north into our Nation. Along most of the border, just 

as Sheriff Flores mentioned, it is a deputy sheriff, our local police 

officer, who receives that first call of suspicious activity and encounters subjects who may be crossing the border only for a new 

and a better life in the north or who may have far more sinister 

intentions. No matter how much more efficient that we are made 

by the utilization of emerging technology, it is still necessary that 

a trained and experienced officer is available to respond to the 

identified threat. 
38

I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and appreciate what you all are doing for our country. 

[The statement of Mr. Jernigan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF D’WAYNE JERNIGAN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor and a privilege 

to be invited to appear before you to discuss strategies to combat Criminal Activity 

and Border Violence along the United States border and the Republic of Mexico. 

On April 18th, 2005, Sheriff Sigi Gonzales sent out letters to the 16 Texas Sheriff’s whose counties border the Republic of Mexico. The letter invited us to a meeting 

to discuss unique problems that we face along the border. This was done out of frustration in what we felt was the inadequacy of our federal government to protect our 

border in preventing a potential terrorist from entering our country. We felt that 

as citizens of this great country, our almost 2,000 miles of border was very porous, 

that many people whose intentions were unknown were coming into our country. If 

their intentions were to commit acts similar to or worse than what happened on 

September 11, 2001, then very little was being done to stop them. All of us expressed the same frustration since we had mentioned this many times to federal 

and state legislators. We felt that perhaps speaking as one voice we would be heard. 

We realize that we are a bi-partisan multi ethnic coalition of Law Enforcement professionals. The crisis that we face on our border is not a racial issue, or even one 

of politics. This crisis is a red white and blue national security crisis. 

On May 4th, 2005, we met in Laredo, Texas. As a result we formed the Texas 

Border Sheriff’s Coalition. The first and foremost priority of our coalition is protecting all residents of this country against a terrorist act without regard to race, 

sex, or ethnic origin. We continue to believe that many persons have entered our 

country with intentions of harming us. We are sincere when we tell you that we 

are not blaming the agents of the United States Border Patrol but, rather, we criticize the policies that they have been shackled with. 

I want to make you aware that the Law Enforcement experience of the member 

sheriffs of this coalition total almost 460 years including 101 years of experience as 

sheriffs. The oldest serving sheriff of this coalition is El Paso County Sheriff 

Samaniego with 22 years. I have attached the list of member sheriffs of the coalition 

with their years of experience and have marked it as Attachment #1. I have served 

more than 29 of the 42 years of my Law Enforcement career on the Texas/Mexico 

border. We have seen the border become more violent and criminally active than 

at any point in our careers. Our officers rarely encounter the socio-economic illegal 

alien of the past, but routinely encounter criminal illegal aliens. 

I have been asked to briefly relate to you some of the problems that we have encountered along the border, specifically the violence along the border and incursions, 

among other matters. 

All of us are concerned that the border with Mexico is being used as the open door 

to this country. Most of the illegal immigrants from countries of special interest that 

are apprehended are apprehended along the southwest border. I have attached 

these lists and have marked them as Attachment #3 [see page 43—46]. 

Through intelligence information we have also learned that several murders in 

Laredo, Webb County, Texas, have been orchestrated by members of drug cartels 

operating in both countries. These drug cartel enforcers cross the Rio Grande River, 

commit their murders in the United States, then head back to Mexico, again, via 

the Rio Grande River. We have all seen in the media the reports of the murders 

in Nuevo Laredo, 24 in the first 36 days of 2006. These murders are connected to 

organizations in both Mexico and the United States. In February, a Task Force in 

Laredo Texas confiscated Improvised Explosive Devices as well as items used to 

make explosive devices. Two such explosive devises of similar construction have 

been found in Val Verde County. Border Patrol agents and deputy sheriffs have 

been shot at from Mexico on a routine basis. Earlier this year a sniper in Mexico 

shot at agents that were working along the banks of the river in the area of the 

cities of Rio Bravo/El Cenizo. This continued, sporadically, for three days. Agents 

reported seeing several individuals wearing military style uniforms on a hill on the 

Mexican side, one of them was using what was believed to be a high powered rifle 

with scope. 

The Rio Grande Valley, Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr Counties, have continuous 

problems with pseudo-cops coming from Mexico to extort and kidnap citizens in 

these counties. This area is the fastest growing area in the nation. They have seen 

their share of terrorist activity as it relates to the migration of many members of 

ruthless gangs that come into this country for reasons other than legitimate employ-
39

ment. Sometime last year, a woman was taken off an airplane at the McAllen, 

Texas, airport. She had come in from Mexico, through the river, as her clothes were 

still wet, and had a passport from Africa. She was from a special interest country 

and had come in to Mexico using a passport from a friendly country to avoid detection. Who knows what her intentions were. Thanks to an officer at the airport she 

was taken off the plane. 

During this same time period, a high-ranking member of the Mara Salvatrucha,

or MS–13, was apprehended in the Brooks County area, also in south Texas. He had 

entered the country illegally. This MS–13 member is believed to have been responsible for the killing of close to 30 persons, or more, in a bus explosion in his native 

country. It is my understanding that he had a lengthy criminal record in the United 

States. This person, as many others, find it very easy to come into our country 

through a very porous, wide-open, and unprotected border. Twenty seven members 

of the MS-13 were apprehended entering the United States in the Del Rio area of 

operations during the month of January, 2006. 

We have received information that the drug trafficking organizations immediately 

across our border are planning on killing as many police officers as possible on the 

United States side. This is being planned for the purpose of attempting to ‘‘scare 

us’’ away from the border. The recent activities of the drug trafficking organization 

operating in the Hudspeth, El Paso County areas have included threats against the 

families of Deputy Sheriff’s. In one incident subjects made threats to the wife of a 

Hudspeth County Sheriff’s Sergeant at their home. The drug trafficking organizations have the money, equipment, and stamina to carry out their threats. They are 

determined to protect their illicit trade. It is my opinion that these drug trafficking 

organizations may form an alliance with Islamo Fascist terrorist organizations. The 

Department of Homeland Security recently issued Officer Alerts warning their 

agents of such potential threats. 

The cartels operating in Mexico and the United States have demonstrated that 

the weapons they posses can and will be used in protecting their caches. I have attached photographs showing some of the weapons that these cartels possess. The 

photos have been marked as Attachment #4. 

Local, state, and federal officers have found many items along the banks of the 

Rio Grande River that indicate possible ties to terrorist organizations or members 

of military units of Mexico. Currency, and clothing, are common finds. Recently, a 

jacket with patches was found in Jim Hogg County, Texas, by agents of U. S. Border 

Patrol. The patches on the jacket show an Arabic military badge with one depicting 

an airplane flying over a building and heading towards a tower, and another showing an image of a lion’s head with wings and a parachute emanating from the animal (lion). It is believed from an undisclosed document that Department of Homeland Security translators concluded that the patches read ‘‘defense center’’, ‘‘minister of defense’’, or ‘‘defense headquarters’’. The bottom of one patch read ‘‘martyr’’, 

‘‘way to eternal life’’ or ‘‘way to immortality’’. 

On January 28th, 2006, USBP Chief David Aguilar was asked by a reporter from 

KGNS television station in Laredo, Texas, what the outcome of the investigation of 

the jacket was. Chief Aguilar responded that the patches were not from al’ Qa’ida 

but from countries in which al-Qa’ida was known to operate. He also stated that 

the investigation was turned over to the proper authorities who had already concluded their investigation. He knew nothing further. 

On February 2nd of this year, deputies in Zavala County discovered an 18’’ duffle 

bag approximately 8 miles North of Zapata by the highway right of way. This duffel 

bag had ‘‘Armada de Mexico’’ embroidered on the bag. Inside the bag were several 

items that are commonly used to maintain higher levels of physical exertion. Inside 

the bag, a bus ticket with an origin of Veracruz, Mexico was found. I have attached 

photographs of the duffle bag and marked it as Attachment #5. 

Employees of our offices have also seen incursions into this country of persons 

dressed in battle dress uniforms (BDUs), carrying what officers believe to be automatic weapons, very clean cut, and in very good physical condition. On March 3rd, 

2005, several officers assigned to do surveillance by the Rio Grande River by the 

Zapata/Webb County line observed approximately 20–25 subjects dressed as indicated above. The subjects were walking on a gravel road, coming from riverbank, 

and marching in a cadence. The deputy observed these individuals through his borrowed night vision goggles. These individuals were carrying large duffle bags and 

walking two abreast. They were each armed with assault rifles. 

In the town site of Zapata, residents report subjects getting off boats wearing 

BDUs, backpacks, and carrying weapons. The residents describe them as soldiers. 

In Val Verde County, two illegal aliens were apprehended during a burglary near 

the Port of Entry. One of the aliens fled on foot and was apprehended by Deputies 

and Agents of the Border Patrol. The alien who was apprehended inside the resi-
40

dence was later identified as a career criminal with a twenty four page rap sheet. 

His criminal career included offenses in Florida and Texas. His clothing was still 

wet from his illegal entry that night. For over a year, groups of male subjects illegally crossed the river into the United States and burglarized remote ranch homes. 

These subjects took items from the homes that they burglarized, and would abandon 

the property at the next home that they burglarized. The only items that they routinely kept were firearms. During one burglary the subjects brought electric hair 

clippers with them and cut their hair in a distinctive pattern. When theses subjects 

would encounter law enforcement they conducted sophisticated escape and evasion 

tactics to break contact. In one incident the subjects traveled twenty miles a day 

on foot across harsh landscape. The last subject apprehended in that group had 

traveled over eighty miles on foot before his arrest. The subjects were always physically fit. It is my opinion that these subjects were trained for escape and evasion. 

June 7, 2006 saw an increase in the violence in Ciudad Acuna. Armed subjects 

attempted to take a male subject who was in the custody of Mexican Police officers 

in their marked Police vehicle. One uniformed officer was killed and several were 

wounded. One of the armed subjects, who was identified by Mexican authorities as 

a narco-trafficker, was killed in the confrontation. This gunfight took place in the 

downtown area of Acuna, several miles from the international port of entry. Prior 

to this incident I had received information from several professional people in Acuna 

telling me of armed confrontations occurring in public places. This violence continues to grow as the cartels struggle for control of the area. See attachment #2 

which is the newspaper story reporting the shootout. [See committe file.] 

The Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition is very concerned about the unique problems 

along our border. The United States Border Patrol is doing the best that they can 

with the resources they have been provided. Immediate help is needed for them and 

for the protection of our country. We have implemented Operation Linebacker, a 

second line of defense in the protection of our country. The problems along the border are federal problems. Our governor, the Honorable Rick Perry, did not wait for 

a peace officer to get killed along the border to take action. He, just as we, is very 

much concerned. He has appropriated approximately $9 million for Texas Border 

Sheriff’s Coalition to conduct increased enforcement activities. This much needed assistance provided by Governor Perry has already produced measurable results, but 

this assistance is only a stopgap measure. More help is necessary if we are to see 

an acceptable level of security exist on the border. The problems along the border 

will continue unless our federal government does something about it soon. How 

many more officers must die like the unfortunate Starr County correctional officer, 

who was assassinated last month, before our nation will act? 

I have addressed many of the enforcement issues facing the border today in my 

written testimony, but another crisis faces us. The Judicial system on the border 

is strained to failure. In Val Verde County, the annual budget for jury trials will 

be exhausted in March, only half way through the fiscal year. An examination of 

the caseload of the United States District Court, Western District, demonstrates this 

crisis irrefutably. I have attached a report that demonstrates the ten year record 

of civil filings within the Western District of Texas. It is marked as Attachment #7. 

The number of filings of civil cases across the District has remained fairly level with 

only minor increases consistent with population growth. If you examine the criminal 

filings, Attachment 7, for the same period an alarming trend is evident. The two 

District Courts on the border have seen dramatic caseload increases with little or 

no population increase. Attachment 8 shows the caseload of the two United States 

Magistrates in Del Rio. As you can see each of their caseloads equals the caseload 

of the other Magistrates in the Western District combined. The other District Courts 

in the Western District have seen small increases in their caseloads. What is not 

reflected in these statistics is the number of criminal subjects who are apprehended 

with commercial quantities of drugs, but who fall under the quantity threshold arbitrarily established by the United States Attorney’s office. These subjects who have 

been apprehended by authorities are released without prosecution. Remember that 

only a percentage of all drug and alien traffickers are apprehended, and then, a portion of those apprehended are released without prosecution due to budgetary constraints. The criminals grow more educated by the system each time we handle 

them. We must restore Justice to the Border by immediately providing additional 

District Judges, Magistrates and Prosecuting Attorneys, as well as economic subsidies to effected State District Courts and Prosecuting Attorneys who have become 

incapacitated by the increasing crime on the border. 

I am convinced that by funding additional Deputy Sheriff’s on the border, our nation will accomplish a cost effective, and immediate solution to the burgeoning 

scourge of violence creeping North into our nation. Along most of the border, it is 

a Deputy Sheriff who receives the first call of suspicious activity and encounters 
41

subjects who may be crossing the border only for a new and better life in the North, 

or who may have far more sinister intentions. No matter how much more efficient 

we are made by the utilization of emerging technology, it is still necessary that a 

trained and experienced officer be available to respond to the identified threat. 

I want to express my most sincere appreciation for allowing us the opportunity 

to appear before you and thank you for the work you do for our country, the United 

States of America.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Mr. MCCAUL. Sheriff, thank you so much. Thank you for your 

service, and as with Sheriff Flores, you are on the front lines everyday and put yourself in harm’s way. We all appreciate what you 

do for this country. 

I would also ask that anybody that has a BlackBerry or electronic device, turn that off as it is causing some disruption with respect to the testimony. 

Having said that, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Quan for his testimony.
52

STATEMENT OF GORDON J. QUAN, ESQ., FORMER MAYOR PRO 

TEMPORE, AT-LARGE COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF HOUSTON, 

TX, AND DIRECTOR, ASIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. QUAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you, to yourself, to Congresswoman Sheila 

Jackson-Lee, Congressman Gene Green and Congressman Ted Poe. 

My name is Gordon Quan. I was former mayor pro tem of the 

city of Houston, an at-large council member and a Director of the 

Asian American Chamber of Commerce. As Congress considers new 

ways to look at national security, I would ask that it not divert essential Federal responsibilities to our local government. 

Like many major cities across America, Houston has seen a dramatic demographic change in the past 20 years. Roughly one-third 

of our population is Hispanic, one-third Anglo, and other third 

black and Asian. With 80 consulates in Houston, we have the third 

largest consular corps in the United States. Our Port of Houston 

ranks number one in foreign tonnage in the U.S. We are truly an 

international city. 

Since September 11, local law enforcement across the Nation has 

improved security of our cities. In our city of Houston, we spent 

over $15 million to secure the city since that tragic day. We are 

providing security at the city’s water plants, airports, extra helicopter flights among other things. We are also securing city hall 

and other soft targets such as local temples and synagogues. 

Let me say emphatically that the role of the local government is 

clear. Local police have a responsibility to cooperate with the Federal Government to apprehend specific persons identified as having 

committed crimes and violated U.S. immigration laws and who 

have been located by the Federal Government. However, local personnel cannot be conscripted into Federal service because the Federal Government has decided not to fund and staff its immigration 

enforcement agencies to meet the demands. This type of action can 

divert our shorthanded local personnel from their primary responsibilities and constitute a cost shift on to our local government. 

I would also like to categorically state, and it was pointed out in 

a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle, that we do not consider 

ourselves as a sanctuary city. The city of Houston’s police policy 

adopted in 1992, which I am sure Chief Hurtt will address in more 

detail, states that undocumented immigrant status is not in itself 

a matter for our local police department. Unlawful entry is not 

treated as an ongoing offense occurring in the presence of local police officers. 

Simply put, police officers may not stop or apprehend individuals 

solely on the belief that they are in the country illegally. This order 

serves our people well and is a model for other cities as well. To 

say otherwise, I think, would cheapen and demean the officers who 

have put their lives on the line every day. 

It is often said that Texans talk slow. Oftentimes we pepper our 

speech with a little drawl, but by no means are we stupid. We understand all too well that to force State and local government to 

carry out what is essentially a Federal function is unfair. Securing 

our borders is, first and foremost, the responsibility of the Federal 

Government. Therefore, I am asking the Members of Congress 
53

today to dispense with rhetoric and provide the necessary resources 

to secure our borders. 

I believe everything that these gentlemen have said here. On 

June 2, Rick Perry signed a memorandum of understanding to deploy 2,300 National Guard troops to assist with the building of a 

fence along our southern border, but just 2 days prior to that the 

Department of Homeland Security announced it is going to cut 

homeland security funding for Texas, the State with the longest 

international border, by 31 percent over last year’s allocation. Governor Perry has said the funding disparity, combined with continued Federal inaction, jeopardizes our security and reinforces the 

belief that Texas must never wait for Washington to act. 

The governor has proposed plans to ask the State legislature for 

additional funding for local enforcement along the border and to 

provide border security operations, including a virtual border watch 

program. This, again, is taking moneys away from our schools and 

our roads, our highways, that we have difficulties with funding already. 

Second, I want to just say that also looking at how we secure the 

border, criminalization of aliens has not proven to be a deterrent. 

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which sought to increase the number of 

criminal offenses which would bar an individual from immigrating. 

Furthermore, it expanded the definition of aggravated felony to include several offenses for which a sentence of 1 year was imposed. 

Whether it is served or not, whether it was probated or not. If you 

had a 1-year imposition, that was an aggravated felon. 

Despite these measures, there has been an increase in the number of persons seeking to enter the country illegally. We don’t need 

laws that make aliens criminals. It would simply, as Sheriff 

Jernigan said, clog our judicial system further and our overcrowded 

jails. As you may know, Harris County is under a mandate because 

of overcrowding, as it is already. Most of these people, it has been 

said repeatedly, are only seeking a better life in the United States. 

Third, I would caution against efforts to preempt local and State 

laws that bar law enforcement officers from assuming the Federal 

responsibility of enforcing Federal immigration laws. Efforts in 

Congress to withhold funds from States and cities like Houston, 

that have routinely assisted the Federal Government to apprehend, 

house and feed undocumented criminal suspects in our city jails 

until the bureau of immigration dispatches its officers to retrieve 

these suspects, is unjustified. 

More often than not, the staff reimbursement is less than the financial burden by the local police departments, and as has been 

said previously, staff funding is being zeroed out. So here you are 

penalizing us for working with you, and you are not reimbursing 

us. 

In short, it is unfair to demand that the local governments take 

on the responsibilities of the Federal Government. It is unreasonable to mandate such responsibilities on State and local governments without full fiscal support. 

As a former local official and a lawyer practicing immigration 

law for the past 29 years, I know all too well that communication, 

visibility and trust are the foundations for effective community po-
54

licing. Victims of crime must know that they can turn to the local 

police without threat that they will be detained or deported simply 

because of their immigration status. 

In closing, I respectfully ask the panel to understand the American public wants government to find effective tools to combat illegal immigration. I submit that the most effective tools are not preemption, unfunded mandates, deteriorated community policing, and 

racial profiling. Rather, the most effective tools are improved coordination, planning, training, and technology. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. 

[The statement of Mr. Quan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GORDON QUAN

Thank you, Chairman McCaul (R–TX), Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D–

TX), and members of the Texas delegation for the opportunity to speak with you 

today. 

I am Gordon Quan, former Mayor Pro Tem and At-Large Council Member from 

Houston, Texas and a Director of the Asian Chamber of Commerce of Houston. As 

Congress considers new ways to improve the nation’s security, I ask that it does so 

without diverting essential federal responsibilities onto local governments. 

Like many major cities across America, Houston has seen a dramatic demographic 

transformation in the past twenty years. Houston is roughly one-third Anglo, onethird Hispanic and the remaining third Black and Asian. With 80 consulates in 

Houston, we have the third largest consular corps in the U.S. The Port of Houston 

ranks number one in foreign tonnage in the U.S. We are truly an international city. 

Since September 11, local law enforcement across the nation has improved the security of their cities. In my city of Houston, Texas we have spent more than $15 

million more on securing the city since that tragic day. We are providing security 

at the city’s water plants, airports, extra helicopter flights, among others. We are 

also securing City Hall and ‘‘soft targets’’ such as local temples and synagogues. 

Let me say emphatically that the role of local government is clear. Local police 

have a responsibility to cooperate with the federal government to apprehend specific 

persons identified as having committed a crime and violated US immigration laws 

and who have been located by the federal government. However, local personnel 

cannot be conscripted into federal service because the federal government has decided not to fund and staff its immigration enforcement agencies to meet demand. 

This type of action can divert local personnel from their primary duties and constitute a cost shift onto local governments. 

Also, I categorically reject attempts to paint the local policy of Houston as a ‘‘sanctuary’’ city. The City of Houston’s policy, adopted in June 1992, states that that undocumented immigration status is not, in itself, a matter for local police action and 

unlawful entry is not to be treated as an on-going offense occurring in the presence 

of a local police officer. Simply put, police officers may not stop or apprehend individuals solely on the belief that they are in the country illegally. This Order has 

served the people and the law enforcement community of Houston, TX well since 

its adoption. State and local police officers continue to adhere to their sworn duty 

to protect and serve the people of Houston. To characterize the policy and City of 

Houston as a sanctuary city is an unfair characterization that cheapens and demeans the officers who put their lives on the line everyday. 

It is often said that Texans talk slow. Although we pepper our speech with a 

drawl, we are by no means stupid. We understand all to well attempts to force state 

and local governments to carry out what is essentially a Federal responsibility. Securing our borders is first and foremost the responsibility of the Federal government. Therefore, I am asking the Members of Congress here today to dispense with 

the rhetoric and provide the necessary resources to secure our borders. 

On June 2nd, Gov. Rick Perry signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

authorizing the deployment of 2,300 National Guard Troops to assist with the building of the fence along the southern border. Just two days prior, the Department of 

Homeland Security announced it cut homeland security funding for Texas—the state 

with the longest international border—by 31 percent from last year. Governor Perry 

said this funding disparity, combined with continued federal inaction ‘‘jeopardizes 

our security and reinforces my belief that Texas must never wait for Washington 

to act.’’ The governor the proposed plans to ask the Texas legislature for additional 

funding for local law enforcement along the border and border security operations, 
55

including a virtual border watch program. As a former local elected official who had 

to decide on matters such as transportation, school, and public health funding, I 

cannot help but think that state and local governments are picking up tab for the 

Federal government’s failure to fund border security programs. 

Second, I am also asking that we secure our border in responsible ways. Criminalization of aliens has not served as a deterrent. In 1996 Congress passed the Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act which sought to increase the 

number of criminal offenses which would bar an individual from immigrating. Furthermore, it expanded the definition of aggravated felony to include several offenses 

for which a sentence of one year or more was imposed, whether actually served or 

probated. Despite these measures, there has continued to be an increase in the 

number of persons seeking to enter the country illegally. We don’t need more laws 

that make aliens criminals. It clogs our judicial system and jails with persons who 

are really not criminals. 

Third, I would caution against efforts to preempt state and local laws that bar 

their law enforcement officers from assuming the federal responsibility of enforcing 

federal immigration laws. Efforts in Congress to withhold funds from states and cities like Houston that have routinely assisted the federal government by apprehending, housing and feeding non-documented criminal suspects in our city jails 

until the Bureau of Immigration dispatches its officers to retrieve the suspects. 

More often than not, the SCAAP reimbursement is less than the financial burden 

assumed by the local police departments. In short, it is unfair to demand that local 

governments undertake the federal government’s responsibilities. It is also unreasonable to mandate such responsibilities upon state and local governments without 

full fiscal support. 

Fourth, as a former local elected official and immigration lawyer with over 29 

years of experience, I know too well that communication, visibility, and trust are 

the foundation of effective community policing. Victims of crime must know that 

they can call us without the threat that they will be detained or deported simply 

because of their immigration status. 

In closing, I respectfully ask that this panel understand that the American public 

wants the government to fund effective tools to combat illegal immigration. I submit 

that the most effective tools are not preemption, unfunded mandates, deteriorated 

community policing, and racial profiling. Rather the most effective tools are improved coordination, planning, training, and technology. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this body.

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Quan, and thank you for your insight. And I happen to agree with you, this is a Federal responsibility. The Federal Government for the past couple of decades has 

failed in that responsibility; and I believe, as you do, the time to 

act is now. 

I would like to make the request again that anybody who has a 

BlackBerry, please turn that off as it is disruptive to the testimony. 

And now I would like to recognize Mr. T.J. Bonner, who is President of the National Border Patrol Council.

STATEMENT OF T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER 

PATROL COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member 

Jackson-Lee, other Members of Congress. 

On behalf of the 10,500 frontline Border Patrol agents who risk 

their lives day and night protecting our Nation’s borders, we thank 

you for the opportunity to present our views about this very serious 

problem of crime and violence along the Southwest border. 

This is not an issue that affects just the border communities. The 

crime and violence obviously spill over into many communities 

throughout the United States. As people in Houston know, and people in Los Angeles, all major and even smaller cities are painfully 
56

aware of, people who come across the border, intent on committing 

crimes, find easy pickings in many of our communities. 

When I came into the Border Patrol 28 years ago there were 

about 2,000 agents, with a budget of a couple hundred million dollars, and we apprehended about a million people crossing our borders illegally. Our frontline agents estimated that for every person 

we caught, two or three got by us. Twenty-eight years later, there 

are about 12,000 Border Patrol agents, a budget of close to $2 billion, and we still catch about a million people, and we still estimate 

that 2 or 3 million people get by us every year. We haven’t made 

much progress despite all of the expenditures. 

It was a dangerous job back then. It is even more dangerous 

now. The level of violent crime has risen dramatically. 

Now, there has been offset in the property crimes, and I think 

that fencing and more personnel along the border have been responsible for driving down property crimes in some of the border 

areas, but I don’t think that we need to make a choice between 

property crime and violent crime. I think that with the proper 

strategies, we can put an end to both of those. 

We know why most people come across the border. They are looking for work. Probably 98 percent of those 3 or 4 million people who 

cross the border every year are seeking employment. If we do deny 

them that employment through proper enforcement, proper laws, 

such as H.R. 98, which would create a counterfeit-proof Social Security card, we could put the smugglers out of business overnight, 

the people, smugglers, which would leave us with the 2 percent, 

the criminals, the terrorists, that most Americans are interested in 

stopping from coming into our country. 

In other words, 98 percent of the traffic is clogging up probably 

99.9 percent of our resources, not allowing us to focus on the criminals and terrorists coming across. What we are doing is essentially 

searching for the needle in the haystack. What we need to do is to 

eliminate the haystack so that we can focus on the needles, which 

would require a change in the law enforcement strategies. 

The drug smugglers should not be confronted with the choice of 

taking out one or two law enforcement officers in order to get away 

and escape justice. Their choice should be, do I go to prison or do 

I try and shoot it out with 2-dozen heavily armed law enforcement 

officers? 

We need help along the border. It is becoming increasingly violent, and part of the reason for that is the fact that the cartels are 

now taking over much of the human trafficking. The cost of smuggling has risen tenfold over the last several years, which means 

that this is an extremely lucrative enterprise for the cartels, and 

they are very interested in making money. If we don’t stop doing 

things the way we are doing them now, there is no reason we 

should expect a different result. 

I appreciate the ranking member’s introduction of H.R. 4044, 

which provides many of the tools that the Border Patrol needs; I 

appreciate the provisions within H.R. 4437, which contain many of 

the elements that are needed. But the missing piece in both of 

these is the ability to crack down on the employers. If we don’t 

crack down on the employers, we are going to continue to have a 

revolving door immigration policy. 
57

Personally, I have caught the same group of people four times in 

an 18-hour shift, and this is where our resources are going. We are 

catching people in the cartels who exploit this weakness. They will 

sacrifice a group of 25, 50 people, knowing that it is going to consume the resources of the Border Patrol for several hours as we try 

and round these people up, guard them, process them, send them 

back to their country of origin; and in the meantime, they are free 

to move loads of drugs and who knows what else. 

We need to change the way we are doing business if we expect 

different results. And we need different results. Our Nation is vulnerable in this post-9/11 environment. We simply cannot afford to 

have open, porous borders any longer. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. 

[The statement of Mr. Bonner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF T.J. BONNER

The National Border Patrol Council appreciates the opportunity to present the 

views and concerns of the 10,500 front-line Border Patrol employees that it represents regarding the persistent problems of criminal activity and violence along the 

border between the United States and Mexico. Despite substantial increases in 

funding during the past two decades for personnel, technology, and equipment for 

Federal law enforcement agencies along the southern border, the levels of crime and 

violence in that region remain unacceptably high. Although property crimes along 

the border have fallen dramatically, there has been an increase in violent crimes, 

including attacks against law enforcement officers. Last year, the number of assaults against Border Patrol agents more than doubled, with 778 reported incidents, 

compared to 374 the previous year. There have also been a number of armed confrontations initiated against U.S. law enforcement officers by rogue Mexican military and police units. Power struggles among some of the drug cartels have transformed the city of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico into a war zone where hundreds of people 

have been killed in the streets during the past several years. While other border 

cities are not experiencing this same level of violence, they are by no means immune 

from this scourge. 

Although there are several reasons for these emerging trends, the Border Patrol’s 

‘‘strategy of deterrence’’ is undoubtedly one of the primary factors responsible for 

these changes. Under this initiative, the Border Patrol has concentrated its resources near large cities along the southern border. Reinforced fences have been 

built in many of those areas, and agents are stationed in fixed positions in close 

proximity to the border. The theory behind this strategy is that people will be discouraged from crossing the border illegally because of the increased law enforcement 

presence. In reality, the number of people apprehended crossing our borders illegally 

has remained fairly constant. The strategy has merely caused the illicit traffic to 

shift to other parts of the border where there are fewer law enforcement resources. 

It has also induced more people to rely upon smugglers to help them cross the border, which has resulted in a dramatic tenfold increase in smuggling fees. In turn, 

this has caused more criminal organizations to become involved in smuggling people. The propensity of these organizations to utilize force as a means of achieving 

their ends has caused an escalation in violent crimes along the border. 

While there is an undeniable relationship between the rise in violent crime and 

the decline in property crime, there is no need to choose between the two, as a sensible border security strategy would substantially reduce both of these types of 

crime. Unfortunately, the current strategy focuses almost exclusively on the border, 

largely ignoring the root cause of illegal immigration. As long as illegal aliens can 

readily find employment in the United States, millions of people will continue to violate our immigration laws every year. This will ensure that the smuggling trade 

flourishes, greatly contributing to crime and violence along our borders. 

The enactment of H.R. 98, the ‘‘Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2005,’’ would eliminate the employment magnet that lures so 

many people to our country, and would also put human smugglers out of business 

almost overnight. No rational person would pay a smuggler to help him or her cross 

our borders if the odds of obtaining employment were remote. This would enable the 
58

1Since most of the troops assigned to perform tasks along the border (such as building, maintaining and repairing roads and fences) are unarmed, the Border Patrol is assigning agents to 

protect them against assaults. 

Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies to concentrate their limited resources on stopping criminals and terrorists from crossing our borders. 

It is important to note that this legislation differs markedly from proposals that 

are premised upon the Basic Pilot Program. as the Government Accountability Office reported last August, that system is highly susceptible to identity fraud because 

it allows impostors to use a separate, easily counterfeited document to assume the 

identity of the legitimate owner of a Social Security number. No employment 

verification system can be effective unless it utilizes a single counterfeit-proof document that establishes the bearer’s identity as well as employment eligibility. 

None of the other border security initiatives currently being considered would be 

nearly as effective as the foregoing measure. For example, fencing has not stopped 

people from illegally crossing our borders. Despite the placement of several hundred 

miles of reinforced border fences, illegal crossings have not subsided at all. Apprehensions of illegal aliens have varied little since construction of these barriers began 

fifteen years ago, and front-line Border Patrol agents still estimate that for every 

person who is caught, two or three manage to slip past them. While this type of 

fencing has helped reduce property crimes in urban areas, most border cities that 

are not adjacent to the Rio Grande already have such barriers, so further reductions 

in property crimes are likely to be minimal. Moreover, such fencing, combined with 

the static deployment of Border Patrol agents, is partly responsible for the increase 

in assaults against these and other law enforcement officers. It is also noteworthy 

that statistics concerning the number of violent crimes committed against illegal 

aliens traveling near the border are highly inaccurate, as they are generally not reported unless the injuries are severe or the victims are apprehended by the Border 

Patrol. 

Similarly, technology alone is incapable of deterring people from crossing our borders illegally. While the proper devices can serve a useful purpose as extra eyes and 

ears, they are incapable of apprehending a single person. Without adequate numbers of Border Patrol agents available to respond to the intrusions detected by sensors and cameras, thousands of people will continue to successfully slip across out 

borders illegally every night. 

Augmenting the size of the Border Patrol with temporary help until additional 

agents can be hired and trained is not an effective solution either. The experience 

to date with the National Guard deployment indicates that Border Patrol has spent 

more hours training, supervising, and guarding 1 these troops than the number of 

hours that are being spent patrolling the borders by the few agents who have been 

reassigned from administrative to field duties. The proposal to deploy armed guards 

with limited training as a stopgap measure would create an entirely different set 

of problems, greatly increasing the probability of unwarranted detentions and false 

arrests. Our immigration laws are extremely complex, and those who are charged 

with enforcing them need to receive the appropriate training in order to properly 

discharge these duties. Simply stated, there are no shortcuts. The only effective way 

to increase the size of the Border Patrol is to hire and train additional agents, provide them with the tools that they need to do their jobs, and ensure that they are 

paid and treated fairly in order to be able to attract and retain the best and brightest employees. H.R. 4044, the ‘‘Rapid Response Border Protection Act of 2005,’’ 

would achieve many of these goals, and should be enacted without delay. 

In summary, solutions to the vexing problems of border crime and violence will 

remain elusive as long as the current enforcement strategies are pursued. Addressing these problems in a meaningful way will require two dramatic changes. First, 

the employment magnet needs to be eliminated, which will reduce the flow of illegal 

traffic across our borders from a flood to a trickle. Second, reliable and cost-effective 

technologies need to be utilized to detect border intrusions, and sufficient numbers 

of law enforcement officers must be deployed in a manner that enables large numbers of them to rapidly respond to each incursion, minimizing the incentive for 

criminals to attempt to avoid capture through violent means. Since both of these 

measures could easily be implemented, there is no excuse for continuing to tolerate 

high levels of crime and violence along our borders. 

Mr. MCCAUL. We will now have questions from the members. I 

will limit it to one round of questions, try to keep it as close to 5 

minutes as possible, and the Chair recognizes himself for 5 min-
59

utes. I want to talk about several issues and then put a question 

to the panel. 

I remember when I worked in the Justice Department I had the 

Mexican border in my jurisdiction, and the Border Patrol told me 

about a policy that was relatively little known at the time and it 

was called the catch-and-release policy. When they explained it to 

me, they said, Well, what happens is, when we have people coming 

from countries other than Mexico, South America being a gateway 

to countries like the Middle East, China, Africa, and we don’t have 

enough detention space. 

I said, Okay, so what do you do? We give them a notice to appear 

at a hearing and we let them go. 

I said, Well, how many of those people show up? About 10 percent if we are lucky. 

In my view, that was probably one of the most dangerous loopholes in our national security policy, and it was unacceptable before 9/11. It is certainly unacceptable after the events of September 

11. 

When I got elected to the Congress, one of the first things I did 

was to author the Mandatory Detention Act, which calls for the detention of all of the other-than-Mexicans crossing. Now, the Mexicans who voluntarily returned, the OTMs gave notice to appear. 

This bill would end the catch-and-release policy; this bill is part of 

H.R. 4437. 

The House bill provides help. It provides funding for the sheriffs; 

it provides employer verification; it provides for more Border Patrol 

agents; it provides for all the security needs that we need in this 

Nation. And I call upon my colleagues in the Senate to pass it. 

Also, I have been working with Steve McCraw. I have introduced 

a bill, the border area security initiative, which calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate various areas along the 

border that are high-risk areas, and in an integrated, multiagency, 

multitask force approach, work to secure the border. It provides 

funding and it provides funding to hire deputy sheriffs as well. 

These are all important measures, and there are many more. 

I want to thank everyone for being here, but I do want to thank 

particularly the sheriffs and Mr. McCraw, whom I had the great 

fortune to work with when he was at the FBI, working 

counterterrorism, and I was at Justice; we worked together on 

threat assessments then. 

And I would like to know today from you, Steve, about your view 

of the current threat assessment which, in my view, is greater than 

it was when we were working together. I would like to hear from 

both you and the sheriffs about your perception—as you are on the 

front lines in this struggle, I would like to hear your perception 

about the threat assessment; and then, if you could elaborate, as 

you worked together on these enforcement operations, how those 

exactly worked and what the Congress can do to help you in that 

effort. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Just quickly, Chairman, I couldn’t agree with you 

more in terms of the significance of the threat. Over a year and 

half ago, the governor simply asked me what is the most significant 

threat to Texas, and clearly, unfortunately, I had to come back and 

report, a porous U.S. border with Mexico. That was the most sig-
60

nificant national security, but also public safety threat as well. 

And, you know, that is without question. 

So the second part is what do you do, and fortunately for us, we 

had some sheriffs who were thinking about that already and already recognized through Operation Stonegarden, which was supported by DHS homeland security grant funds that, hey, when they 

get increased patrols in a threat period, between the election in November and the inauguration in January of our last election, something remarkable happened. More patrol decreased crime, and 

leveraging, based upon the success of that, simply is just more 

State resources. 

And thank goodness for David Aguilar, the Chief of Border Patrol, willing to work with all the border sector chiefs to come together and work. Unlike the days of old where we built investigative strategies, this is different. It is patrol-based strategies, because as important it is to do the investigations, there is no substitute when we are trying to decrease crime to have patrol presence, to the extent we leverage intelligence—and I can’t state that 

enough—usually intelligence, and command and control and coordination and technology to support it. 

But one key thing, if there is one thing we can get—and the reason the governor has gone to the legislature and asked them for 

$100 million; it is most appropriate, by Mr. Quan, to bring that 

up—it takes away from something else that is a matter of 

prioritization. We have wished, and he wished, he didn’t have to 

do that, but it is so important we help Border Patrol and Customs—or excuse me, Customs and Border Patrol, help secure the 

border that we need to do something now. 

That is how we are doing it, and I will defer to the sheriffs, Flores and Jernigan. 

Mr. MCCAUL. If you could comment also on the statistics, I think 

the three enforcement operations you ran, which is a law enforcement operation, as I understand, was greatly successful. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Again, it is like—it is not rocket science. That is 

why I understand it, okay; and it is physics for police, if you will. 

We started off in Operation Del Rio, and I will let the sheriff talk 

about it, but those numbers are pretty high in terms of crime reduction. 

Mr. JERNIGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman and Members, during the 

month of June, part of June, we conducted a special operation in 

connection with Border Patrol and Customs and game wardens, 

DPS, many other agencies; and as he mentioned earlier, using a 

large number of uniformed officers, 24/7, throughout our county. 

Our crime rate during that time period the operation was conducted was reduced by 67 percent just in our county alone, which 

was a significant drop. We can’t sustain that under current budget 

restraints, but we were able to prove that a uniformed presence in 

the area does prevent crime, does reduce crime significantly. 

Mr. MCCRAW. That is one of the reasons why we are looking for 

more money, the governor is, because how do we sustain these operations. 

Sheriff Flores, obviously Operation Del Rio was built around—

‘and Sheriff Jernigan, Operation Laredo, Webb County; Sheriff Flo-
61

res in terms of the five-county—we kind of expanded to five counties in your area right, Rick? 

Mr. FLORES. Expanded to five counties and our initiative was a 

little different than the President’s. Our initiative was to have a 

greater impact on arresting people and putting people behind bars. 

We learned a lot, and one of the most important things that we 

have learned is that all of us—communicating together and sharing 

intelligence, we can make a greater impact in helping reduce the 

criminal elements or the criminal enterprises along the border. 

Interoperability is also very important. We lack interoperability, 

but basically the gathering of intelligence, communicating with 

each other was very, very important and very successful. 

We thank the governor’s office for taking the lead on that in getting these operations together so we could learn more about us as 

an agency and working together collaboratively with other law enforcement agencies. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Well—and Sheriff. 

Mr. JERNIGAN. I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, as a result of 

this operation, Chief Randy Hill, Chief of the Border Patrol for the 

Del Rio sector, and DPS and the Val Verde sheriff’s office agreed 

and have actually formed a joint intelligence unit based at the Border Patrol to address some of these issues. It has just been established, so we are all going to be watching to see if it really works. 

A couple of other issues that we are looking at besides the joint 

intelligence efforts are the sheriff’s office and the Border Patrol are 

exploring the possibility of joining our communications centers in 

one center, probably to be located at the Border Patrol. We have 

technicians and others coming in the next couple of weeks to evaluate that possibility, to see if it will work. Off the cuff, I think it 

will improve our communications between the multitude of Federal 

agencies in our jurisdiction and within the county. 

One other issue that we have initiated that has to do with the 

heavy caseloads at the U.S. attorney’s office: Many cases not being 

prosecuted because of the threshold levels that have been established. Through the governor’s office we were able to secure funding to establish a full-time prosecutor working at the U.S. attorney’s office to assist us in the additional cases that are flowing in 

their direction. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Well, thank you. I commend you for your efforts 

and your success. As usual, Congress and those of us at the Federal level have a lot to learn from States and locals. 

And Steve. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Chairman, we have concluded this week—we just 

happened to coincidentally conclude Operation El Paso this week. 

We will be doing an after-action report. We are going to do it next 

Tuesday, and the preliminary statistics we are getting back right 

now are 70 percent reduction in all crime. 

And that is an important part. Remember, all crime, that is, the 

home invasions—those are the things that the sheriffs are held accountable for: home invasions, robberies, rapes, murders. It is a 

very important statistic. 

The only reason that number drops is because the bad guys, 

Mexican organized crime, shut down their activities. There is a direct correlation between when you reduce the smuggling acts of 
62

these that come across the border and the amount of crime they 

have to deal with in their particular counties. 

Would you guys agree with that? 

Mr. FLORES. I agree. 

Mr. MCCAUL. It is a great model for us to learn from. 

I believe that the House bill, passed by the Senate, will provide 

the support that you need. 

And I would like to close with the issue I brought up initially, 

and that is the catch-and-release policy. If anything, we need to get 

this passed. It is absurd. You don’t have to look back too far in history to know that in 1992 a guy name Ramzi Yousef came into this 

country and was given a notice to appear at a hearing, failed to 

show up, conspired to blow up the World Trade Center, fled the 

country, met with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who turned out to be 

the mastermind of 9/11. They discussed in the mid-1990s the flying 

of airplanes into buildings. 

As we recently saw in England, those plots are still ongoing with 

airplanes. That is why this policy is so important, and that is why 

it is so important that we pass this. 

I now yield to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Let me thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for allowing me to serve this morning on a subcommittee 

that I am not on Homeland Security as the ranking member and, 

therefore, allowing me, as well, to also be a fact finder but to bring 

a sense of balance. 

Mr. Pena, Mr. McCraw, Colonel Malesky, Sheriff Flores, Sheriff 

Jernigan, Mr. Quan, Mr. Bonner, let me thank you for the patriotic 

Americans that you are and for the service that you have given. 

Both sheriffs know that we have spent a lot of time together in 

Washington, D.C. I have even called the sheriff before my Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the 

House Judiciary Committee. 

We have heard your voices, and frankly my frustration, as I listened to Mr. Flores, is the fact your life is still in jeopardy, that 

we don’t have the resources right now for you to take advantage 

of. 

So my frustration is not to suggest that it is not a dangerous border—I know that; I have spent time there at night—but obviously 

the hours that you spend, you are a living witness, all of you are. 

So I think the challenge for us today is to really call upon the Congress, to roll up our sleeves, and if I had the—my, if you will, desires or the opportunity, I would call the House back in and the 

Senate back in, because I think it is important to note that there 

is a House bill and there is a Senate bill. 

Both of these bills have enforcement aspects because it is a 

given, it is an obvious. I don’t know if Yogi Berra had some quote 

that it is all about obviousness. We understand that we are confronting a new enemy. 

My concern here today is that testimony that you have given is 

welcoming for Houston to hear it, but it is already in our congressional records. When you left us in June and July and in the spring 

when you came up, your challenge to this Congress was that it was 

necessary for us to go to work. 
63

Well, we have gone to work, and might I say to the chairman, 

I would like to join with him on his initial legislation, because H.R. 

4044, as he well knows, OTMs, other-than-Mexicans, the problem 

with the catch-and-release was the lack of detention beds. So the 

rapid response bill that I authored that—Mr. Bonner, that you 

have supported or the National Association of Border Patrol, gives 

you a 100,000 detention beds. It is not a pretty sight, but it does 

speak to this whole question of security. 

So I want to take you, if I might, in a series of rounds of questioning that might be helpful for me to understand. 

Sheriff Jernigan made a point that is valuable. We are safer 

today in light of the terrorist plot that was discovered in the last 

2 weeks because of intelligence. That is the first line of defense for 

you gentlemen that are here today, to get the intelligence so that 

you can be in front of the violence, if you will. And then, of course, 

it is the necessity of providing the funding. 

I have joined in, as we have, to help support sheriffs who need 

a reimbursement in funding, because you are on the front line as 

first responders, but I think the crisis is that—what I am hearing 

is, is all local effort. 

Immigration and the protection of the border and the protection 

of the United States is a Federal responsibility. It has to be. So let 

me simply—and I think I heard Mr. McCraw say that there is 

going to be a $100 million request by the governor of the State of 

Texas? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, ma’am, that is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Let me ask you whether or not a format such 

of this would be helpful as well: a provision in law that would allow 

the governor of a State to declare an international emergency at 

their border—and we have New Mexico and California, among others—to go directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, who 

consults with the President of the United States; and at that point 

the DHS dispatches 1,000 Border Patrol agents to that State that 

has declared an emergency. 

Would that be a vehicle that would be useful to the State of 

Texas which you represent? 

Mr. MCCRAW. The short answer is yes. One thousand more Border Patrol agents, where do we sign up. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. So a format that would allow that declaration 

would be a helpful format. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, ma’am. 

One thing I want to caution, though: A declaration without resources means nothing. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Absolutely. So that the connection is that once 

you make the declaration, those 1,000 Border Patrol agents would 

be dispatched, short of adding money in the other areas. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, ma’am, we would love to have that. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. That is a provision in H.R. 4044, which I authored. And, frankly, I hope that at a conference—that is what we 

are supposed to be doing—that we will be able to reach that point 

of reconciliation and get a provision in the conference that generates a bill that answers this immigration issue comprehensively, 

border security and, as well, working with the States for their security and immigration reform. 
64

Let me also ask Mr. McCraw why I think it is important for you 

to have these Federal resources. The governor is going to be asking 

for 100 million. I know that you are tightening your belt. I know 

what is happening to the State schools and our health care system. 

I know that we are literally in a crunch, and I am saddened to say 

that when it came to making a decision about Federal funding for 

urban initiative grants under the Department of Homeland Security, as Mr. Quan has said, we were cut 31 percent under this administration. 

But I do want to ask, with the effort that you have had at the 

border, tell me why you need more resources. We know that GAO 

investigators just went to the border, and they were able to transport radioactive materials, enough to build two dirty bombs, across 

borders in two locations, including Texas. If we had a State effort 

by the governor—the question is, why didn’t we catch these individuals? 

What is it that you would need if you were at the border? The 

governor did expend funds, but yet these two individuals or this 

group of individuals were able to come across with the dirty bombs, 

and Texas did not catch it with the resources. 

Mr. MCCRAW. I think if you will check, you will find they went 

through the ports of entry. That is how they did it. 

I will refer to Mr. Pena in terms of that—or you wouldn’t know, 

you are ICE. Forgive me. There is nobody here that is at the port 

of entry. That is how they entered. 

It doesn’t matter. They could have gotten in a number of different ways, certainly through the ports of entry, but in between 

the ports of entry. 

The fact is, the answer is, secure the border. If the border is secure, that is the important point, because just because people don’t, 

you know—that is the most important thing and that is where we 

will continue to focus and talk about. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. You are absolutely right, and reclaiming my 

time, your time was well spent in your answer. That was basis of 

my question, that whether the governor spends $100 million of 

State funds, if we as a Federal entity don’t fund this at the highest 

amount, which is included in a comprehensive view of this immigration question, then we are begging the question, we are forcing 

States to spend their money, and we still have people crossing the 

border with the ability to create havoc. 

Mr. Pena, what happened there? What do you need more to help 

you in avoiding that kind of entry? And I know that you are ICE, 

internal, but if you could suggest what might be helpful if investigators were able to cross the border with two dirty bombs. 

Mr. PENA. Unfortunately, Congresswoman, I am not as well 

versed on that incident that you referred to. I am familiar with the 

previous—I think it was a Dateline that happened up on the northern border. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. This is a GAO study. You can give your best 

guess as to what kind of funding you would need to help thwart 

that type of activity. 

Would it be an intelligence funding increase? Would it be more 

resources, more personnel? 

Mr. PENA. You touched on it. It is comprehensive. 
65

I think we need intelligence; I think some of the things that are 

going on right now, as far as a coordinated effort, which I think is 

demonstrated here, of how we are working together in these task 

forces where there is not a compartmentalizing of information anymore. 

I think that 9/11 has opened the windows that every agency realizes no one wants to withhold that piece of information that could 

have helped the other agency detect the dirty bomb. 

We are working closely together. We are sharing our information. 

We are intelligence driven, working with our foreign partners. 

That is the other key, which I hope was noted in my testimony 

about working with the Mexican Government. We do need their cooperation to help us, and we have begun an initiative where we are 

working closely with Mexico intelligence. We have got to work with 

foreign governments, also. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I think that is excellent and is part of the 

comprehensive approach we are trying to take by meshing the Senate bill and the House bill together. You cannot have enforcement 

only because you must separate out the criminals from those who 

are seeking to come into the country with legal status or even those 

who are already here in the United States. I think if we mesh that 

we become confused. 

Let me just pose these questions quickly to Sheriff Flores and 

Sheriff Jernigan. If you were to get, along with resources at the 

border, more helicopters and power boats, both working at the Border Patrol and you would have the opportunity to utilize some of 

that equipment, helicopters, power boats, motor vehicles, portable 

computers, radio communication, handheld global positioning system devices, night vision equipment, body armor, would that be 

helpful, in conjunction with the support of the Border Patrol, getting that equipment as well? 

Mr. FLORES. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. And so that would be helpful as you are on 

the border and assisting us in border security. 

Mr. FLORES. If I may add, one of the things that distinguished 

Webb County from the other counties is that Laredo is, if not the 

largest inland port in the Nation, possibly in the world, we have 

got 60—to 70,000 commercial trucks going northbound across our 

borders; and commercial vehicle enforcement would be very, very 

important for us to be able to have—to be able to inspect some of 

the truck traffic that is crossing our bridges undetected. So technology is of vital importance in addition to all the others. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Let me just say, that too is in H.R. 4044, 

which I authored. 

And let me just have my last question to Mr. Bonner if I could. 

I just want to show you the comparison of what we have had over 

the last couple of years, border security by the numbers. 

The average number of new Border Patrol agents added per year 

in 1993 to 2000 was 642. Under this present Congress and over the 

last years since 2001, it has been 411. INS fines for immigration 

enforcement, 417 in 1999; present administration, only three in 

2004. 

Seventy-eight percent fewer completed immigration court cases. 

In 1995, we had 6,455 before the 1996 immigration bill; and now 
66

in 2003, the very span of time that this committee and this chairman are talking about, 2003 from 1999, we have gone down. 

My other poster shows the number of apprehensions at the border has declined by 31 percent under this administration and this 

Congress. In 1996 to 2000, you had 1.52 million; in 2002, 2004 you 

have had 1.5 million. 

I would commend that the question is resources. Would you want 

to analyze that, Mr. Bonner, why we have seen such a drastic decrease and has the funding been equal to the needs? 

Mr. BONNER. Obviously, the funding has not been equal to the 

needs because our borders are still porous, and I think there is 

enough blame to be spread around all over the place. 

The question now is, when are we going to get down to business 

and solve the problem and secure the border; and I think that that 

is going to take both sides of the aisle to get together in good faith 

and come up with solutions that really work. I don’t want to sit 

here and preach to the Members of Congress, but the American 

public wants our borders secure. I hear that every day from ordinary citizens who ask me, Why aren’t our borders secure; and I 

have to refer them over to their lawmakers. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. So you want us to get to work and to reconcile 

those two bills. 

Mr. BONNER. I want the problem solved. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. We will get to work to reconcile those two 

bills. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you. 

Mr. Bonner, we hear that message every day as well, secure the 

border, and that is what we are trying to do. 

The Chair now recognizes Judge Ted Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bonner, preach on, 

preach on. It is what you ought to be doing. Sometimes people say 

Washington, D.C., is the only city in America surrounded by reality. So you need to keep preaching. I would encourage you to do 

that. 

Several comments—most of my questions will be directed to you, 

Mr. Bonner—I just tell you that so you can listen to what I have 

to say—and also Sheriff Flores. 

I understand there are 8,000 documents the Border Patrol has to 

be versed in in determining whether a person from Mexico or Canada or the Caribbean islands is lawfully from that country when 

they come into our legal ports of entry. 

Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. BONNER. Those would be the Customs and Border Protection 

officers, Border Patrol agents, most of the people that we apprehend do not have any documents, but we run into those situations 

where someone has some type of document; and then we have to 

get on the radio and say, What the heck is this thing, and generally we get sent off to those folks at the ports of entry who have 

to be expert in this. And I don’t want to take up too much of your 

time, Congressman, but— 

Mr. POE. Let me cut you off then, Mr. Bonner. I want to keep 

my 5 minutes. 

At the lawful ports of entry, as you know, we have a Western 

Hemisphere exception. If you are from Mexico, Canada, the Carib-
67

bean islands, you can come into America without the use of a passport. You can use everything from a baptismal certificate on. 

The 9/11 Commission recommended that the United States do 

away with that absurd policy and for security reasons require all 

people entering the United States to have a passport. It would 

speed up the entry to the United States, but also it could record 

who comes in and who leaves this country, which we do not do in 

this Nation any longer. 

The 9/11 Commission report recommendation has been postponed, continues to be postponed, so that we do not have the passport policy in this country. We have a passport, a universal document legislation, that I have introduced. The person has a visa 

with a photograph and a thumbprint on it. Then when an individual goes to a business and wants to work, that business uses 

this lawful visa as opposed to some Social Security number that 

businesses are supposed to use, and then we could prosecute the 

businesses that fail to or that continue to hire illegals. 

Do you think maybe using this 9/11 Commission report is something that Congress ought to adopt, requiring everybody entering 

the United States to have a passport so we know who these people 

are? Just your opinion. 

Mr. BONNER. Absolutely. As it stands now, if you speak English, 

you can get into this country; because they ask you where were you 

born, and if you can speak English well enough, you can convince 

that inspector that you have a right to be here. They don’t want 

to know who you are, so you could be—you could have committed 

a heinous crime the day before or the week before and have an 

APB, but they are not asking you who you are. 

Mr. POE. And I agree totally with you that the Federal Government ought to prosecute the businesses that make a profit in dealing in the cash economy, paying people illegally in the country in 

cash; those people receive illegal money, and the businesses profit. 

The Federal Government needs to prosecute those. 

That is well said. Good advice. 

Detentions, as the chairman has mentioned, regarding OTMs, 

those people from other nations that are coming here, captured, released. I don’t know why we can’t use the abandoned military 

bases. Homeland security has 10,000 FEMA trailers sitting up in 

Hope, Arkansas, that were supposed to be used down here in the 

gulf coast for the hurricanes, but FEMA has apparently some regulation you can’t take trailers to flood-prone areas. So we never got 

the trailers for the refugees from Katrina and Rita, another absurd 

policy. 

But they are sitting up in Hope, Arkansas. Maybe those could be 

pulled down to the border and used on a temporary basis to house 

people that are OTMs from other nations. It is a national security 

problem, as well as an economic security problem, to allow unlawful entry into the United States. 

I have a specific question regarding an incident that has occurred 

with the Border Patrol, a couple of border agents being arrested 

for, what I think, doing their job in West Texas and being prosecuted for doing their job. Now they are getting ready to be sentenced Friday for apparently shooting at some drug dealer, and the 
68

Federal Government gave the drug dealer immunity to prosecute 

the two border agents. 

What is the policy of the Border Patrol on use of force and apprehensions of people coming across the border illegally, like drug 

dealers? Can you tell me what the policy is? 

Mr. BONNER. The policy is that Border Patrol agents are entitled 

to use deadly force to defend themselves or an innocent third party. 

In that case, that is exactly what happened. The drug smuggler 

wheeled around upon command to stop, pointed a shiny object at 

them, and they opened fire. They don’t have to wait until someone 

shoots at them. They did not violate policy. 

Mr. POE. I agree with you. It seems very ironic our Federal Government seems to be on the wrong side in doing the prosecuting 

in that particular case. 

Sheriff Flores, I would like to ask a couple of questions to you. 

Been down to the border and seen you a couple of times and all 

the deputy sheriffs and the sheriffs in Texas. Once again, we appreciate what you do. 

And when y’all came to Washington, D.C., the 16 border sheriffs 

walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, sheriffs from Texas, you are 

stopping traffic, people are looking. Who are these guys? The sheriffs are in town, 16 new ones. 

But we thank you for what you do. 

You have a person that used to work as a Texas Ranger working 

for you by the name of Doyle Holdridge and he has made a comment about what the border is like after sunset between Nuevo Laredo and Laredo. 

Would you like to comment on what Doyle Holdridge, his comment? 

Mr. FLORES. His comment is and still is that ‘‘It gets Western,’’ 

and his definition of ‘‘Western’’ is that, you know, our deputies 

have to be on extremely high alert when they travel into some of 

the communities in the south that are situated along the Rio 

Grande because of the narcotrafficking and the illegal smuggling. 

Mr. POE. Do you think that we have, as a nation, control of our 

southern border. 

Mr. FLORES. We do not have control. We are doing the best that 

we can with what we have, but we surely could use more. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Mr. FLORES. But we do have a pulse on the violence and some 

control. We don’t have a large spillover on this side, and I think 

that definitely when we had our operations or have been having 

our operations, the more vigilance and the more manpower that we 

have along the border, these people tend to hunker down. 

Mr. POE. Well, obviously, I think all of the departments are 

doing—Federal and State, local, National Guard are doing the best 

job our Federal Government will let them do. 

Last question, Sheriff. In a perfect world, how would you solve 

the border problem? How would you do it? If you could preach to 

us, as Mr. Bonner wants to do, what would you preach to the Federal Government on what we could do to secure the southern and 

even the northern border? 

Mr. FLORES. I think Ms. Jackson-Lee pretty much had the laundry list. We need additional manpower. We need more technology. 
69

We need more resources allocated not only to Federal agencies, but 

to local agencies. 

We are first responders. County governments are a small tax 

base. They don’t have enough money to fund sheriff’s departments 

as they should, or I think they probably would want, but that 

would be perfect in an ideal world. 

More boots on the ground— 

Mr. POE. Probably more immigration judges, as well. 

Mr. FLORES.—and, of course interoperability to communicate 

with each other. Post-9/11, we are still not interoperable in a lot 

of places in the United States. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Sheriff Flores. 

I yield back Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you. I just want to add, it is amazing to me 

that two Border Patrol agents who are doing their job, getting fired 

at all the time on the front lines, with their hands tied behind their 

backs, when they try to defend themselves, end up getting prosecuted. 

With that, the Chair will now recognize Mr. Green. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And like my colleagues, I want to thank both local law enforcement for going what 

is really a Federal responsibility; and I just regret we have to be 

here. 

But in all honesty, both the House bill and the Senate bill have 

the tools to deal with what you are having to address with right 

now—the OTMs, the additional resources. The difference is that 

the Senate bill deals with the 10 to 12 million we have that are 

undocumented. 

But I don’t think any side—the Senate, the House—wants to 

skimp on protecting our country, but the Senate bill does have the 

same thing. That is what the conference committees are for. If one 

side is better than the other, then the conference committee ought 

to meet, but this one hasn’t met and that is our problem right now. 

I wish I could say we will do it this year. In all honesty, I don’t 

see it happening this year, because with the shortness of the time 

the Congress is in session in September and October and the lame 

duck session. We want to do it; there is an obligation to do it. 

It is interesting though, Mr. McCraw; I don’t know you, but I 

served in the Texas legislature. The only time I heard your name 

before was when I watched some things on trying to look for the 

legislators in Oklahoma and New Mexico, and I hope we have a lot 

better chance at this than we did that. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Wrong person. I was working for the FBI at that 

time. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. Okay. Good. Different McCaul. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCRAW. It is McCraw. That is close enough. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. One of the things I would like to know is, what 

are the rules of engagement on the Federal level and the local 

level. 

Sheriff Flores, if your deputies are fired on and cross the international boundary, what is your standard operating procedure? I 

would like to know the Federal agencies, the Border Patrol, if 

someone fires at you from across the border, what is your option? 

Mr. FLORES. You take cover. 
70

Mr. Gene GREEN. You don’t have the right to return fire. 

Mr. FLORES. Not right now; we are just—we pretty much wait. 

And we have actually seen Border Patrol fire back and—because 

they have been in many situations like we have been in, but we 

have not fired back. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. So local law enforcement, if you happen to be 

in a neighborhood in South Laredo and you are along the border, 

I mean, it could be Laredo, it could be El Paso, it could be anywhere, you don’t have the right under national law, or is it State 

law, to be able to return fire. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. If we are in the United States, you know, we 

are going to go ahead and protect ourselves if we are in a very difficult situation. 

Now, if they are shooting from an international country 

Mr. Gene GREEN. Across the border. 

Mr. FLORES. Across the border. 

—we are just different. We are very careful. We don’t want to 

cause any problems. We do notify law enforcement. We call our dispatch. Dispatch calls Mexican law enforcement. We try to get Mexican law enforcement to respond, but we do not take the initiative 

to start firing back. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. Well, I guess that bothers me, Mr. Chairman, 

because frankly our law enforcement should be able to protect 

themselves. And I know we don’t want to cause an international 

incident, but in all honesty, if somebody is shooting, at your deputies or a Brownsville police officer or anyone else, I think that—I 

mean, they ought to be able to defend themselves. 

I don’t know what we need to do. I don’t think that has been addressed in any of the bills we have talked about, but I am glad 

these Border Patrol agents have a right to return fire. 

I also know that if you can’t, if the country of Mexico can’t stop 

that from happening—and we have the same right to protect our 

citizens; and law enforcement, particularly, ought to be able to protect themselves. I am going to see how we can work on changing 

that. 

Sheriff Jernigan, in Val Verde County you talked about the need 

for communication equipment so you can communicate with other. 

Is it State and local law enforcement, or is it also to work with 

Federal law enforcement? 

Mr. JERNIGAN. Also, Federal, sir. 

I did a recent study here a while back, trying to come up with 

some figures on what it would cost if we did a communications 

project for all the agencies, particularly on the Texas border, and 

came up with a figure a little in excess of $40 million. But we can’t 

communicate right now between various agencies. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. In all honesty, we had that same problem in 

Houston, in Harris County and the Houston Police Department; 

and we are working at it. Even the Port of Houston that is in our 

district, we are trying to develop the relationship between all my 

local jurisdictions and the FBI and the Federal law enforcement to 

do the same thing, because that is one of our problems from 9/11. 

Even in New York, the firefighters cannot communicate with the 

police officers. 
71

Mr. FLORES. Well, I would like to say, if Washington was interoperable, it would be great for all of us. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. Wouldn’t that be nice. 

Mr. FLORES. It is not a partisan issue. It is a red, white and blue 

issue, and I think y’all need to spread that to your colleagues and 

let them know that. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. And I agree. I think interoperable would be 

nice. We should be interoperable on lots of other issues other than 

just communication equipment. I think that is something we need 

to realize, that along the border between the Federal agencies and 

the local agencies, they ought to be able to call each other, instead 

of having to go through dispatch and get on another system, because delay can mean injury or death. 

One of the things I am amazed at, and a good friend of mine and 

ours actually is Congressman Silvestre Reyes from El Paso. He was 

the District Director of the Border Patrol for many years, and I remember the controversy he had when he had to hold the line in 

El Paso. I saw the number of petty crimes, number of burglaries 

went down because of that effort. We know that worked. 

I know the Border Patrol for years has tried to implement that 

along the border, but you have to have the people. It doesn’t do you 

any good to have a fence. Somebody has to watch that fence; that 

is what is frustrating. 

Are we still dealing with something that shows that it was successful in El Paso in the early 1990s or the mid-1990s in holding 

the line, you can do it, whether it is Laredo, or urban areas particularly, but Laredo or El Paso. 

Mr. FLORES. In Laredo, I know. And I can’t speak for Border Patrol, but I know that their virtual technology has been working. I 

know the governor is expanding on that, and I think that is going 

to serve well to have additional cameras and sensors along the border. We need to have more of that. And again, I just can’t overemphasize the importance of technology. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. Again, it should be Federal funding instead of 

having the local taxpayers or even the State taxpayers do that. 

Mr. FLORES. Well, like I said, we don’t have the money. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. Mr. Quan, you mentioned in your testimony 

the concern about punishing cities who may not particularly make 

it an effort to be INS agents. I guess that bothers me because in 

the city of Houston, we have a shortage of police officers although—and we are doing overtime and everything else. I don’t 

know the numbers on the Federal funding, but do you know from 

your years on the council—and maybe the chief would know when 

he gets here—what impact that would have on the city of Houston 

if all of the sudden we lost funding from the Federal Government? 

Mr. QUAN. I don’t have the exact numbers on that, Congress 

Member, but in a recent discussion we talked about just the fact 

that FEMA, we are asking reimbursement for the number of police 

officers because of the additional people from Katrina and Rita; 

and there are several millions of dollars. 

If we are forced to try to look at criminal aliens in the city of 

Houston, it is estimated we may need an extra 1,000 officers in the 

city. So where are we going to get that type of funding? That is 

one-fifth of our force as it is right now. 
72

So I don’t have the figures on how much we get now, but again, 

I don’t think it comes close to reimbursing what the costs are. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. In all honesty, living in the city of Houston, if 

my house were broken into, I would much rather the cost and service time be much lower, and if I have somebody I think is not here 

legally, I would be more than happy to call the INS instead of the 

HPD. 

Mr. QUAN. That is what the mayor believes and most citizens of 

Houston believe. 

Mr. Gene GREEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Gene, let me associate myself with your frustration 

and concerns about law enforcement’s inability to respond once 

these cartels have gone back into Mexico. 

I recently chaired a hearing on Neeley’s Crossing in hopes that 

the county would arrest cartel members and individuals dressed in 

military uniform who crossed into the United States and then fled 

back across the river. We saw on the videotape law enforcement’s 

inability to do anything, even though they were being fired upon, 

and I think it is something we should look into in this committee, 

and also I think it calls for a greater need for cooperation with 

Mexico. I think that is probably the answer to that. 

The committee will now take a short recess of 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, this panel is leaving. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. May I just ask you to yield to me? 

Mr. MCCAUL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, we have worked on a number 

of committees together, but specifically the Homeland Security 

Committee, and what I have gleaned from these witnesses is that 

we have a drug cartel, violent problem at the border, mostly dealing with drug smugglers, money launderers. And I hope maybe 

that you will accept my invitation for a hearing at the border on 

the depressed Colombian drug trafficking which has now come to 

Mexico, which is the crux of the increased violence that you all are 

facing. That is a more or less parallel but separate issue which 

would include public enforcement officers and FBI and others. And 

in order to be able to look at this in its wholeness, I would hope 

we would be able to have that kind of hearing and provide the necessary funding for that response as well. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I think that is an excellent idea, and the Chair will 

take that into consideration. The committee will now be taking a 

short recess of 5 minutes for the next panel. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MCCAUL. The committee will come back to order. 

First, I would like to thank Judge Martha Jamison for opening 

up her courtroom to us today to hold this hearing. I really appreciate all the hospitality, not only from the judge but from the Harris County officials, sheriff’s office, and all of the Harris County officials who have made this possible here today. I know it has not 

been easy. I know there have been security concerns, and I certainly appreciate everything you have done. Thanks so much. 
73

With that said, we are going to go ahead and start into the testimony. I will try to keep us on a fairly tight clock so we can all 

move on. I understand there is an Astros game at one o’clock, and 

some of you may be attending that. 

With that being said, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Robert 

Eckels, Judge Eckels, Harris County.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ECKELS, COUNTY JUDGE, HARRIS 

COUNTY 

Judge ECKELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. Again, I 

will try to be brief. I have submitted previously written testimony. 

We do welcome you to Harris County Civil Courthouse. You are the 

first congressional hearing in our courthouse. We are very happy 

to have you here. I wonder about Judge Poe not being at the bench 

here. I will have to get used to this. 

We welcomed Congressman Lee and Congressman Green earlier. 

Like many other large communities in the United States, we are 

relying on the Census Bureau to talk a little bit about ourselves. 

And one of the high points, in 2005 we were estimated to have a 

population approaching 3.7 million. That was pre-Katrina. So I 

would estimate that Harris County now pushes that 4 million number. 

As you look at our population here, it is about 20 percent growth 

rate over the decade. A large percentage of our population, as has 

been earlier estimated, is immigrant population and foreign-born 

population. We do have a very international community and a large 

border presence through the Port of Houston, in spite of the fact 

that we are not on the southern border. 

Houston, through our port, is a gateway to Mexico. We are a 

larger Mexican port than any other Mexican port, at least in terms 

of transporting goods through our port. It also makes us more vulnerable to criminal activities. So we are particularly interested in 

the issues regarding our community, and I appreciate your being 

here today. 

We did receive port security grant funding which has enabled us 

to begin electronic surveillance and waterside patrols which are 

currently in the planning side. We appreciate that. We are 

partnering with the port in their grants, and the Coast Guard as 

well, in working together, and I do want to compliment the Coast 

Guard and the Homeland Security Department for their efforts to 

work with us on our interjurisdictional partners for security in both 

regions. 

You asked me to focus on three efforts: the impact of illegal immigration on the public school systems, health care and our law enforcement and criminal justice systems. 

I have become increasingly aware, as I have tried to prepare this 

testimony, that it is very difficult to gather information on the impact of illegal aliens and illegal immigration with criminal activity 

because citizenship statistics are not routinely gathered by most 

entities of the State or local government. 

It is standard practice, for example, in public health when they 

are conducting case investigations—when we did a reportable condition of communicable disease—to identify the potential risk to 

the community and inform us of those risks and track down the 
74

disease, ensuring that no one else is placed at risk. In doing so, 

they do not get into the issue of citizenship because that often impedes their ability to track down people who might be carrying diseases in the community. 

Paul Bettencourt, our tax assessor, had testified previously to 

Congress and the Committee on House administration about the 

noncitizen voting and the Federal Election Integrity Act, and mentioned the possibility of having a reliable national database, a citizenship database, and to check for protocol on citizenship. Such a 

database would be helpful to us as we deal with the other issues 

as well, not in a deliberative service, but in the maintaining of the 

records in the county on the people we deal with every day. 

On public education and public schools, the Texas system of independent school districts, again created by the legislature, have been 

given primary responsibility in educating children in our State. 

There are 26 ISDs wholly or partially within Harris County. 

We do operate our own educational program, an alternative education in criminal justice, a charter school within our detention 

centers for juveniles in Texas. The TEA and the local independent 

districts provide the bulk of our education. 

There are over a million children or people under 18 years of age 

in Harris County. We are a relatively young county. They break 

down in the State of Texas and in the Houston area, for African 

American, about 21 percent; 41 percent, Hispanic; 31 percent, 

Anglo; 2 percent, Native American; and a little over 5 percent, 

Asian Americans. 

So it is again difficult, or almost impossible, to gather information about citizenship, and that goes back to the Plyler v. Doe case. 

That is referenced in my written testimony. But again that overturned a State law in Texas that prohibited reimbursement of 

State and Federal to local districts for children who were not ‘‘legally admitted’’ to the Texas schools. 

It established a principle of don’t ask, don’t tell in the public 

schools. They cannot be denied a public education because of citizenship status. There is no doubt that problems have existed or 

have existed for generations in the classrooms on providing services 

both for our local community as well as for the alien community, 

both legal and illegal, but there is also no way to deny that as a 

result of our work we have educated many students who have come 

to this country and have enriched our State and our Nation. 

The starting point for gathering data for the education levels, 

though, in our education citizenship status will be the bilingual 

education programs. According to the TEA, about 14 percent, or 

631,000 of students in Texas public schools, were enrolled in bilingual or ESL programs. Some 25,000, or 8.4 percent of all teachers 

of these programs, and $965 million, or 4.2 percent, were spent on 

public education for these programs. 

In our region, the region IV area, 17 percent of our students were 

enrolled in bilingual or ESL programs. That is slightly larger than 

that State average; 9.5 percent of the teachers teaching those programs and over $332 million, or close to 7 percent, was spent on 

those programs. 

This has been trending upward in the past decade and continues 

to do so. Again, they don’t reflect the actual number of undocu-
75

mented students in the region IV schools, but they can help the 

committee establish the growth. 

We did learn after Hurricane Katrina that rapid growth can be 

a problem for us in our schools. We continue to deal with the planning issues that go with the growth of the population and the immigrant population that hits our system, but it complicates the 

process to have the folks coming in as the schools try to plan, because you don’t build a school overnight. And again it is referenced 

in the written material, but we would be happy to work with the 

committee and appreciate your interest on that impact. 

We find as we go through and look at education and social services and health care and the criminal activities, they are all interrelated, and as was mentioned in the earlier panel, and draw resources that would otherwise be spent on services in the community. 

I am able to provide better data on the impact of illegal or undocumented aliens on our public health care delivery system. Harris County has prepared a report at the request of the Harris 

County Commissioners Court which is referenced in the material 

and has been supplied to the committee. 

Essentially it talks about three cost centers: outpatient care, inpatient care and undocumented workers patients, as well as pharmacy-only care. We saw from 2002 to 2005 a 17.7 percent increase 

of undocumented inpatients served and over a 50 percent increase 

in costs for the services rendered. The total cost for inpatients for 

2005 was over $82 million, and the 4-year total was over $272 million. 

During that same period, the District received payments and re- imbursements totaling $106 million, leaving $166 million that had 

to be picked up by the local property taxpayers. Of this undocumented population in our district, 83 percent were people from 

Mexico, 6 percent from El Salvador and Guatemala; the remaining 

11 percent were from Great Britain, Canada, Haiti, India, Iraq, 

Iran, Nigeria, Vietnam, Nicaragua, other countries around the 

world. 

When you look at outpatients, the outpatient clinical activity 

grew from 177,000 in 2002 to 272,000, a 52 percent increase during 

that same period. In 2005, they generated approximately 18 percent of our outpatient visits. Again, costs up to $38 million in 2005. 

I would caution as you look at the outpatient numbers that sometimes Federal policy tends to drive people out of those services into 

inpatient services which are much more expensive. So as you are 

addressing these issues, as we address these issues, we need to be 

careful of the law of unintended consequences and the impact 

sometimes we have as we try to cut costs. Again, many times the 

outpatient visits are a public health issue that, without that visit, 

it would spread other diseases in the community. 

Pharmacy-only patient visits also increased, and annual pharmacy-only visits grew from 75,000 plus in 2002 to over 156,000 in 

2005. Again, an increase of more than a hundred percent. Costs 

grew at 125 percent, for a 4-year total of over $19 million. 

Payment reimbursement for that period was $2 million, resulting 

in a net cost of $17.5 million for the district. That undocumented 

population that sought district pharmacy-only visits in 2005, of 
76

that group, 86 percent were from Mexico, 4.5 percent were from El 

Salvador and Guatemala; another 9.5 from those countries I mentioned earlier. 

The total cost for all of this for 2005 was $128,400,000. We received payments and reimbursements of $31 million, a net cost of 

over $97 million. Four-year reportable cost of $403 million, with reimbursements of $116 million. This is covered in the written testimony. 

In addition to the cost, though, of Harris County taxpayers that 

you may not look at, 99 million-plus, or 85 percent, of the reimbursed costs came in reimbursements from the TP30, a Federal 

Medicaid program for emergencies. Those funds are, of course, paid 

by the Federal taxpayers, so we are not reimbursed. Our total 

amount, Harris County contributes a second time to that Federal 

tax base as well. 

Another finding that may be pertinent to your investigation is how the $27 million in emergency Medicaid reimbursements were 

used in 2005. Of the 11,000 births performed by the district, 7,900 

were to undocumented mothers. That is 71 percent of all the births 

and 80 percent of the emergency medical reimbursements to the 

district. 

Again, in perspective, our budget for 2002 to 2005 was about $2.6 

billion for the district, and so within this, this is about 20 percent 

of our total budget. 

Our criminal justice, I have to defer largely to the law enforcement folks here. You have heard a lot of testimony about that before. I do have in the written testimony reference to the MS–13 

gang. Mr. McCraw earlier talked about the MS–13 gang. We 

worked with Joe Newhouse of the James Baker Institute. 

And we are concerned that the MS–13 gang is much more than 

a street gang. It is particularly vicious and well organized. It is 

large. It has had earlier reports in Honduras from the former Minister of Security, Consul General here, Oscar Avarez. This gang is 

a very young gang. It started in Honduras; 77 percent of their initiates are 15 years and younger when they are initiated into the 

gang; 62 percent are between 12 and 17 years old. We are seeing 

a lot of youth gang activity in this community as well, but we are 

concerned as well that the human trafficking of the gangs has become more profitable than the drugs and look at that as a major 

security issue for our community. 

Our pretrial services department provides services that do allow 

us to collect citizenship status as we look for bail hearings. Over 

the past 4-year period, 19 percent of the misdemeanor defendant 

interviews were of non-U.S. citizens. About half of those, 51.2 percent, were undocumented or illegal. Again, 10.2 percent of the total 

misdemeanors were illegal aliens. 

The numbers are similar for felonies, about 11.5 percent for nonU.S. citizens; 52 percent were undocumented. Again, similarly on 

combined misdemeanor felony trials. Sixty-plus percent were from 

Mexico; 67 percent of those from Mexico were in Harris County illegally. 

Again, there is no real correlation between the illegal aliens and 

the general population in reference to our justice system, but you 

can look at the impact. Our region is estimated to have between 
77

400,000 and maybe 430,000, up 30,000 from the year 2000 in the 

Houston region in 2005. And, absent any other information, that is 

the best data we can get. 

If there were a national citizenship database, I would urge the 

Federal Government to allow local governments to have access for 

us to decide how we could best use that database, not perhaps in 

the denying of services but in the ability to better deliver and target our services in the population we are dealing with. 

We again do have the concerns that were expressed earlier about 

the porous borders, the jihadist Web sites that are talking about 

the open border. Recently, there was a bomb in Karachi in a stadium, but the pattern of that attack followed a Web site that pictured the Dallas, Texas stadium in Irving where the Cowboys play. 

It had suggestions about infiltrating our borders and who to use for 

suicide bombers within the stadium. It is a threat to the community. 

So we do want to follow up with, again, we are very concerned 

about those issues in our community. We have shared the concerns 

with the other sheriffs in the community and continue to work with 

them. Again, we will continue to work through our intelligence 

with Major O’Brien and touch on this with the sheriff’s office with 

comments made by the U.S. attorney’s office about Hezbollah and 

Mexico and the arrests this spring of Hezbollah operatives within 

that country. 

I remain available for questions and defer again on most of the 

law enforcement issues to the rest of the panel. 

[The statement of Judge Eckels follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ECKELS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Robert Eckels. I serve as the 

County Judge of Harris County, Texas and I would like to welcome you and your 

staff to Harris County and to our new Harris County Civil Justice Center. Since the 

ribbon-cutting ceremony this past March, you are the first congressional committee 

to grace us with your presence in this room. 

For those who are not familiar with our system of government here in Texas, a 

County Judge is the presiding officer of the five member Commissioners Court, the 

governing body of the county. I represent all the citizens of the third most populous 

county in the United States in much the same way county executives do in other 

parts of our country. 

Harris County is 1,756 square miles in area and, with our 2005 population estimate of just under 3.7 million, is more populous than 23 states. There are 34 municipalities within the county, including the City of Houston, our county seat, the 

fourth largest city in the country. More than 1.3 million people live in unincorporated Harris County and rely on the county to be the primary provider of basic 

government services. 

Like other communities around the United States, we rely on the U.S. Census Bureau to tell us about ourselves. On August 4, 2006 the U.S. Census Bureau released 

its mid-decade statistics on growth entitled ‘‘State and County Characteristics Population Estimates—for July 1, 2005.’’ The official estimate for the population of Harris County—3,693,050—is up 292,472 from the 2000 census. 

From other Census Bureau reports about Harris County we learned that our 

growth rate in the decade from 1990 to 2000 was 20.7%. In 2004 it was estimated 

that 29% of our population was under the age of 18. In 36.7% of our households 

a language other than English is primarily spoken and 22.2% of our population was 

foreign born. The Census Bureau does not ask about legal or migrant status of respondents in any of its survey and census programs as there is no legislative mandate to collect this information. 

Just two months after the July 2005 estimate, Harris County experienced a sudden influx of evacuees from Hurricane Katrina estimated to be more than 300,000 

new permanent residents. While this was certainly not illegal immigration, that 
78

10% increase in population almost overnight coupled with the existing influx of illegal immigrants pushes the resources of our community to the limits. 

I applaud you for holding this hearing on Criminal Activity and Violence Along 

the Southern Border here in Harris County because we are heavily impacted, like 

major metropolitan areas all over our country, by this kind of activity as well as 

by illegal immigration. 

Although we are not located on the southern border of the Untied States, the Port 

of Houston is our gateway to the Gulf of Mexico enabling us to tremendously expand 

the commerce of our region and state, but also making us vulnerable to criminal 

activity and violence. We have been working with this committee, the Congress and 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide a higher level of security for 

the Port. 

Harris County received funding under the FY2005 Port Security Grant Program 

which will enable electronic surveillance and the initiation of water-side patrols that 

are part of the region’s plans for the first stage of detection and mitigation against 

improvised explosive device attacks along the Houston Ship Channel. 

This will provide a first step towards inter-jurisdictional partnering within the region and assist with the implementation of regional security plans associated with 

the Port of Houston Authority, Port Strategic Security Council, regional industry 

partners, Houston Urban Area Security Initiatives and other homeland security-related plans. This important first step will lead to additional steps to raise the level 

of security along the Port. I certainly appreciate and encourage this Committee’s 

continued work in helping local governments secure ports and other vulnerable infrastructure. 

I will focus on three areas where you have requested information, the impact of 

illegal immigration on public school education, health care delivery and our law enforcement/criminal justice systems. 

However, in preparing this testimony I have become increasingly aware that gathering information on the impact of illegal immigration and associated criminal activity and violence is made more difficult because citizenship status statistics are not 

gathered by most entities of local and state government. 

For example, as standard practice, the Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services Department (HCPHES) conducts case investigations following notification of an occurrence of a reportable condition, including certain communicable 

diseases. These case investigations are intended to identify potential risks to the 

community and inform the development of disease control measures that may be 

needed to protect the community—that is, to ensure that others are not placed at 

risk. 

Because a person’s full participation and disclosure are critical during the investigation process, HCPHES must establish and maintain a high level of credibility 

and trust with participants. If a participant felt threatened in any way, he or she 

might choose to discontinue participation, thus impeding the investigation and, as 

a result, potentially putting others in the community at risk for exposure to the 

communicable disease. 

Therefore, HCPHES collects only the information that is necessary to determine 

potential risks to the community and develop appropriate recommendations for disease control. Because knowledge of residency status does not contribute to these 

goals, HCPHES does not collect information related to residency status during case 

investigations for reportable conditions. 

Recently, Paul Bettencourt, the elected Tax Assessor-Collector and Voter Registrar for Harris County, testified before the House Committee on House Administration about non-citizen voting and the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. In 

his testimony, he reminded the committee that the State of Texas amended its constitution in 1921 to require that voters be U.S. citizens. 

He went on to say that there is no reliable database that he can check for proof 

of citizenship, but there could be at the federal level. A national citizenship database could be used by entities of local government, with sufficient safeguards in 

place to keep the data-base secure, that would assist their efforts in identifying correctly the citizenship status of individuals and better determine the impact of illegal 

immigration on community resources.

PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION 

Texas has a system of independent school districts or ISDs and charter schools 

created by the Texas Legislature that have the primary responsibility for implementing the state’s system of public education and ensuring student performance. 

Each are political subdivisions of the state, having an elected governing body and 

the authority to levy and collect taxes and issue bonds to build infrastructure and 
79

to pay operational expenses. Harris County has 26 ISDs wholly or partially within 

the county. 

The Texas Education Agency (TEA), our state’s department of education, is divided into 20 geographic regions, each served by an Education Service Center (ESC). 

Harris County is in the seven-county Region IV and Houston is its ESC. TEA keeps 

records on students, school districts and expenditures among other information and 

I can provide information for Region IV, but not easily for Harris County alone. 

With so many of Harris County’s population being younger than 18 years of age, 

1,070,985 per the U.S. Census Bureau, one of the greatest challenges we face is to 

maintain an adequate number of classrooms and provide the classroom resources 

necessary to meet the needs of each student. We have to be able to predict where 

the families of school age children will be living in order to predict where classrooms 

will be needed and if schools must be built. We must be able to hire professional 

educators in sufficient numbers to maintain teacher-student ratios to both meet our 

state’s requirements and provide the quality education our communities deserve. 

In the State of Texas in the school year 2004-2005, there were 4,383,871 students 

in public schools from early childhood education at age 3 to grade 12. In Region IV 

there are 962,286 students. The ethnic break down of the students in Region IV is 

as follows:

African American 205,110 21.3% 

Hispanic 400,271 41.6% 

White 302,170 31.4% 

Native American 1,622 0.2% 

Asian/Pacific Islander 53,113 5.5%

962,286

Gathering statistical data on the impact of illegal immigration on education s almost impossible because ISDs are prevented by law from gathering and disseminating that information. The United States Supreme Court decided in Plyler v. Doe, 

457 U.S. 202 (1982) that a Texas statute which allowed the state to withhold state 

funds from local school districts for the education of children who were not ‘‘legally 

admitted’’ into the United States, and which authorized local school districts to deny 

enrollment to such children, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. 

This ruling established the principle of ‘‘Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell’’ in public schools. 

Children cannot be denied an education because of citizenship status and therefore 

there exists no reason to ask the question and collect the data. There was a belief 

that children should not be punished because of the actions of their parents and 

therefore deserved the opportunity to receive an education and an opportunity to become productive members of society. 

While we cannot accurately quantify the impact that illegal immigration has on 

public education in Harris County, there is no way to deny that there is a substantial impact. 

Based mostly on anecdotal evidence from administrators, teachers and students 

who tell of their experiences with over-crowding, security and discipline problems 

as well as substantial language barriers and cultural differences that distract from 

the quality of education received in the classroom, there is no way to deny that 

problems exist and have existed for generations. There is also no way to deny that 

our continued effort to educate any and all students who want an education will enrich our county, our state and our country. 

The starting point for providing an education is to overcome language barriers 

that exist when students are English language learners (ELL) in order to comprehend classroom instruction. The goal of the state’s Bilingual Education and 

English as a Second Language (ESL) Programs are to enable ELLs to become competent in comprehending, speaking, reading, and writing the English language and 

to succeed academically in Texas public schools. 

There is no direct correlation between citizenship status and Bilingual Education/

ESL Programs because children born in the United States are citizens by birthright 

granted in the 14th Amendment to our constitution, but they may be raised in a 

household where only Spanish or another language is exclusively spoken. However, 

these programs may provide an insight that will help approximate the impact that 

illegal immigration has on public education. 

According to TEA in the school year 2003—2004 (the most recent data available), 

631,534 or 14.4% of all students in Texas public schools were enrolled in Bilingual/

ESL educational programs. Some 25,000 or 8.4% of all teachers were part of these 

programs and $965,336,115 or 4.2% of all funds spent on public school education 

was spent on these programs. 
80

In our TEA region, the numbers were slightly higher. Seventeen percent of our 

students in Region IV were enrolled in Bilingual Education/ESL Programs and 9.5% 

of teachers taught in these programs. Of all funds spent by ISDs in Region IV, 

$332,600,000 or 6.8% was spent on these programs. 

These numbers have been trending upward in the past decade. In the school year 

1999—2000, 14.4% of Region IV students and 8.9% of teachers were part of the Bilingual Education/ESL Programs while $176,676,005 or 6.3% of all funds spent on 

public school education was spent on these programs. In the school year 1994—

1995, 12.3% of Region IV students and 7.8% of teachers were part of the in Bilingual Education/ESL Programs $126,365,532 or, again, 6.3% of all funds spent on 

public school education was spent on these programs. 

Again, these programs do not reflect the actual number of undocumented students 

in Texas or Region IV schools, but these statistics may assist the committee’s efforts 

to begin to quantify the impact that illegal immigration has on public education in 

the United States. As we learned from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, any 

kind of rapid growth in our communities has a serious impact, whether that growth 

is from disaster relocation or a rapid influx of immigrants. In our schools planning 

for providing adequate resources for infrastructure, teachers and teaching materials, 

we must also provide additional security, transportation for students, breakfast and 

lunch programs and extracurricular activities. We must also provide the resources 

to deal with the special needs of students who have language and cultural differences that prevent them from learning. While this is not a job too big for us, it 

is certainly a continuous challenge that is certainly exacerbated by illegal immigration.

HEALTH CARE 

Fortunately, I am able to provide better statistical data to you on the impact of 

illegal or undocumented aliens on our public health care delivery system in Harris 

County. On April 4, 2006 the Harris County Commissioners Court asked David 

Lopez, the President and CEO of the Harris County Hospital District to provide a 

report on the use of the Hospital District’s facilities by undocumented residents of 

Harris County for the most recent four-year period. We also asked for information 

on the fiscal impact to the county for any uncompensated costs that the taxpayers 

of Harris County would be asked to pay to support the system. On June 9, 2006, 

Mr. Lopez provided the Commissioners Court with a report of an analysis for the 

years 2002 through 2005. I have included that report as an attachment to my testimony. 

Briefly, I’ll summarize the most important findings of the data analysis that went 

into that report. The Harris County Hospital District (District) is a political subdivision of the State and as such it has the authority to tax property within Harris 

County to generate necessary operational revenue. It is run by an appointed Board 

of Managers. The Harris County Commissioners Court approves the District’s annual budget and sets the appropriate property tax rate to meet expenses. 

This report looks at three cost centers to determine the total cost of services provided: undocumented inpatient care, undocumented outpatient care and undocumented pharmacy-only care. The term ‘‘undocumented’’ refers to all non-U.S. citizens who have failed to present appropriate documentation to establish U.S. citizenship when either presenting for emergency care or applying for Harris County Hospital District eligibility. 

From 2002 to 2005 the District saw a 17.7% increase of undocumented inpatients served and a 50% increase in cost for services rendered. The total cost for 

undocumented inpatients for 2005 was $82,240,000 with a four-year total (2002—

2005) of $272,600,000. 

During that same time period the District received payments and reimbursements 

totaling $106,600,000 leaving an unpaid balance of $166,000,000 that had to be paid 

by Harris County taxpayers. Of the undocumented population discharged in 2005, 

83% were persons from Mexico; 6% were from El Salvador and Guatemala; and the 

remaining 11% of the discharged were from either Britain, Canada, Haiti, India, 

Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Vietnam or ‘‘other.’’

Looking at undocumented outpatients served by the District, outpatient clinical activity grew from 177,981 visits in 2002 to 272,067 in 2005, representing a 

52.8% increase during that time period. In 2005, undocumented outpatients generated approximately 18% of District total outpatient visits. The costs for outpatient 

clinical services grew from $19,600,000 in 2002 to $38,400,000 in 2005, representing 

a 96% growth rate. 

Payments and reimbursements fell by $600,000 during that period, leaving a 

growth in net cost of 111% for a total of $103,100,000 in net costs for undocumented 

outpatient services rendered. Of the undocumented population that sought District 
81

outpatient services in 2005, 86% were from Mexico; 4.5% from El Salvador and Guatemala; and 9.5% were from Britain, Canada, Cuba, Haiti, India, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, 

Russia, or ‘‘other.’’

Outpatient pharmacy-only visits are visits during which a patient does not 

have an encounter with a provider and receives services only at the pharmacy, e.q., 

prescription refills. Annual pharmacy-only visits for the undocumented grew from 

75,611 in 2002 to 156,637 in 2005 representing an increase of more than 100%. 

Costs grew at a rate of 145% from $3,100,000 to $7,600,000 for a four-year total of 

$19,600,000. 

Payment and reimbursement for that period was $2,100,000, resulting in a net 

cost of $17,500,000 for the 4-year period. Of the undocumented population that 

sought District ‘‘pharmacy only’’ visits in 2005, 86% were from Mexico; 4.5% were 

from El Salvador and Guatemala; and 9.5% were from Britain, Canada, Cuba, India, 

Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, Vietnam or ‘‘other.’’

The total cost to the District for undocumented inpatient, outpatient and pharmacy-only care for the year 2005 was $128,400,000. The District received payments 

and reimbursements that amounted to $31,000,000 for a total net cost of 

$97,300,000. 

For the four-year period covered in the report, costs were $403,500,000 while payments and reimbursements totaled $116,900,000 resulting in net costs of 

$286,600,000 that Harris County taxpayers paid in the years 2002—2005 to provide 

health care services to undocumented residents through the District. 

In addition to the net costs that were borne by Harris County taxpayers, 

$99,140,000 or 84.9% of the $116,900,000 in payments and reimbursements the District received from 2002—2005 came from Type Program 30 (TP30) a Federal Medicaid program for emergencies. Those funds are, of course paid by federal taxpayers 

so part of that comes from Harris County taxpayers as well. 

Another finding that may be pertinent to your investigation is how the 

$27,000,000 in Emergency Medicaid reimbursements was used in the year 2005. Of 

the 11,000 births performed by the District, 7,900 were to undocumented mothers. 

That represents 71.8% of all births and more than 80% of the Emergency Medicaid 

reimbursements to the District. 

To put these costs into perspective, the entire budget for the District in the years 

2002 through 2005 was $2,636,000,000 total uncompensated care was 

$1,364,797,000 or about 51.7%. Total net costs for undocumented patients of the 

District for that period was $286,600,000 or 20.9% of the total uncompensated care 

for the four-year period. That figure for uncompensated care for undocumented patients of the District as a percentage of the total uncompensated care it provides 

has remained relatively constant over the past 4 years, that is right around 20%.

LAW ENFORCEMENT/CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

I will defer to the others on this panel to provide you with most of the information 

on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice since this is their area of expertise. But 

I do want to give you my perspective on criminal activity and violence attributable 

to illegal immigration. The most dramatic increase in violence occurs with the formation and proliferation of gangs in Harris County. Large metropolitan areas make 

assimilation easier and greater numbers of victims to prey upon. We continue to be 

concerned about what gangs are doing to the quality of life in our county and vigilant in our effort to prevent this kind of activity. 

The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University here in 

Houston is studying the most violent of these gangs and provides the following information: 

Harris County is a hub of activity for ‘‘Mara Salvatrucha—13’’ (MS–13) and reportedly a favorite area of operation for its leader Eber Anibal Rivera Paz, aka 

‘‘El Culiche,’’ aka Franklin Jairo Rivera-Hernandez, aka Lester Rivera Paz. Rivera Paz was arrested and tried in Houston. He received less than two years 

for his illegal entry into the United States. Unfortunately, when released from 

federal prison for deportation, Honduran authorities were not notified, and he 

is again at large. 

MS–13 is more than a street gang. Honduras considers MS–13 as its top national security threat, and President Ricardo Maduro of Honduras has framed 

the struggle against MS–13 and other gangs as a fight for the life of his nation. 

Authorities say the gang plotted to assassinate Maduro and kill the president 

of Honduras’ Congress with a grenade, and the gang did kidnap and murder 

Maduro’s son. 

MS–13 is marked by its viciousness, brutality—initiation rights, assassinations, 

and dismemberment—as well as its paramilitary tactics. The gang participates 

in trafficking drugs, arms and humans, with two primary criminal enterprises 
82

being auto theft and weapons. Although originating in Central American barrios 

of Los Angeles, MS–13 flourished in Central America, and many gang members 

from Central America enter the U.S. illegally. 

The gang shows no fear of law enforcement and is known to booby trap stash 

houses with anti-personnel grenades. Local law enforcement have been involved 

in intense shootouts with MS–13 and recovered advanced weapons, such as AK–

47s. During Operation Community Shield in 2005, 14 MS–13 members were arrested in Houston. The Zetas also are believed to have a presence in Houston. 

Hopefully Houston will not become a future battle ground between MS–13 and 

Los Zetas, as Nuevo Laredo has been. 

MS–13 is a far more dangerous gang than previous or current rivals because 

of its large numbers and complex member network. Members are typically more 

brazen than those from other gangs because if they become wanted in the U.S. 

their gang can arrange for their transportation across the border and relocation 

in a ’friendlier’ country, while additional members are smuggled across the border. 

MS–13 has now begun to target and fire upon U.S. border patrol from the Mexican side. In El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico members are known 

to threaten officials who interfere with their business, typically with a verbal 

threat to kill that official or their family. 

The governments of these countries have been unable to effectively defend 

themselves against this gang, and in return this gang has been able to gain considerable political power. This strategy of hi-jacking governments is now being 

used against federal, state, and local governments in the United States. In 2005 

Los Angeles was investigating the gang, who, in retaliation left a bullet on the 

lead detective’s door. 

The Harris County Pretrial Services Department provides services that support 

informed, accountable pretrial release and detention processes while neither unduly 

restricting a defendant’s liberty nor compromising the safety of the community. In 

performing this mission the department interviews nearly 9 out of 10 defendants 

in the county court system. 

Pretrial Service workers are instructed to collect information about citizenship 

status, because Harris County’s bail schedule has provisions for higher bail if a defendant is an illegal alien. It is very likely that if illegal aliens are released without 

sufficient bail, they would simply leave the area in order to avoid trial. The defendant report may be the only source a magistrate or judge has to make bail determination and to take proper preventative steps to assure the defendant appears for 

trial. 

In the past four-year period an average of 19% of Misdemeanor Defendant Interviews were with non-U.S. Citizens. While 48.8% were legal residents or legally permitted to be in the U.S., 51.2% were undocumented and therefore illegally in this 

country. Of the total Misdemeanor Defendant Interviews, 10.2% were with illegal 

aliens. The number of illegal aliens who are defendants in misdemeanor cases in 

our courts have been trending upward by about 2.16% per year. 

Looking at Felony Defendant Interviews in that same time period, 11.5% of all 

interviews were with non-U.S. citizens of whom 52.82% were undocumented, so that 

interviews with illegal aliens represented 6.7% of all such interviews. Felony Defendant Interviews with illegal aliens have also been trending upward by the same 

2.16% per year. 

Of all defendants of both misdemeanor and felony trials who were non-U.S. citizens, 60.4% were born in Mexico, with 67% of those from Mexico being in Harris 

County illegally. Most likely, those who were in Harris County illegally entered 

from our southern border. 

While there is no real correlation between the number of legal and illegal aliens 

in the general population and those who are defendants in the civil justice system, 

we could take a rather simplistic look at our population of 3.69 million and calculate 

that about 310,000 might be here illegally. Some estimates put the population of 

illegal aliens in our region in 2005 at between 400,000 and 430,000 and those estimates are up 30,000 from the year 2000. Absent any formal or official way of knowing who is in the U.S. illegally, we must rely on best-guess efforts to determine that 

number. 

If there were a national citizenship data base I would urge the federal government to authorize local governments to have the power to decide when and where 

that data base should be used. In determining citizenship status of a defendant in 

a trial or for a voter in elections it would be an extremely valuable tool. However, 

as I described in our public health area, using such a database might inhibit or prevent the proper investigation of the courses of communicable diseases in our com-
83

munity. I believe that we at the local level can best determine when to apply citizenship status and when it would not be in our best interest. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you again for allowing me to discuss our experiences and concerns regarding criminal activity and 

violence along our southern border as well as the impact of illegal immigration on 

our community. I will be delighted to respond to any questions and I will continue 

to work with you and this committee to mutually serve our constituents in any way 

possible.

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Judge. I appreciate you being here. I 

know your time is valuable. Those numbers are actually very helpful to this committee. 

Judge ECKELS. They are exact in the written testimony, as well 

as the backup from the hospital support staff. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you. I would like to note also that Harris 

County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal was here, had to leave. 

His statement, however, will be made a part of the record from this 

hearing and part of the Congressional Record. 

[The statement of Mr. Rosenthal follows:]

A Report to the Congressional Sub-Committee on Investigations 

AUGUST 16, 2006 Investigation of Criminal Activity and Violence along the Southern Border 

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office estimates that approximately 5,000 

of the 102,775 thousand cases this office handled in 2005 involved non-citizens. 

From January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006 approximately, 7,000 more were added. These 

figures are dependent, and based upon, what arresting officers report to us in a 

computer field requesting citizenship status. 

Perhaps a more telling figure can be derived from Harris County Pre-Trial Services. They interview approximately 87% of the people admitted to the Harris County 

jail (the other 13% make a bail bond before they enter the jail population). I have 

attached tables compiled by that agency. They show a steady rise in the percentage 

of un-documented aliens from 2002 to 2005. Also included is the criterion that the 

agency uses in making these determinations. Percentages applied to cases filed 

show that of the approximately 13,000 non-citizens handled in the Harris County 

Criminal Justice system in 2005, approximately 7,200 were undocumented aliens. 

There are additional difficulties in dealing with foreign persons in our criminal 

justice system. There is no reliable information to check regarding the criminal histories of aliens. Obviously, our plea bargain recommendations and jury verdicts are 

influenced by a defendant’s criminal history. Not only are the records in foreign 

countries often poorly kept, in many cases, we rely on the self-report of a defendant 

for his country of origin and cannot be certain of which country’s data base to inquire. 

For years before, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), individuals could be, and were, arrested under several different aliases. In point of fact, 

every two years foreign nationals incarcerated in Texas prisons can apply to the 

governor to serve the remainder of their sentence in their home country. The governor sends those applicants convicted in Harris County to me for my recommendation on their application. Nearly all have aliases; even allowing for the Hispanic propensity for interchangeably using their mother or father’s surname. 

Police agencies can tell you that the immigrant population under- reports crimes. 

Often, this includes crimes committed by other immigrants. It has been my personal 

experience that if undocumented aliens become witnesses to crime, they often give 

false names and/or addresses to the police and are not available as witnesses at 

trial. Without witnesses, defendants are more difficult to convict. 

I can also testify, that many people who commit crimes flee the United States. 

Many of our neighboring countries to the South do not have extradition treaties 

with the United States or refuse extradite their own nationals. Countries that do 

have extradition treaties with the United States, like Mexico, often attempt to make 

extradition conditional on the maximum term of years we will seek upon conviction. 

Completely unrelated, but something very close to my heart, is that last year my 

14-year-old daughter tested positive as being exposed to Tuberculosis, a disease that 

was nearly wiped out of this country years ago. She was required to take daily antibiotics for nine months. Her diagnostic radiologist Dr. George Butrous, M.D. (a naturalized citizen from Egypt), told me that medical journals document the fact that 
84

the lack of health screening for illegal immigrants has re-introduced a number of 

previously eradicated diseases into this country. 

According to the Harris County Budget Director, the cost for treating illegal immigrants in Harris County’s tax supported hospitals was 97.3 million dollars in 2005. 

If the commission requests me to expound upon any of the information given in 

this report, I will be happy to do so.
85
86

Harris County Pretrial Services 

Agency Policy and Procedure Manual 

Conducting an Interview with a Defendant 

CITIZENSHIP AND LEGAL STATUS

Harris County’s bail schedule has provisions for higher bail if a defendant is an 

illegal alien. The defendant report you prepare may be the only source a magistrate 

or judge has to make this determination. While you should check the ‘‘hold’’ screen 

and the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) ‘‘detainer’’ list to verify if 

INS has placed a hold or is investigating the defendant’s status, you need to ask 

the defendant questions about his or her citizenship and legal status. Incorrect information here could lead to a defendant’s unnecessary detention or failure to appear in court if the defendant makes bond and then INS returns him to his country.

1. Ask every defendant whether he or she is a United States citizen regardless 

of his or her answer to the question about place of birth. Document the answer 

as Y (yes), N (no), or U (unknown). 

2. If the defendant says that he is a United States citizen, you do not need to 

ask the question about legal status. 

3. If the defendant says he is not a United States citizen, you must ask the defendant about his legal status. Do not lead the defendant by giving him options 

to choose from. You must use open-ended questions such as:

• What is your legal status? 

• Do you have legal status in the U.S.? 

• Do you have permission to be in the U.S. legally? 

• In what country are you a citizen?

4. If the defendant indicates a legal status, inquire about the type of document 

he has and the document’s expiration date. Let him provide the name of the 

document. 

5. This Country’s immigration laws are very complex. The following list is not 

exhaustive but includes the documents that INS encounters most frequently 

with people who are in this Country legally. You should expect similar responses if a defendant has legal status here.

Border Crossing Card—72-hour limit/ 50-mile limit. 

Permit (i.e. Work Permit Card)—Granted while someone is applying for 

legal status and is valid only until the decision is made whether the person 

will be granted legal status or not. 

Temporary Resident Card—This card indicates someone has applied for 

Residence Status. A person will only receive this card if INS is certain that 

Residence Status will be granted. 

Resident Alien Card—(Previously known as the ‘‘Green Card’’) This card 

confers a permanent legal status. 

6. A Passport does not give a defendant legal status here. The Passport’s primary function is to establish a person’s identity. But you’ve probably heard the 

term, ‘‘getting a Passport stamped’’. This stamp is actually a Visa. A person 

needs both a Passport and a Visa to prove that he or she is here legally. 

7. A Visa is a stamp or a document, usually affixed to the Passport, indicating 

a person has permission to enter the country. In years past, the official stamp 

found in the Passport usually represented the Visa. Today, a Visa will more 

likely be a small document affixed to a page in the Passport or it may be a separate document altogether that would accompany a Passport. There are two 

types of Visa:

• Non-Immigrant Visa—Conveys a specific date and time of entry and exit 

and can be used for business or for pleasure. 

• Immigrant Visa—A large packet of official papers generated by the naturalization process.

8. Record the defendant’s answer on the PTS8 screen. 

9. Application for something does not confer legal status. If a defendant is here 

legally, he or she will generally have the documentation to prove it. 

10. The experience of INS has been that if a person IS here legally, he generally 

knows it! A young defendant however may not know his status, but his mother 

or father should.
87

Non U.S. Citizen by Citizenship Status * 

Misdemeanor 

2002 % 2003 % 2004 % 2005 %

Legal Resident 2,352 31.9% 2,798 33.7% 2,890 32.4% 2,813 30.3%

Visa 452 6.1% 254 3.1% 253 2.8% 291 3.1%

WorkPermit 783 10.6% 949 11.4% 818 9.2% 836 9.0%

Undocumented 3,560 48.3% 4,071 49.0% 4,705 52.7% 5,092 54.8%

Unknown 222 3.0% 238 2.9% 263 2.9% 264 2.8%

Total 7,369 100% 8,310 100% 8,929 100% 9,296 100%

Felony 

2002 % 2003 % 2004 % 2005 %

Legal Resident 960 32.4% 1,147 34.0% 1,141 33.0% 1,129 30.6%

Visa 180 6.1% 83 2.5% 83 2.4% 89 2.4%

WorkPermit 263 8.9% 303 9.0% 272 7.9% 282 7.6%

Undocumented 1,491 50.3% 1,714 50.8% 1,848 53.4% 2,096 56.8%

Unknown 73 2.5% 127 3.8% 118 3.4% 97 2.6%

Total 2,967 100% 3,374 100% 3,462 100% 3,693 100%

Non U.S. Citizen As a Percentage of Complete Interviews Conducted * 

Misdemeanor 

2002 % 2003 % 2004 % 2005 %

All Misdemeanor Defendant 

Interviews 39,656 42,017 46,485 49,613 

Non U.S. Citizen 7,369 18.6% 8,310 19.8% 8,929 19.2% 9,296 18.7%

Non U.S.Citizen; 

Undocumented 3,560 9.0% 4,071 9.7% 4,705 10.1% 5,092 10.3%

Non U.S. Citizen; Place 

of Birth Mexico 4,830 12.2% 5,462 13.0% 5,852 12.6% 5,935 12.0%

Non U.S. Citizen; Place 

of Birth Mexico; 

Undocumented 2,949 7.4% 3,382 8.0 3,846 8.3% 3,987 8.0%

Felony 

2002 % 2003 % 2004 % 2005 %
88

Non U.S. Citizen As a Percentage of Complete Interviews Conducted *—Continued

All Felony Defendant 

Inteviews 27,460 28,525 29,979 31,151 

Non U.S. Citizen 2,967 10.8% 3,374 11.8% 3,462 11.5% 3,693 11.9%

Non U.S. Citizen; 

Undocumented 1,491 5.4% 1,714 6.0% 1,848 6.2% 2,096 6.7%

Non U.S. Citizen; Place 

of Birth Mexico 1,924 7.0% 2,279 8.0% 2,277 7.6% 2,422 7.8%

Non U.S. Citizen; Place 

of Birth Mexico; 

Undocumented 1,189 4.3% 1,375 4.8% 1,450 4.8% 1,600 5.1%

* Non U.S. citizen includes defendants who who stated that they were not citizens or did not 

know if they were citizens and who reported their place of birth outside the US. Information 

is self-reported by the defendant during the pretrial interview. 

Pretrial Services, March 2006

Mr. MCCAUL. Next, the Chair recognizes Major Michael O’Brien 

with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O’BRIEN, HARRIS COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S OFFICE 

Mr. O’BRIEN. On behalf of Sheriff Tommy Thomas, I would like 

to thank the committee for support of law enforcement and their 

work on improving our Nation’s security and tightening up our borders. 

The United States is considered a primary destination for illegal 

immigrants from all over the world because of our freedoms, our 

economy, and the ease of obtaining work here. As a result, we have 

become a haven for organized crime involving the smuggling and 

human trafficking of illegal aliens across our border. 

The impact of illegal immigration to Harris County has been 

enormous and has placed a substantial strain on law enforcement 

police resources. There is no argument that only a small percentage 

of illegal aliens are in fact the criminal element. Those that have 

become involved are considered to be part of basically a cash-based 

underground economy that is operating throughout the United 

States. These criminal organizations are predominantly involved in 

smuggling, human trafficking, kidnapping, drugs and money laundering, and for the most part, these members are illegal immigrants themselves. 

One of the most prevalent crimes involving illegal immigrants in 

Harris County involves the human trafficking factor. The difference 

between human trafficking and smuggling involves the heinous 

treatment of these victims, which basically equates to modern-day 

slavery. There have been numerous instances where non-U.S. citizens, predominantly from Mexico, have paid large amounts of 

money to be brought across the border, only to be held for ransom 

and made to work for extra fees prior to their release. If they can’t 

pay, many times their families are blackmailed for additional ransom payments prior to their release. Some of these cases have even 

included severe torture of these victims while the smuggler sits on 
89

the phone talking to relatives, listening to their screams of pain, 

trying to convince them to pay them additional funds. If they can’t 

pay, they are often locked in back rooms and forced to work as 

prostitutes or in some other type of confined labor. The outcome is 

that some of these illegal immigrants become modern-day indentured slaves who have no choice but to comply with the smugglers’ 

demands. 

One recent example of human smuggling involved the Walter 

Corea human trafficking organization, in which their victims were 

held in various locations throughout Harris County. In this case, 

98 women were smuggled across the border and made to work as 

prostitutes to pay off fees. The investigation determined that Corea 

and his gang were operating through a network of bars and restaurants in the Houston Harris County area which had been designated for smuggling women from Mexico and South America. 

These women, some of them which were later determined to be underage, were required to work as prostitutes until they could pay 

off the smuggling fees to the bar owners who had paid their way 

across to begin with. 

This year-long undercover operation resulted in all 98 victims 

being taken into custody, along with the arrest of Corea and 7 of 

his organizational members. This investigation involved the largest 

number of victims for any single case of human trafficking the 

United States to date, and this happened in Texas and in Harris 

County. 

In addition to our field investigative efforts, Immigration and 

Customs enforcement agents are assigned to the sheriff’s office 

prisoner intake facility to assist deputies in identifying illegal immigrants brought to the jail. Upon booking at the sheriff’s office 

processing center, all prisoners, regardless of race, are asked if 

they are United States citizens and their country of origin or their 

country of birth. The subsequent data obtained is turned over to 

the Federal Government’s State criminal immigration assistance 

program for partial reimbursement of the cost to Harris County for 

handling the immigrants. 

On average, the Harris County sheriff’s office receives and processes over 130,000 prisoners per year. Approximately 20 to 23 percent of these prisoners brought in are foreign born and are nonU.S. citizens. These numbers, of course, are self-reported, and it is 

safe to assume that the numbers would be quite higher; but again, 

most of them are not going to tell us for fear of being returned to 

their country. 

The State criminal immigrant program database for the last fiscal year estimated that 15 percent of the entire budget of the Harris County sheriff’s office was expended investigating, arresting, 

processing, housing and providing medical attention to illegal immigrants. This equates to a cost of over $41 million of our budget. 

SCAAP reimbursement back to Harris County was just slightly 

over $2 million, or a mere 6 percent of the total cost. The rest of 

that money was borne by Harris County taxpayers to handle illegal 

immigrants. 

Of those prisoners who report foreign birth, approximately 60 

percent are Mexican born, and another 20 percent are from South 

or Central America. Many, as I discussed earlier, do not truthfully 
90

report their illegal status for fear of being deported. It is virtually 

impossible with the financial and manpower constraints of our office for us to investigate this situation any further. 

As you can see, the numbers are considerable, and they constitute a significant drain on our financial resources. One of the 

major problems faced by ICE, as well as local law enforcement, is 

the lack of bed space. This was brought up earlier by Mr. McCaul 

and, I believe, by Ms. Lee. Less than 20,000 beds throughout the 

whole United States is dedicated to illegal immigrants. With that 

situation, what happens, as Mr. McCaul brought up earlier, is that 

many illegal immigrants are given virtually a summons to appear 

in court later. Most often, they don’t report and they disappear into 

our communities using different identification. 

The Harris County Sheriff’s Office has been working diligently 

with the Hispanic community to build trust and provide excellent 

services. There have been numerous cases where we have received 

invaluable information from the Hispanic community which has resulted in arrests and convictions of dangerous felons. 

Sheriff Thomas supports stronger and more effective security in 

our Nation’s borders, and he does not condone illegal immigration. 

The Harris County’s Sheriff’s Office does not have a hand’s-off policy regarding illegal immigration, and we will promptly assist any 

Federal agencies requesting our help. However, having deputies 

seek out and pursue illegal immigrants based solely on the immigration status would severely strain our already limited resources, 

as well as hinder our efforts when we need community involvement 

and the willingness for witnesses to come forward in solving crime. 

The primary mission of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office is to 

provide a safe and secure environment for the residents as well as 

the visitors to Harris County. We are working hard to achieve 

these goals. We are sworn to protect all the people that come here, 

and when we respond to an incident that is determined to involve 

criminal activity, our policy is to take action based on the enforcement of Texas law and not immigration status. When appropriate, 

a law violator is arrested, charged, and processed through our 

criminal justice system. 

Thank you for your time, for your efforts, and again, on behalf 

of Tommy Thomas, we appreciate the work you are doing. 

[The information follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. O’BRIEN

Representing: 

Sheriff Tommy Thomas 

Harris County, Texas

On behalf of Sheriff Tommy Thomas, I would like to thank the committee for their 

support of law enforcement and their work to help improve our nation’s security. 

The United States of America is considered a primary destination for illegal immigrants from all over the world because of our economy, freedoms, and ease of obtaining work. As a result, we have become a haven for organized crime involving the 

smuggling and human trafficking of illegal aliens across our borders. 

The impact of illegal immigration to Harris County and the surrounding area has 

been enormous and has put a substantial strain on law enforcement resources. 

While there is no argument that only a small percentage of illegal immigrants are 

involved in criminal activity, the many that are have become involved in what is 

considered a cash-based organized crime underground economy. These criminal organizations are predominantly involved in smuggling, human trafficking, kidnapping, drugs and money laundering, and are mostly illegal aliens themselves. 
91

In 2004, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office was awarded a grant from the Department of Justice to participate in the Human Trafficking Rescue Alliance (HTRA), 

and over the last several years we have been working closely with Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 

to identify illegal aliens involved in criminal activity within our community. Multijurisdictional task forces such as this alliance typically provide greater access to resources and information, and establish a team-based approach to investigations. 

Working side by side with Federal and other local agencies, we have been successful 

in arresting and charging suspects in some of the most serious crimes involving the 

terrorization and virtual enslaving of many illegal immigrants. 

One of the most prevalent crimes involving illegal immigrants in Harris County 

involves Human Trafficking. The difference between human trafficking and smuggling is the heinous treatment of the victims which can equate to modern day slavery. There have been numerous instances where non-U.S. citizens (predominantly 

from Mexico) have paid large amounts of money to be smuggled over the border, 

only to be held for ransom until they pay or work off additional fees. If they can’t 

pay, many times their families are blackmailed and ransom payments are required 

for their release. Some of these cases have included severe torture of the victim 

while the smuggler is on the telephone with relatives so they can hear the screams 

of pain. If they still can’t pay, they are often locked in back rooms and forced to 

work as prostitutes or in some other type of confined forced labor. The outcome is 

that some illegal immigrants become modern day indentured slaves who have no 

choice but to comply with the smugglers’ demands. 

One recent example of human trafficking involved the Walter Corea Human Trafficking Organization which held their victims at various locations in Harris County. 

In this case, ninety-eight (98) females were smuggled across the border and made 

to work as prostitutes to pay off their fees. The investigation determined that 

COREA and his co-conspirators were operating a network of bars and restaurants 

in the Houston-Harris County area dedicated to the smuggling of young Central 

American females to serve as prostitutes and ‘‘pony dancers.’’ These women, some 

of whom were determined to be under age, were required to work until they could 

pay off their smuggling fees to the bar owners. The women, and their families in 

their native countries, were frequently threatened with bodily harm by COREA and 

members of his organization unless they agreed to comply with instructions to work 

in the businesses until the ‘‘organization’’ determined that all fees owed were paid 

in full. 

This year-long undercover operation resulted in all 98 trafficking victims’ being 

taken into custody, along with the arrest of COREA and seven of his organization 

members. The investigation involved the largest number of victims for any single 

case of human trafficking in the United States to date. 

In additional to field investigation efforts, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) has agents assigned to the Harris County Sheriffs Office prisoner intake and 

processing facility to assist deputies and specifically identify illegal aliens. In the 

past eighteen months, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office and ICE agents have positively identified over nineteen hundred and forty (1940) illegal aliens who have been 

processed through our jail. On average, about 20 detainers are placed each week on 

illegal aliens. 

Upon booking at the Sheriff’s Office processing center, all prisoners, regardless of 

race or ethnicity, are asked if they are United States citizens and their country of 

birth. The subsequent data obtained identifying illegal aliens processed through the 

Harris County jail is turned over to the federal government’s ‘‘State Criminal Alien 

Assistance Program’’ for partial reimbursement of costs associated with processing 

and handling illegal aliens. 

• On average, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office receives and processes approximately 130,000 prisoners per year. 

• Approximately 20-23% of the inmates received into our custody report that they 

are foreign born and non-US citizens. These numbers are self-reported (the ‘‘honor 

system’’), thus it is safe to assume that the actual numbers are far greater. 

• The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) data for the last fiscal 

year estimated that 15.22% of the entire budget for the Harris County Sheriff’s Office was expended investigating, arresting, processing, housing and providing medical treatment for illegal aliens. This equates to a cost of $41,390,425. SCAAP reimbursement was in the amount of $2,693,977, or a mere 6.5% of the total cost, the 

remainder of which was borne by Harris County taxpayers. 

• Of those inmates who report foreign birth, approximately 60% are Mexicanborn, and another 20% are from South and Central America. Many do not truthfully 

report their illegal status in fear of being deported, and it is virtually impossible 
92

with current financial and manpower constraints for us to investigate further or improve the system. 

As you can see, the numbers are considerable and constitute a significant drain 

on our financial resources. One of the major problems faced by ICE, as well as local 

law enforcement, is the lack of bed space to hold illegal aliens. Throughout the nation there are less than 20,000 beds dedicated to immigration violation offenders. 

Consequently, illegal aliens involved in minor crimes are given the equivalent of a 

summons and told to report to court. In most cases, these persons never report and 

subsequently disappear into the community using different forms of identification. 

The Harris County Sheriff’s Office is working diligently within the Hispanic community to build trust and provide excellent services. There have been numerous 

cases where we have received invaluable information from within the Hispanic community that has resulted in the arrest and conviction of dangerous felons. Sheriff 

Thomas supports stronger and more effective security at our nation’s borders, and 

does not condone illegal immigration. The Harris County Sheriff’s Office does not 

have a ‘‘hands off’’ policy regarding illegal aliens and we will promptly assist a Federal agency requesting our help. However, having deputies seek out and pursue illegal immigrants based solely on their immigration status would severely strain our 

already limited resources, as well as hinder our efforts and those of any local law 

enforcement agency, when we need community involvement and willing witnesses 

to help solve crime. 

The primary mission of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office is to provide a safe and 

secure environment for the residents and visitors of Harris County, and we are 

working hard to achieve our goals through the use of increased community patrols, 

directed enforcement efforts, and state of the art investigative tools. The foundation 

of any organization is defined by its employees’ honesty, moral standards, compassion, sincerity, and caring attitude. We are sworn to protect all the people we serve 

and our agency code of values includes such pillars of character as Respect, Fairness, and Justice through Excellence and Integrity. When we respond to an incident 

that is determined to involve criminal activity, our policy is to take action based on 

the enforcement of Texas law, and not immigration status. When appropriate, the 

violator is arrested, charged, and processed through the criminal justice system.

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Major, and please give Sheriff Thomas 

our best, and he is doing a great job. I think your testimony demonstrates how the illegal aliens, at the hands of traffickers, become 

the real victims here. 

Next, I would like to recognize John Moriarty, the Inspector General with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MORIARTY, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

Mr. MORIARTY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you very much for the privilege of allowing me to testify here 

today on the effects of illegal immigration on the Texas prison system. 

As of May 31, 2006, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

had a population of approximately 152,000 inmates. Now, this is 

also self-reported, with limited investigation, but out of that number 11,606 claimed foreign birth; 10,376 claimed foreign citizenship; 6,612 had Immigration and Customs enforcement detainers; 

and 3,018 were known to have final orders of deportation completed by ICE. The exact numbers of offenders who are illegal 

aliens on any given day is unknown; however, Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement is working to provide that information to 

TDCJ. 

The Department of Criminal Justice has an excellent and, to our 

knowledge, somewhat unique working relationship with ICE, from 

which the institutional hearing and removal program has developed. The Department of Criminal Justice has constructed office 

space for ICE staff at the Goree unit in Huntsville and provides 
93

working space at other TDCJ facilities for their staff. As inmates 

are admitted to TDCJ, possible illegal aliens are identified and referred to ICE personnel. If ICE wants to interview the inmate, the 

offender is brought to the Huntsville, or other locations if appropriate, in order to facilitate that interview. 

Office space constructed for ICE includes administrative courtrooms which connects via a video link to an immigration administrative law judge here in Houston. The entire administrative process of processing final orders of deportation can be completed while 

the inmate is incarcerated in TDCJ, thereby expediting the deportation of the offender upon release. ICE staff is also provided with 

a list of all TDCJ releases so that any offender not identified upon 

admission may be reviewed prior to release. 

During fiscal year 2006, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice received $18.6 million from the Federal State criminal alien assistance program as partial reimbursement for the cost of housing 

illegal aliens. Any estimate of the cost of housing illegal aliens in 

the Texas prison system must take into account the lack of definitive data regarding the number of illegal aliens, but TDCJ estimates the cost of housing illegal aliens during fiscal year 2005 at 

$132 million. The cost of housing an illegal alien was assumed to 

be the same as the average cost of housing an inmate in TDCJ, 

which is $40.06 per day. 

My office is responsible for the criminal investigations inside the 

Texas prison system. We work very closely with the TDCJ security 

threat group staff that is responsible for the monitoring of criminal 

organizations within the prison system that could be a threat to 

the security of the Texas prison system. Groups such as the Texas 

Syndicate, the Mexican Mafia, MS–13, Barrio Azteca, and the PRM 

are active and operational within the prison facilities. The prison 

gang that is primarily composed of Mexican foreign nationals is the 

PRM. We currently have 723 suspected or confirmed members in 

our facilities. The PRM and the other security threat groups are actively engaged in homicide, drug trafficking, extortion and aggravated assaults. Removing these persons from our communities is 

an important and necessary step. 

We must also be aware that the ability of an inmate to commit 

crimes, though limited, can and still does occur. My office, on average, conducts 3,000 felony crime investigations inside the fences of 

the TDCJ prison system. The prosecution of these crimes puts pressure on the local, usually rural, court systems in the communities 

where the prisons are located. This is a good example of how the 

confinement of illegal foreign nationals affects every community in 

Texas where a prison is located. A cooperative effort between Federal, State and local law enforcement is necessary to be successful 

in combating this problem. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for this opportunity to testify 

on this very important matter. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you for that testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Moriarty follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MORIARTY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for the privilege of allowing me to testify here today on the effect of illegal immigration on the 
94

Texas prison system. As of May 31, 2006, the Texas Department of Criminal (TDCJ) 

prison system had a population of approximately 152,000 inmates. Of that number: • 11,606 claimed foreign birth; • 10,376 claimed foreign citizenship; • 6,612 had Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers; and • 3,018 were known to have final orders of deportation completed by ICE. 

The exact number of offenders who are illegal aliens on any given day is unknown; however, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is working to provide that 

information to TDCJ. 

The Department of Criminal Justice has an excellent, and to our knowledge somewhat unique, working relationship with ICE from which the Institutional Hearing 

and Removal program has developed. The Department of Criminal Justice has constructed office space for ICE staff at the Goree unit in Huntsville, and provides work 

space at other TDCJ facilities. As inmates are admitted to TDCJ, possible illegal 

aliens are identified and referred to ICE personnel. If ICE wants to interview the 

inmate, the offender is brought to Huntsville (or other locations as appropriate). The 

office space constructed for ICE includes an administrative courtroom which connects via a video link to an immigration administrative law judge in Houston. The 

entire administrative process of processing final orders of deportation can be completed while the inmate is incarcerated in TDCJ, thereby expediting the deportation 

of the offender upon release. ICE staff is also provided with a list of all TDCJ releases so that any offender not identified upon admission may be reviewed prior to 

release. 

During Fiscal Year 2006 the Texas Department of Criminal Justice received $18.6 

million from the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) as partial reimbursement for the cost of housing illegal aliens. Any estimate of the cost 

of housing illegal aliens in the Texas prison system must take into account the lack 

of definitive data regarding the number of illegal aliens, but TDCJ estimates the 

cost of housing illegal aliens during FY 2005 at $132 million. The cost of housing 

an illegal alien was assumed to be the same as the average cost of housing an inmate in TDCJ ($40.06 per day). 

My office is responsible for all criminal investigations inside the Texas prison system. We work very closely with the TDCJ Security Threat Group staff that is responsible for the monitoring of criminal organizations within the prison system that 

could be a threat to the security of the Texas prison system. Groups such as the 

Texas Syndicate, Mexican Mafia, MS–13, Barrio Azteca and Partido Revolucionario 

Mexicanos (PRM) and are active and operational within our prison facilities. The 

prison gang that is primarily comprised of Mexican foreign nationals is the PRM. 

We currently have 723 suspected or confirmed members in our facilities. The PRM 

and the other security threat groups are actively engaged in homicide, drug trafficking, extortion, and aggravated assaults. Removing these persons from our communities is an important and necessary step. We must also be aware that the ability of an inmate to commit crimes, although limited, can and does still occur. My 

office, on average conducts 3000 felony crime investigations inside the fences of the 

Texas prison system. The prosecution of these crimes put pressure on the local, usually rural, courts system in the communities where the prisons are located. This is 

a good example of how the confinement of illegal foreign nationals affects every community in Texas where a prison is located. A cooperative effort between federal, 

state and local law enforcement is necessary to be successful in combating this problem. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for this opportunity to testify on this very important matter. I would be happy to take any questions you might have.

Mr. MCCAUL. The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Mr. Adrian Garcia, council member of Houston, Texas.

STATEMENT OF ADRIAN GARCIA, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL OF 

HOUSTON 

Mr. GARCIA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of Congress. I want to thank you for this important discussion and welcome you to our great city. 

I served as a member of the city council here in Houston Texas, 

and I have also been appointed by Mayor Bill White as the chair 

of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee. And prior 

to my election to city council, I served as a Houston police officer 
95

for nearly 24 years prior to my election to city council. I started 

that public safety career in 1980, and during my time with the 

Houston Police Department, I worked on various assignments that 

included serving as the director of the BEST anti-gang office that 

was charged with helping develop public policy to fight against 

criminal street gangs in Houston. 

Today’s session appears to focus on the impact of illegal immigration on crime and what the role of local police should be in the enforcement of immigration laws. I hope to offer a perspective as a 

recent law enforcement practitioner. In my time, I have met many 

people of different backgrounds. Many spoke English, some did not. 

But when I needed to, I used my home-grown bilingual skills to get 

the job done and enforce the law. As a result, I was able to clear 

cases and make some definite arrests and made many new friends. 

During my time as a Houston police officer, I also became involved with the National Latino Police Officers Association and 

eventually became the president in 1998–2000 where this same 

issue was a part of my agenda. 

To the topic of today’s discussion, no one disputes that persons 

have entered the United States without permission and have been 

arrested for violations of State criminal statutes. However, given 

that a significant portion of my patrol career took place in the area 

that I now represent as an elected official, which has a Hispanic 

majority, and given that I like putting bad guys into jail, I recall 

investigating more crimes against Americans that were committed 

by Americans than I did where illegal immigrants were involved. 

While I did investigate crimes involving persons with questionable immigration status, more have been witnesses against the 

crooks I was trying to put in jail. I have also had to investigate 

crimes of assault, theft, involving persons who were hired to do the 

job of day laborers and then beaten when they wanted to get paid. 

I have also worked in an undercover capacity investigating drug 

trafficking and other crimes. Some did involve undocumented persons, but they were more often informants than the targets of my 

investigation, and we welcomed their assistance in those cases. I 

remember when I had to go to Laredo, Texas to work with the DEA 

on a drug trafficking investigation that originated here in Houston, 

and through information from sources that were undocumented. 

When I arrived in Laredo, it was shortly after DEA agent Ricky 

Camarena had been kidnapped and was missing and presumed to 

be dead—which regretfully turned out to be true—the targets of my 

investigation were all U.S. citizens. 

When I had responsibility of being the director of the BEST antigang office, I dealt with the issue of Hispanic criminal street gangs, 

including MS–13. They were subjects of criminal activity in Houston, just as much as Caucasians, African Americans, and many 

other Hispanics involved who were also U.S. citizens. In fact, one 

of the first issues confronting me as director was the fact that between 1994 and 1998 a significant number of the gang-related 

homicide victims were Hispanic males between the ages 15 and 19. 

Although we never researched to find out the immigration status 

of these crime victims, I don’t recall the issue of whether them 

being undocumented or not of being of concern. 
96

However, my time was just as occupied with investigating Bloods 

and Crips and white supremacists. Hispanics do not have a lock on 

the criminal street gang trade. 

In any case, it has been the trust and the dialogue that cops 

have been able to establish with all persons as they do their job. 

Without free-flowing information from all of Houston’s communities, our concern is with what could happen to the clearance and 

successful prosecution rate that our area currently enjoys. 

However, when it comes to what the local few would like street 

cops to do, we have vivid examples of failed attempts by local police 

enforcing immigration laws in places like Chandler, Arizona, where 

U.S. citizens were detained and nearly deported mainly because 

they had communication difficulties. 

As a result, this experience set the police department back many 

years. It erased years of good work in developing community relationships that are also necessary and essential in investigating and 

solving and prosecuting crimes. 

I have personally been involved in Houston’s effort to have a 

local police force for all of the people of Houston, and I am concerned about seeing this progress erased. Street cops depend on information to solve crimes. Without it, victimization would go unreported and unsolved, leaving criminals on the street. 

This statement does not mean that I don’t believe that immigration laws should be enforced. Quite to the contrary. I do support 

the enforcement of all laws, but in this case, it must be done by 

the appropriate agencies, and Texas State penal code laws should 

be enforced by Texas police officers and immigration laws should 

be enforced by immigration enforcement authorities. 

To the question as to what HPD is doing, I think Chief Hurtt 

will elaborate in more detail, but I would just like to state the following. 

Are illegal immigrants committing crimes in Houston? Yes. Are 

Houston police arresting illegal aliens? Yes, for criminal violations 

of State and Federal laws. Does the Houston Police Department 

share that information with immigration authorities? Yes. Does the 

Houston Police Department do anything to hinder the work of immigration authorities? No. 

Further, the following are specific reasons why it is not in the 

best interests of Houston to order local police to become immigration law enforcers. 

One, current Federal law requires that in order for local law enforcement to receive Federal funding that the agency demonstrate 

it has policies and procedures in place against discrimination practices, effectively meaning that law enforcement is equally applied 

to all persons without regard for a person’s color of skin, nationality, religion or gender. 

Two, so as you contemplate mandating new requirements on 

local law enforcement such as enforcing the immigration laws, this 

would obviously require that we also follow the nondiscrimination 

laws as we enforce any new law; meaning that in order to demonstrate that local police are not enforcing immigration law against 

persons solely because of their color of skin or possible nationality, 

then we would have to order the enforcement of such a law on all 

persons that local law enforcement officers come in contact with 
97

and require documentation, much like the racial profiling forms 

that officers are required to fill out, that the officer is enforcing the 

new law on everyone he or she comes into contact with. 

Three, the Houston Police Department is currently undermanned 

by approximately 1,000 to 1,500 police officers just in conditions 

that we are faced with today. Hiring those officers will take many 

years and millions upon millions to get the workforce strength to 

where we could comfortably handle all of the priorities of the citizens of Houston. Asking local cops to determine immigration status 

of all persons that they come in contact with would adversely affect 

response times to emergency calls of Houstonians more than our 

current manpower shortage is affecting Houstonians. 

Four, access to data is not currently effective. Today, barely a 

fraction of known U.S. absconders are tracked in the National 

Crime Information Center, NCIC, which is available to local police. 

However, if an officer wants to verify a passport, it would need to 

be during business hours, since there is no direct link to State Department databases—if I need to be corrected on that, I will stand 

corrected—making this ineffective during nighttime and evening 

hours for street cops. 

Five, the lack of funding. Currently, the city of Houston is trying 

to get out of the jail business, and the cost of housing, feeding, and 

medically caring for immigration detainees would adversely affect 

local taxpayers, especially since the Federal Government does not 

have the best reputation of reimbursing local communities for costs 

incurred in their support of the Federal Government. 

I do not believe that the Federal Government currently reimburses the city of Houston for arresting and detaining undocumented individuals that we have arrested. Currently, the city of 

Houston is working to collaborate with our county officials who are 

already strapped for space for the prisoners that they have, adult 

and juveniles. 

In closing, I respect the work needed to get this country to a 

place that we feel good about security of our homeland. There is 

much work to be done. However, I suggest that this work will be 

extremely short-lived if we do not address the issue of making sure 

that foreign countries that are contributing to this issue of illegal 

immigration be encouraged to develop effective domestic economic 

development policies in their own countries. 

In addition, I would like to offer a second dimension as a firstgeneration American, the only one in my family born in America. 

I am a person that today sits before you only because my dad, who 

died shortly after seeing my election, was a migracio. My dad 

helped to build the California rail lines, and this earned him the 

right to emigrate to the U.S. with my mom and brothers and sisters. Today the U.S. can look upon the family of native-born and 

naturalized citizens and see a retired cop, a police lieutenant, an 

attorney, a CPA, commercial fleet sales manager and a victim of 

HIV/AIDS. In the second generation, there will soon be military 

veterans, doctors, artists, accountants. And just this Sunday, the 

newest member of our family entered this world ready to contribute and do her part to make this the greatest country in the 

world. 

Thank you. 
98

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Congratulations on the 

new birth, and I appreciate your insight. 

[The statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]

PREPARED STAEMENT OF ADRIAN GARCIA

Good morning distinguished members of Congress: 

My name is Adrian Garcia and I am a member of the City Council of Houston 

and as a member of Houston’s City Council, I have also been appointed to serve as 

the Chair of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee. I am honored to 

be before you on this important discussion and on that note I also wish to welcome 

you to our great city and hope that you find your time here comfortable. 

Prior to serving on Houston’s City Council I served as a Houston Police Officer 

for nearly 24 years and retired upon my successful election to City Council. I started 

my public safety career in 1980 and during my time in the Houston Police Department I worked various assignments that included serving as the Director of the 

Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office, where I was charged with helping to develop public policy 

in the fight against criminal street gangs in Houston. 

Today’s session appears to want to focus on the impact of illegal immigration on 

crime what the role of local Police should be in the enforcement of immigration 

laws. I hope to offer a perspective as a recent local law enforcement practitioner 

given that I have worked as a street cop. In my time, I have met many people of 

different backgrounds, many spoke English some did not, and when I needed to I 

used my family taught bilingual skills to carry out my job and enforce the law—

as a result I was able to clear cases and make significant arrests and made many 

friends. 

During my time as a Houston Police Officer, I became involved in the National 

Latino Peace Officers Association and eventually became the National President and 

served as National President from 1998–2000. 

To the topic of today’s discussion, no disputes that some persons who have entered 

the United States have been arrested for violations of state criminal statutes. However, given that a significant portion of my patrol career also took place in the area 

that I now represent as an elected official, which has a Hispanic majority; and given 

that I liked putting crooks in jail, I recall arresting and investigating more crimes 

against Americans that were committed by Americans than I did where illegal immigrants were involved. 

Where I did investigate crimes involving persons with questionable immigration 

status, more have been witnesses against crooks I was trying to put in jail. 

I have also had to investigate crimes of assault and theft involving persons who 

were hired to do a job and then beaten when they wanted to get paid. 

I have also worked in an undercover capacity investigating drug trafficking and 

other crimes—some did involve undocumented persons but they were more often the 

informants than targets of my investigations, and we welcomed their assistance in 

those cases. I remember when I had to go to Laredo, Texas to work with DEA on 

a drug trafficking investigation that originated here in Houston through information 

from sources that were undocumented. When I arrived in Laredo it was shortly 

after DEA Agent Enrique Camarena was missing and presumed to be dead, which 

regretfully turned out to be true. The targets of my investigation were all US citizens. 

When I had the responsibility of being Director of the Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office 

I dealt with the issue of Hispanic criminal street gangs including MS–13. They were 

subjects of criminal activity in Houston just as much as Caucasians, African Americans and many of the Hispanics involved were also US citizens. In fact, one of the 

first issues confronting me when I became Director was the fact that from 1994—

1998, a significant number of the gang-related victims were Hispanic males between 

the ages of 15—19 years. Although, we never researched to find out the immigration 

status of these crime victims I do not recall the issue of them being undocumented 

ever being an issue. 

However, my time was just as occupied with investigating the Bloods, Crips and 

the White Supremacists—Hispanics do not have a lock on criminal street gang 

trade. 

In either case, it has always been the trust and dialogue that cops have been able 

to establish with all persons as they do their job. Without free-flowing information 

from Houston’s community, I am concerned what could happen to the clearance and 

successful prosecution rate that our area currently enjoys. 

However, when it comes to what a vocal few would like street cops to do we have 

vivid examples of failed attempts by local police enforcing immigration laws in 
99

places like Chandler, Arizona where US citizens were detained and nearly deported 

mainly because they spoke with accents; couldn’t speak English or could not prove 

their immigration status. As a result, this experience set the police department back 

many years and erased years of good work in developing community relationships 

that are always necessary and essential in investigating, solving and prosecuting 

crimes. 

I have been personally involved in Houston’s effort to have a local police force for 

all the people of Houston and I am concerned about seeing this progress erased, 

street cops depend on information to solve crimes and without it victimization would 

go unreported and unsolved and leave criminals on the streets. 

This statement does not mean that I do not believe that immigration laws should 

not be enforced, quite to the contrary, I do support the enforcement of all laws but 

in this case it must be done by the appropriate agencies and Texas State Penal Code 

Laws should be enforced by Texas Peace Officers and Immigration Laws should be 

enforced by Immigration Enforcement Authorities. 

Are illegal aliens committing crimes in Houston? Yes. Are Houston Police arresting illegal aliens? Yes, for the criminal violations of state and federal criminal laws. 

Does the Houston Police Department share that information with Immigration authorities? Yes. Does, the Houston Police Department do anything to hinder the work 

of Immigration authorities? No. 

Further, the following are specific reasons why it is not in the best interests of 

Houston to order local police to become immigration law enforcers:

1. Current federal law requires that in order for local law enforcement to receive 

federal funding that the agency demonstrate that it has policies and procedures in 

place against discrimination practices—effectively meaning that law enforcement is 

equally applied to all persons without regard to a person’s color of skin, nationality, 

religion or gender.

2. In order to comply with the first rule, any new rule to would require that we 

follow the first rule as we enforce the new rule—meaning that in order to demonstrate that local police are not enforcing the immigration law against persons 

solely because of the color of their skin or possible nationality then we would have 

to order the enforcement of the new rule on all persons that local law enforcement 

officers come in contact with and require documentation (much like the racial 

profiling forms that officers are required to fill out) that the officer is enforcing the 

new rule on everyone he/she comes in contact with.

3. The Houston Police Department is currently under manned by approximately 

1,000 to 1,500 officers, hiring those officers will take many years and millions upon 

millions to get to the workforce strength back to where we could comfortably handle 

all the priorities of the citizens of Houston. Asking local cops to determine the immigration status of all persons they come in contact with, today would adversely affect 

response times to emergency calls of Houstonians more so than how our current 

manpower shortage is already affecting Houstonians.

4. Access to data is not currently effective—today barely a fraction of known US 

absconders are tracked through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), 

which is available to local police. However, if an officer wants to verify a passport, 

it would likely need to be done during business hours since there are no direct links 

to State Department databases, making this ineffective during evening and nighttime hours for street cops.

5. Lack of funding—currently the City of Houston is trying to get out of the jail 

business and the cost of housing, feeding and medically caring for immigration detainees would adversely affect local tax payers. Especially since the federal government doesn’t have the best reputation of reimbursing local communities for cost incurred in their support of the federal government. I do not believe that the federal 

government currently reimburses the City of Houston for arresting and detaining 

the illegal aliens that we have arrested?! Currently, the City of Houston is working 

to get out of the jail business and collaborate with our County Officials, who are 

already strapped for space for the prisoners they have—adult and juveniles. 

In closing, I respect the work needed to get this country to place that we feel good 

about the security of our Homeland and there is much work to be done. However, 

I suggest that this work will be extremely short lived if we do not also address of 

the issue of making sure that the foreign countries that are contributing to this 

issue are not encouraged to better at developing effective domestic economic development in their own countries. 

In addition, I would like to offer a second dimension as a First Generation American, the only American born of my family. I am a person that today sits before you 

only because my father, who died shortly after being able to see my election, was 

a ‘‘bracero’’. My dad helped to build the California rail lines and this earned him 
100

the right to immigrate to the US with my mom and brothers and sister, today the 

US can look upon this family of native born and naturalized citizens and see a retired cop, a Metro Police Lieutenant, an attorney, a CPA, commercial vehicle fleet 

sales manager, and a victim of HIV–AIDS—in second generation there are soon to 

be military veterans, doctors, artists, accountants, and just this Sunday the newest 

member of our family entered this world ready to contribute and do her part to continue to make this the greatest country in the world.

Mr. MCCAUL. Next we have the Police Chief from Houston, Mr. 

Hurtt.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD L. HURTT, CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY 

OF HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Mr. HURTT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I sit here as a police chief for three border cities in the past: 

Arizona, California, and now Texas. Let me say as chief of Houston 

Police Department and also president of the Major Cities Chiefs associations, that I appreciate and wish to thank you for the honor 

and privilege of putting into the Congressional Record law enforcement comments and concerns on immigration prior to full enactment of any legislation this important. 

Let me begin by giving my reaction to a recent Federal legislative amendment aimed at eliminating Federal law enforcement 

funding for local police. In short, both myself and chiefs of major 

cities across the country are dismayed by any legislative action 

aimed at excluding the city of Houston and other local jurisdictions 

from receiving needed Federal law enforcement funds. These funds 

are needed to put more officers on the streets of Houston, protect 

their neighborhoods, investigate and prevent murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, burglaries, and provide for homeland security. 

The end result of any law enforcement funding exclusion amendment, if it is applied to the Houston Police Department and other 

communities like Houston, would be to make our local communities 

less safe. In other words, these amendments would have the opposite effect of their purported purpose. 

Illegal immigration is an issue that affects our Nation as a 

whole, and any solution should begin, first, at the Federal level, 

with securing the borders and increasing enforcement by Federal 

agencies. Local law enforcement of immigration law raises complex 

legal, logistical, and resource issues for local communities and their 

police agencies. 

In an effort to clarify the city’s reasoned and model approach to 

this issue, I will provide the following statements regarding the 

city’s policy, why we oppose the position represented by the Federal 

Fund Exclusion Amendment and protect our citizens referendum. 

The city of Houston does not have a sanctuary policy. Currently, 

the police department is operating under general order 500–5. You 

may see attachment A in the packet I have provided for you. General order 500–5 was implemented in 1992 by then Police Chief 

Nuchia, who is currently serving as a justice in the Texas judiciary’s first court of appeals. 

The general order includes the following provisions: 

Number one, Houston police officers may not stop or apprehend 

individuals solely on the belief that they are in this country illegally. Officers shall not make inquiries as to the citizenship status 

of any person, nor will officers detain or arrest persons solely on 
101

the belief that they are in this country illegally. Officers will contact the Federal immigration authorities regarding the person only 

if that person is arrested on a separate criminal charge other than 

a class C misdemeanor, which would be like a traffic citation, and 

the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien. 

The department procedures are to accept and act upon criminal 

immigration detainers issued by ICE. The police department further clarifies to our officers that they are allowed to take into custody any person who the Federal authorities state is a criminal 

suspect and for whom they will authorize detention directly into a 

Federal detention facility. 

In addition, whenever the department has a person in custody on 

other criminal charges, the department will not release the person 

from custody for up to 24 hours after they have received formal notice from Federal authorities that they are wanted for criminal violations. The city is committed to assisting ICE and any other Federal agencies, whenever possible and reasonable, to enforce criminal violations in criminal matters. 

We will continue to enforce laws relative to criminal violations 

against any and all persons regardless of their immigration status. 

The department, and thus the city, does not have a sanctuary policy as opponents of our policy have alleged. 

There are several issues that impact the State and local. There 

are some restrictions why State and local law enforcement cannot 

be involved in immigration enforcement. 

In Texas, peace officers can only arrest a person without a warrant in specific situations. Sections 14.01, 14.03 and 14.04 of the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedures clearly define this authority, 

and it is provided in Exhibit 4. These sections do not authorize a 

Texas police officer to arrest a person without a warrant for illegally entering the United States. 

In opinion number H–1029, the Texas Attorney General evaluated the authority of Texas peace officers under section 14.01, 

14.03 and 14.04 and concluded that Texas peace officers, under 

State law, do not have authority to arrest an individual solely upon 

the suspicion that he has previously entered the country illegally. 

That is under item number five. 

Likewise, police officers are restrained by the constitutional protections of the fourth amendment from seizing or detaining a person without sufficient probable cause in immigration situations. 

The Supreme Court further concluded that the fourth amendment 

forbids officers from stopping or detaining a person for questioning 

about their citizenship unless on a reasonable suspicion that they 

may be aliens. 

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure also, under article 2.131 

and 2.132, prohibits peace officers from engaging in racial profiling. 

That is Exhibit 7 in your pack. An officer cannot subject a person 

to police action merely on the basis of their race, ethnicity or national origin. 

The Supreme Court in the Brignoni-Ponce case also specifically 

stated that a person’s Mexican ancestry alone is not reasonable 

grounds to stop the person and subject them to questioning about 

citizenship. That is in Exhibit Number 6. 
102

Mr. MCCAUL. If I can, we are on tight time. Please proceed, but 

if you could try to summarize. Thank you. 

Mr. HURTT. Let me get, then, to the final points that I would like 

to make on this whole issue. There are five points I would like to 

make. 

The Federal legislation amendments to exclude local communities from receiving Federal law enforcement funding are misguided and wrong; just as Houston’s Protect Our Citizens efforts to 

pass a charter amendment requiring Houston police officers to conduct immigration investigations and enforce immigration laws. 

Both ignore the lack of clear legal authority for our officers in the 

area of immigration enforcement. 

They turn a blind eye to the legal restrictions against 

warrantless arrests/detentions, racial profiling and fourth amendment violations to which our officers must adhere and for which 

the city would face legal liability if we allowed our officers to violate them. 

They are unconcerned and insensitive to the distrust and fear of 

the police such enforcement would create in our community. 

Finally, they unreasonably call for required enforcement, yet fail 

to identify how the city and local communities will provide or generate the necessary resources to accomplish such enforcement. 

What programs, projects and services would need to be cut in order 

for us to do immigration enforcement? 

What the city of Houston and all major cities need, along with 

the Federal law enforcement authorities for that matter—and it 

has been said here before—are more boots on the ground; that is, 

more police officers and more Federal agents. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Chief. 

[The statement of Chief Harold L. Hurtt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAROLD L. HURTT

Dear Sub-Committee Members: 

I am writing to respond to your invitation to testify before your sub-committee 

hearing on Wednesday, August 16th, 2006, at 9:30am, at the Civil Courthouse 201 

Caroline St., Houston Texas. First let me say as Chief of the Houston Police Department (HPD) and also as President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC) that 

I appreciate and wish to thank you for the honor and privilege of putting into the 

official congressional record Law Enforcement’s comments and concerns on Immigration prior to the full enactment of any legislation on this important subject. I 

will be submitting as an attachment to my testimony today the MCC’s Immigration 

Committee Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws by Local Police 

Agencies (chaired by my Deputy Director Craig E. Ferrell, Jr.), which were adopted 

on June 7th by the MCC for inclusion in the official congressional record. I also have 

additional attachments for the sub-committee members, but due to their length I 

have been told they can not be part of the written record. 

Let me begin by giving my reaction to a recent federal legislative amendment 

aimed at eliminating federal law enforcement funding to local police. In short, both 

myself and chiefs of major cities across the country are dismayed by any legislative 

action aimed at excluding the City of Houston and/or other local jurisdictions from 

receiving needed federal law enforcement funds. These funds are needed to put 

more officers on the streets of Houston, protect our neighborhoods, investigate and 

prevent murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, burglaries, and provide for homeland 

security efforts. It seems clear that some in Congress and the public fervently believe local police should become involved in enforcing federal civil immigration laws. 

Given these strong beliefs, we are left to wonder why the recent legislative amendments were not written to provide increased federal funding to local police to support such enforcement. Instead the amendments have sought to eliminate funding 
103

and penalize not only the City of Houston, but also Harris County, and other local 

and national jurisdictions, which will be negatively effected by this amendment. The 

end result of any law enforcement funding exclusion amendment, if it is applied to 

Houston and other communities like Houston would be to make our local communities less safe. In other words these amendments would have the opposite effect 

of their purported purpose. 

Illegal immigration is being hotly debated in Congress and in our local communities. Opinions on how to address this complex issue differ greatly and emotions 

run high. Extremes exist on either side of the debate as represented by the recent 

mass demonstrations by immigrant groups and their supporters and the funding exclusion amendment and the referendum effort of the group Protect Our Citizens in 

Houston. Both myself and chiefs of police in MCC representing first responders to 

over fifty (50) million residents respectfully disagree with any effort to eliminate 

federal law enforcement funding and in effort to create an unfunded mandate. Illegal immigration is an issue that effects our nation as a whole and any solution should begin first at the federal level with securing the borders and 

increasing enforcement by federal agencies. 

Local enforcement of immigration laws raises complex legal, logistical and resource issues for local communities and their police agencies. The City of Houston’s 

polices and those of most major cities across America reflect the challenges and realities faced by a City and police agency that is responsible for protecting and serving a diverse community comprised of citizens, non-citizens, legal residents, visitors 

and undocumented immigrants. The City’s policies seek to best protect and serve 

this diverse community as a whole, while taking into account: the reality that the 

City does not have unlimited resources; its officers are prohibited by state law from 

racial profiling and arresting persons without warrants and without well established 

probable cause; is subject to civil liability for violating such laws; and has the clear 

need to foster assistance and cooperation from the public including those persons 

who may be undocumented immigrants. In an effort to clarify the City’s reasoned and model approach to this issue I have provided the following statements regarding the City’s policy and why we oppose the positions represented by the federal fund exclusion amendment and Protect Our Citizens’ referendum.

CITY DOES NOT HAVE A SANCTUARY POLICY 

Currently, the police department is operating under General Order 500–5[See attached Exhibit 1]. General Order 500–5 was implemented in 1992 by then Chief 

Nuchia, who is currently serving as a Justice in the Texas Judiciary’s First Court 

of Appeals. The General Order includes the following provisions: 

• Houston police officers may not stop or apprehend individuals solely on the 

belief that they are in this country illegally. 

• Officers shall not make inquiries as to the citizenship status of any person, 

nor will officers detain or arrest persons solely on the belief that they are in 

the country illegally. 

• Officers will contact the [Federal Immigration Authorities] regarding a person 

only if that person is arrested on a separate criminal charge (other than Class 

C misdemeanor) and the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.’’ 

The department has issued clarifications of our ‘‘immigration’’ policies and implemented changes to the department’s enforcement policies to increase cooperation between the department and federal agencies on immigration matters that are criminal in nature. [Exhibit 2] In the summer of 2005, I directed Executive Assistant 

Chief Thaler, Assistant Chief Perales and Deputy Director/General Counsel Craig 

Ferrell to meet jointly with representatives of the U.S. Attorney’s office and I.C.E. 

to discuss the department’s response to immigration detainers. Based on those discussions, the department developed procedures to accept and act upon 

criminal immigration detainers issued by I.C.E. The police department further clarified that our officers are allowed to take into custody any person 

who the federal authorities state is a criminal suspect and for whom they 

will authorize detention directly into a federal detention facility. In addition, whenever the department has a person in custody on other criminal 

charges, the department will not release the person from custody for up to 

24 hours after we have received formal notice from federal authorities that 

they are wanted for criminal violations. 

The City is committed to assisting I.C.E and any other federal agency wherever 

possible and reasonable to enforce against criminal violations and address criminal 

matters. The Houston Police Department has always acted to enforce laws 

relative to criminal violations and criminal matters, accepted criminal warrants and criminal detainers and assisted in criminal investigations, regardless of 
104

whether they emanated from other jurisdictions or arose out of federal or state laws. 

Our officers are currently involved in various federal task forces addressing criminal 

matters including violent criminal gangs. Because we have and will continue to 

enforce laws relative to criminal violations against any and all persons, regardless of their immigration status, the department and thus the City does 

not have a ‘‘sanctuary policy’’ as opponents of our policies have alleged.

This is not only the City’s or the police department’s opinion but also that of Robert 

Rutt the Deputy Special Agent in Charge for Immigration and Customs Enforcement [I.C.E]. In a recent Houston Chronicle article he stated that ‘‘Houston is not 

a sanctuary City. . .’’ In the same article he further acknowledged the police department’s significant cooperation with I.C.E. [Exhibit 3]

CONCERNS WITH LOCAL ENFORCMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION 

LAW 

Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many daunting and complex 

legal, logistical and resource issues for the City of Houston and the diverse community it serves. Like other jurisdictions our policy in this area must recognize the obstacles, pitfalls, dangers and negative consequences to local policing that would be 

caused by immigration enforcement at the local level.

LACK OF CLEAR LEGAL AUTHORITY 

The federal government has clear authority over immigration and immigration enforcement, but that is not true for local police officers including the Houston Police 

Department. Federal law does not require the states or local police agencies to enforce immigration laws nor does it give the states or local agencies the clear authority to act in the area of immigration enforcement.

Criminal vs. Civil Matters 

Federal immigration laws involve both civil and criminal aspects. The federal government and its designated agencies such as I.C.E. and the Department of Justice 

have clear authority and responsibility to regulate and enforce immigration laws regardless of whether or not the process used for enforcement is criminal or civil in 

nature. The federal agencies have the authority to determine if a person will be 

criminally prosecuted for their violations of immigration laws or be dealt with 

through a civil deportation process. Based on their authority, training, experience 

and resources available to them, these federal agencies and the federal courts are 

in the best position to determine whether or not a person has entered or remained 

in the country in violation of federal regulations and the applicability of criminal 

or civil sanctions. 

The authority of local police officers to act to enforce against criminal acts is clear 

and well established. Our officers have no authority to determine if a particular immigration violation would or should result in criminal charges or be handled 

through purely civil proceedings and regulation. This fact creates a gap in authority 

for our officers who are generally limited to acting only in criminal matters. Houston police officers do not become involved in purely civil matters between disputing 

parties. 

As stated above the Houston Police Department and its officers keep 

their focus on criminal matters and violations. We assist the federal agencies with all criminal matters including those that involve immigration status, but the federal agencies must clearly state that the matter relates to criminal 

violations by issuing criminal warrants, criminal detainers or criminal holds.

State and Federal Restrictions on Authority to Arrest and Detain 

State laws also restrict a local police officer’s authority to act even in criminal 

matters in such a way that it would prevent or hinder the officer’s ability to investigate, arrest or detain a person for immigration violations alone. Federal agents are 

specifically authorized to stop persons and conduct investigations as to immigration 

status without a warrant. Local police officers are constrained by local laws that 

deal with their general police powers such as the ability to arrest without a warrant, and prohibitions against racial profiling.

In Texas, peace officers can only arrest a person without a warrant in 

specific situations. Section 14.01, 14.03 and 14.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedures clearly defines this authority. [Exhibit 4] Section 14.01 states and officer 

can arrest a person without a warrant who has committed an offense in the officer’s 

presence or view. Section 14.03 defines specific situations in which an officer can 

arrest a person without a warrant such as those involving an assault with possible 

future injury, family violence, violations of protective orders or interference with 

emergency calls. Finally, section 14.04 allows arrest without warrant if a felony has 

been committed and an escape is likely and the officer does not have time to get 
105

a warrant. These sections do not authorize a Texas peace officer to arrest 

a person without a warrant for illegally entering the United States. In 

Opinion No. H–1029, the Texas Attorney General evaluated the authority of 

Texas peace officers under Section 14.01, 14.03 and 14.04 and concluded 

that Texas peace officers under state law ‘‘do not. . .have authority to arrest an individual solely upon the suspicion that he has previously entered 

the country illegally. . .’’[See AG Opinion H–1029 attached as Exhibit 5] 

Likewise police officers are restrained by the constitutional protections of the 

Fourth Amendment from seizing or detaining a person without sufficient probable 

cause in immigration situations. The United State Supreme Court in the case of 

U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce addressed the ability of federal immigration agents to seize 

and detain a person and subject them to an immigration status investigation. U.S. 

v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, (1975). [Exhibit 6] The Court recognized the broader authority of such federal agents to conduct such investigations without warrant. 

However, the Court stated even with such broader authority the Fourth Amendment 

still protected persons from being randomly stopped by officers who have no reason 

to suspect the persons of having violated any law. Id. At 883–884. The Supreme 

Court further concluded that the Fourth Amendment forbids officers from 

stopping or detaining a person for questioning about their citizenship on 

less than reasonable suspicion that they may be aliens. Id. Houston police officers lack the broader authority to conduct immigration investigations that is given 

to federal immigration agents who can stop a person and ask questions about citizenship without a warrant. Lacking such authority, Houston police officers are still 

required to develop a clear reasonable justification or probable cause for detaining 

a person to investigate their immigration status. 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.131 and 2.132 prohibit peace 

officers from engaging in racial profiling. [Exhibit 7] An officer can not 

subject a person to police action merely on the basis of their race, ethnicity 

or national origin. Immigration enforcement by H.P.D. officers would at a minimum result in increased complaints of racial profiling since a major factor a person 

would most likely be subjected to an immigration investigation by officers would be 

their differing nationality, race or ethnicity. The Supreme Court in the

Brignoni-Ponce case also specifically stated that a persons ‘‘Mexican ancestry’’ alone is not reasonable grounds to stop the person and subject them 

to questioning about citizen. U.S. V. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, 

886(1975).

RISK OF CIVIL LIBABILITY 

In the past, local law enforcement agencies have faced civil litigation and liability 

for their involvement in immigration enforcement. For example, the Katy, Texas Police Department participated in an immigration raid with federal agents in 1994. 

A total of 80 individuals who were detained by the police were later determined to 

be either citizens or legal immigrants with permission to be in the country. The 

Katy police department faced suits from these individuals and eventually settled 

their claims out of court. 

Because local police officers currently lack clear authority to enforce immigration laws, are limited in their ability to arrest without a warrant, are 

prohibited from racial profiling and lack the training and experience to enforce complex federal immigration laws, it is more likely the City/police department will face the risk of civil liability and litigation if we actively enforced federal immigration laws.

UNDERMINES TRUST AND COOPERATION OF IMMIGRANT 

COMMUNITIES 

Major urban areas throughout the nation are comprised of significant immigrant 

communities. In some areas the immigrant community reaches 50—60 percent of 

the local population. Local agencies are charged with providing law enforcement 

services to these diverse populations with communities of both legal and illegal immigrants. The reality is that undocumented immigrants are a significant part of the 

local populations major police agencies must protect, serve and police. The City of 

Houston faces the same challenges. 

Local officers have worked very hard to build trust and a spirit of cooperation 

with immigrant groups through community based policing and outreach programs 

and specialized officers who work with immigrant groups. We have a clear need to 

foster trust and cooperation with everyone in these immigrant communities. Assistance and cooperation from immigrant communities is especially important when an 

immigrant, whether documented or undocumented, is the victim of or witness to a 

crime. These persons must be encouraged to file reports and come forward with information. Their cooperation is needed to prevent and solve crimes and maintain 
106

public order, safety, and security in the whole community. Local police contacts in 

immigrant communities are important as well in the area of intelligence gathering 

to prevent future terroristic attacks and strengthen homeland security. 

Immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect 

and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and 

immigrant communities. If the undocumented immigrant’s primary concern is that they will be deported or subjected to an immigration status investigation, then they will not come forward and provide needed assistance 

and cooperation. Distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the police 

would develop among legal immigrants as well. Undoubtedly legal immigrants would avoid contact with the police for fear that they themselves or 

undocumented family members or friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Without assurances that contact with the police would 

not result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the hard won 

trust, communication and cooperation from the immigrant community 

would disappear. Such a divide between the local police and immigrant 

groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the 

broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.

LACK OF RESOURCES 

The budgets and resources of local police agencies are not unlimited. 

Local police agencies struggle every year to find the resources to police 

and serve their respective communities. Since the events of September 11, local 

agencies have taken on the added duty of serving as the first line of defense and 

response to terrorist attacks for our country. These efforts on the local level to deter 

and prevent another terrorist attack and to be prepared to respond to the aftermath 

of an attack have stretched local resources even further. Since the creation of the 

Homeland Security Department, federal funding for major city police departments 

has been reduced given the added duties of securing the homeland. Local agencies 

have also had to take on more responsibilities in areas that have traditionally been 

handled by the F.B.I. whose investigative resources are now more focused on 

counter-terrorism efforts. Local agencies are forced to fill the gap left by the shift 

of federal resources away from investigating white-collar crimes and bank robberies; 

areas traditionally handled by federal agencies. 

Enforcement of federal immigration laws would be a burden that most major police agencies would not be able to bear under current resource levels. The cost in 

terms of manpower, facilities and equipment necessary for local agencies to address 

the 8—12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be 

overwhelming. It is estimated that nearly half a million immigrants are in the 

Houston area. The federal government, which has primary authority to enforce immigration laws, has itself failed to provide the tremendous amount of resources necessary to accomplish such enforcement to its own agencies specifically charged with 

that responsibility. Local communities and agencies have even fewer resources to 

devote to such an effort than the federal government, given all the numerous other 

demands on local police departments. 

Immigration violations are extremely different from the typical criminal offenses 

that patrol officers face every day on their local beats. The law enforcement activities of local police officers revolve around crimes such as murder, assaults, narcotics, 

robberies, burglaries, domestic violence, traffic violations and the myriad of other 

criminal matters they handle on a regular basis. The specific immigration status of 

any particular person can vary greatly. A person may not be a citizen but still 

be a legal resident, a recognized refugee seeking asylum, a holder of a visa 

that may or may not have expired or the person has illegally entered the 

country. The complexity of the immigration laws is illustrated by the fact 

that the U.S. has 25 types of nonimmigrant visas, including A1 visas for ambassadors, B2 visas for tourists, P1 visas for foreign sports stars who play 

on U.S. teams and TN visas for Canadians and Mexicans entering the U.S. 

to work under NAFTA, and U visas for persons assisting in criminal prosecutions. Given the complexity of immigration status, whether a person is in fact 

in violation of the complex federal immigration regulations would be very difficult 

if not almost impossible for the average patrol officer to determine during an investigation on the streets of Houston. 

The Houston Police Department is currently working to put more officers on the 

street to address crimes such as murder, rape, robberies, assaults, narcotics, prostitution, burglaries, traffic enforcement, etc. The City struggles continuously to find 

the resources to address these policing needs. Spending Houston’s limited police re-
107

sources on addressing the estimated tens of thousands of illegal immigrants in our 

jurisdiction would decrease our ability to accomplish normal policing and public 

safety goals. If officers were required to enforce or even allowed to enforce immigration laws, a routine traffic stop, which would have only resulted in a ticket, would 

become an extended immigration investigation. If the officer develops the probable 

cause to detain the person for immigration status investigation and asks the person 

about their citizenship status the person may lie or admit that they are a non-citizen. If the person lies the officer must develop facts that would support a reasonable suspicion that the person is a non-citizen in the country illegally. 

If a person admits to being a non-citizen the fact remains that being a 

non-citizen in this country is not in and of itself a violation of any state 

or federal law. The officer would then have to develop probable cause to 

believe the person who is a non-citizen either entered the country illegally 

or has violated a visa or some other condition for remaining in the country.

Basing his immigration status investigation solely on the person’s non-citizenship/

national origin could violate the state law against racial profiling. The non-citizen 

may claim to have misplaced or left his visa or residency card or some other valid 

immigration documents at home or at their hotel room. A traffic stop, which should 

have been brief, has now become an extended immigration investigation reducing 

the available police resources to address other policing needs. This very real scenario does not account for the various other situations in which officers come in contact with individuals who are witnesses, victims, or report crimes. 

It should be noted that new immigration enforcement would not only 

take from current police resources but would also require increases in resources for enforcement. New resources would be needed to provide equipment, infrastructure and additional officers and personnel for enforcement 

as well as training for officers. New resources would also be needed to 

house, feed and transport persons who are subject to enforcement.

HOUSTON’S POLICY IS MODEL FOR OTHER JURISDICTIONS 

The Houston Police Department has not sat on the sidelines but rather has actively worked through its involvement in police associations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police [I.A.C.P.] and Major Cities Chiefs [M.C.C.] 

to build consensus on the issue of local enforcement of federal immigration law. The 

I.A.C.P. has published articles and adopted a position statement on this 

issue, which support Houston’s policy. [See Exhibits 8, 9, 10] I am the current 

M.C.C. president and my Deputy Director, Craig Ferrell, is serving as M.C.C. general counsel. M.C.C. is an association of 57 Chief Executive Officers of police departments located in jurisdictions with over 1.5 million population or have a population 

over and employ more than 1,000 officers. During M.C.C.’s recent summer meeting, its members voted to adopt a position statement on this issue which, 

like I.A.C.P., voiced concerns and opposition to any requirement that local 

police agencies enforce immigration laws. [Exhibit 11 and tendered with 

my testimony to become part of this committee’s official record] 

In addition, on MCC’s behalf Craig Ferrell recently attended a Law Enforcement 

Roundtable Discussion regarding border security and immigration hosted by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. [Exhibit 12] During this meeting the issue of local 

law enforcement of immigration was discussed. Attorney General Gonzales stated at this meeting that the federal government is neither requesting nor 

requiring local agencies to enforce immigration laws on their own and he 

acknowledged that such enforcement is first and foremost a federal responsibility. Attorney General Gonzales requested that local police department’s to 

partner with federal agencies to combat criminal immigration matters. He specifically stated he was not asking local police agencies to wade into the complicated 

area of ‘‘civil enforcement.’’ 

The issue of local law enforcement agencies enforcing federal immigration laws 

became a prominent issue in the media and one debated in the law enforcement 

community since the horrendous events of 9/11. This issue has been further highlighted due to the current debate on immigration reform taking place in congress. 

Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many complex legal 

and logistical issues as stated above for the City of Houston. The concerns 

raised above are shared by other major law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. Based on our work and discussions with other police agencies, I 

can confidently state that the City of Houston’s approach to this issue is in line with 

the other major jurisdictions in the country and is viewed as a model policy. [Also 

see 2 IACP Articles marked as exhibits 12 & 13 authored by Mr. Ferrell on this 

subject]
108

CONCLUSION 

• The federal legislative amendments to exclude local communities 

from receiving federal law enforcement funding are misguided and 

wrong; just as Houston’s Protect Our Citizens efforts to pass a charter 

amendment requiring Houston Police Officer’s to conduct immigration 

investigations and enforce immigration laws. 

• Both ignore the lack of clear legal authority for our officers in the area of immigration enforcement. 

• They turn a blind eye to the legal restrictions against warrantless arrests/detentions, racial profiling, and Fourth Amendment violations to which our officers must adhere and for which the City would face legal liability if we allowed 

our officers to violate them. 

• They are unconcerned and insensitive to the distrust and fear of the police 

such enforcement would create in our community. 

• Finally, they unreasonably call for required enforcement, yet fail to identify 

how the City and local communities will provide or generate the necessary resources to accomplish such enforcement. What programs, projects and services 

would Protect Our Citizens suggest the City cut from the current budget to fund 

new immigration enforcement? 

Why would our federal legislators not seek to increase federal funding to support 

the call for local immigration enforcement rather than passing amendments aimed 

at eliminating all federal funding for local law enforcement needs. Their energies, 

time and monies would be better spent trying to assist the City of Houston and local 

communities meet our current law enforcement needs rather than creating new unfunded mandates. What the City of Houston and all major cities need, along 

with the federal law enforcement authorities for that matter, are more police officers and more federal agents! 

Mr. MCCAUL. I am going to hold them strictly to 5 minutes as 

we are running short on time. 

Chief, just very quickly, when you make an arrest in the city of 

Houston and you determine that the person is here illegally, do you 

refer that to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement? 

Mr. HURTT. Yes. That is on the booking slip as a person that is 

put into the county jail, that Immigration is notified. 

Mr. MCCAUL. What if it is a routine traffic stop. 

Mr. HURTT. No. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Of course, we know one of the hijackers was 

stopped on a routine traffic stop. Do you have any—what kind of 

database do you have to check once you have—we have had various 

illustrations of people being pulled over, like Tim McVeigh, for instance. I think State troopers, police on the ground making traffic 

stops, is a very good technique to prevent crime and terrorism. Do 

you have any sort of database that is checked in a traffic stop to 

determine if this person is on a watchlist, for instance. 

Mr. HURTT. If an officer feels it necessary to check a person for 

warrants, they can run them through NCIC, yes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I would like to just, with my limited time, focus on 

the facts and the cost of illegal immigration in this State and particularly in this county, and just if I could get some numbers to 

summarize the testimony, particularly from Judge Eckels and 

Major O’Brien and Mr. Moriarty, on the cost of incarceration. 

Let me start first with the numbers of illegals incarcerated in the 

State of Texas, and then we will go to Harris County. 

Mr. MORIARTY. We have 11,606 that claim foreign birth. Again, 

the technology issue is an important issue for us also as far as the 

State prison system goes, because we do not have access to anything to verify that person’s citizenship. Now, by the time they 

come to us, they are obviously convicted felons. So we are dealing 
109

with a different issue than the Chief or some of the other persons 

that testified here today. 

Mr. MCCAUL. So it is difficult to verify obviously, these are the 

people who actually admit, and what is the cost to the State for incarceration of illegals. 

Mr. MORIARTY. The ones that we know about, the 10,376 that 

claim foreign citizenship, our estimated cost is the same as housing 

inmates at $40 a day. So that would be $132 million in costs to the 

State of Texas a year for the known. Now, again, it is self-reporting 

like we talked about. 

Mr. MCCAUL. It is self-reporting, so the number is probably higher than that. 

Mr. MORIARTY. That is correct. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Has that increased since last year—or the year before, I’m sorry? 

Mr. MORIARTY. This program, again, we have worked in close 

contact with ICE, but the numbers may increase steady because I 

don’t think the investigative efforts have changed to determine that 

citizenship status. 

Mr. MCCAUL. If I can pose the same questions to Harris County 

officials on the incarceration, the numbers. 

Judge ECKELS. The percentages, I have the national average, of 

the total misdemeanor defendant interviews, 10.2 percent were for 

illegal aliens, of which 6.7 were for felonies. 

Mr. MCCAUL. What was the percentage? I didn’t hear you. 

Judge ECKELS. The pretrial services department—in their interviews—misdemeanor defendants, 19 percent were non-U.S. citizens, 51.2 percent of that were undocumented and 10.2 percent 

were—

Mr. MCCAUL. What about the felony. 

Judge ECKELS. Felony, there was 11.5 percent were undocumented, 6.7 percent of all felony interviewed were undocumented. 

Both of those are trending upward, a little over 2 percent in a year 

in our community. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Do you have any additions to that. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Out of the over 130,000 prisoners we process a 

year, 20 to 23 percent are undocumented aliens, which equates to 

approximately 26,000 prisoners. Out of our budget of about $260 

million, with the greatest percentage going to jail functions, $41 

million of that is going to handling undocumented or illegal immigrants. 

Mr. MCCAUL. So $41 million in Harris County are going towards 

incarceration of illegal. 

Judge ECKELS. That does not include, I would caution the committee, Mr. Chairman, the cost to the courts, the prosecutors, the 

probation officers. The system is much more expensive. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The whole criminal justice system burden is far 

greater than that. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. That is just the enforcement side. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And we can’t really quantify that right now. 

Lastly, health care, if you could just again, and also tell me 

whether these rates have increased over the last several years or 

not. In terms of incarceration, have we seen an increase? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Oh, steadily. 
110

Judge ECKELS. We are currently—we have complied with the 

Justice Commission jail standards with our current, and we recently opened our new facility, but we are in the design phase now 

for handling that process. It is a partnership with the city to help 

us improve the efficiency. With that we will be over 1,000 new 

beds. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Do you know what the increase would be. 

Judge ECKELS. Our current capacity is just under 10,000; 9,200 

or 9,600. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. I believe you are at 96,500.. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Judge, lastly, health care. What would be the cost 

to health care that the illegal immigrants receive. 

Judge ECKELS. Total health care costs and total cost of undocumented inpatient, outpatient, in pharmacy care for the year 2005 

was $128,400,000. This is detailed in that report I gave you earlier. 

Mr. MCCAUL. It is over $128 million, and of that, the— 

Judge ECKELS. The district received payments and reimbursements that amounted to $31 million, net costs of $97,300,000 for 

2005. Over the 4-year period, net cost $286,600,000 medical reimbursements. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And out of that, how much are the Feds reimbursing and how much does Harris County bear. 

Judge ECKELS. That is after reimbursement. 

Mr. MCCAUL. After reimbursement. 

Judge ECKELS. Reimbursements, the total cost for the 4-year pe- riod, $403,500,000. Reimbursement totaled $116,900,000. Net cost 

to Harris County, $286,600,000. Of that $116 million reimbursement, $99,140,000, or 84.9 or almost 85 percent, was TP30, a Federal Medicaid program that is federally funded. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I think those numbers speak for themselves in 

terms of the burden on the taxpayer. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Jackson-Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, you place those of us who are 

part of this fact-finding effort in somewhat of a difficult posture in 

the shortening of time of our witnesses and, I believe, me remaining as the only member of the minority. However, I hope that we 

will be able to find the facts. 

Let me first start out by thanking all of you for your service in 

the way that the city and the county has worked together. I want 

to commend you Judge Eckels, Major O’Brien, Mr. Moriarty, certainly council member Garcia, Chief Hurtt, and the mayor who 

have worked together. I am reminded of how we unified around the 

evacuation, albeit faulty, as it related to Hurricane Rita, and how 

we bonded and worked together on the receiving of Hurricane 

Katrina survivors. This county and this city are to be commended, 

and we thank you very much for it. 

This is a fact-finding process, and it is not humorous and it is 

not open to quick remarks because there are many points that need 

to be put on this record that can be answered by the present leadership of the United States Congress. 

I notice that the State criminal alien assistance program, Major 

O’Brien, has approximate funding of $5.8 billion for calendar year 

2001 and 2004. The top four States, including Texas, is $1.6 billion 

to incarcerate criminal alien and reimbursed staff through fiscal 
111

years 2002 and 2003. The State of Texas received some reimbursement. Do you recall that? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. No, ma’am. The only figures I have are the last fis- cal year’s figures with me, which we spent over $41 million, and 

we were reimbursed about $2.5 million, or roughly 6 percent. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. You need more resources and this State is a 

very large State. You were reimbursed only $2.5 million. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. I don’t feel it is the county’s responsibility or the 

citizens of Harris County to fund illegal immigrants. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I agree. So you were reimbursed not a lot of 

money. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Six percent. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I agree with you. You are speaking to the 

choir, and what I am trying to say to you is that we had State 

criminal alien assistance program dollars upwards of $5.8 billion. 

The State of Texas spent about $1.6 billion. But let me inform you 

that this provision is now zeroed out in the President’s budget. So 

where you got 6 percent in the last fiscal year or two, you get zero 

this year. These are the problems that we are confronting that 

can’t be answered by these hearings. 

Let me share this point on our health care, and I think this is 

an important point and I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. 

Chairman, to add this to the record: The Texas Criminal Justice 

Coalition Geared Towards Leadership Initiative. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information is maintained in the committee file.] 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. That makes the following points. Though im- migrants pay $1.5 million annually to Medicare payroll taxes and 

most health care insurance programs, they receive only half as 

much care as other families. Immigrants are not swamping the 

U.S. health care system and use it far less than native-born Americans: The American Journal of Public Health. Thirty percent of immigrants use no health care at all during the course of the year, 

and immigrants count for 10.4 percent of the U.S. population with 

only 7.9 percent of the health spending. 

The Harris County hospital system has done an excellent job, 

and we applaud them for being a front line of health first responders. But let me set the framework. 

Judge Eckels, if you would respond to this dilemma that we face. 

Most uninsured in the U.S.A. are mostly white, 19 to 39. They earn 

between 20—to $60,000. They work in small businesses, and in the 

city of Houston, 100,000 small businesses do not pay health insurance, and therefore, obviously, open up their employees to the 

health crisis that we face. Does the hospital system also have an 

increase, or have you seen an increased utilization by individuals 

who are underinsured or uninsured and are working? 

Judge ECKELS. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. And in the course of that, do you have a percentage of how that has increased over the years. 

Judge ECKELS. I do not have that number. The total increase put 

before me today may be in the more detailed report I provided for 

you. I will get that number. 

We have seen a continuing increase in our total budget, again 

the percentages remain about the same, and I have an increase on 
112

the illegal population, but it is by no means a problem unique from 

that illegal population. It is a problem of the community of the uninsured population of Harris County. Our numbers are probably 

not the same as the Nation’s on the percentage of Anglo versus 

Hispanic or African American or Asian, because we have a higher 

percentage of minority population in the Harris County region. 

But it is a problem that is subject to a whole different debate in 

committee hearings on the problems of health care. The pure costs 

of illegal population detracts from our ability to deal with some of 

those other issues with the local population, with the communities 

that you and I both serve. 

I should also compliment you on your efforts on this and will continue to work on the health care issues on the broader issue of 

starting a penetration of the market of health care, our health insurance. I hear lots of statistics about no insurance, but that does 

not mean no health care, because they get health care. It is just 

you and I paying for it through our property taxes and Federal 

taxes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. But the question, or at least the basis of your 

response, is that we are suffering from lack of funding across the 

board. 

Judge ECKELS. It is a crisis in health care today, not only for the 

Harris County hospital district, for the for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, and often it is Federal policy that drives people into the ER, 

the most expensive place to provide services. I cannot lay the entire 

blame on the feet of the illegal population, no, ma’am. That is a 

problem that is aggravated by the illegal population, but certainly 

the total problem is not the population. A more comprehensive solution is required for that. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Thank you very much. I would like to pose 

these questions to both Council Member Garcia and Chief Hurtt. 

Might I add into the record, Mr. Chairman, the Major Cities 

Chiefs Association—and I am going to ask Chief Hurtt to list the 

cities because I don’t have them here—their statement that indicates that the nine-point position statement that is expressing their 

opposition to utilizing local resources, and these are the major cities of the Nation for Federal immigration enforcement. So the idea 

of zeroing out the SCAAP funding partly would be a problem for 

you in terms of detention, and the idea of not having law enforcement reimbursed for any work that they did that would involve 

Federal responsibility would be a problem. But I understand that 

you are suggesting not only would it be a problem in terms of your 

resources but it would literally undermine your ability to do your 

job on the ground for the citizens of Houston. 

Would you both respond to any pressure, might I say, Mr. Chairman, that they are operating under an amendment that has said 

that Houston would lose funding if they didn’t aggressively engage 

in going out and seeking individuals who might be nonstatus. 

Councilman Garcia. I am sorry, I ask unanimous consent to submit this into the record. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Without objection. 

[The information follows:]
113

SUBMITTED BY HAROLD HURTT

M.C.C. IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS BY LOCAL POLICE AGENCIES

ADOPTED BY: MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS

JUNE 2006

Prepared By: 

M.C.C. IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 

Craig E. Ferrell, Jr., (M.C.C. General Counsel), 

Chairman of Immigration Committee, Houston Police Department

Leroy D. Baca, Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department 

William J. Bratton, Los Angeles Police Department 

Ella M. Bully-Cummings, Detroit Police Department 

Raymond W. Kelly, New York City Police Department 

Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle Police Department 

Richard Miranda, Tucson Police Department 

Robert Parker, Miami-Dade Police Department 

Richard D. Wiles, El Paso Police Department 

M.C.C. NINE (9) POINT POSITION 

STATEMENT 

ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION 

LAWS BY LOCAL POLICE AGENCIES 

A. STATEMENT OF ISSUE 

Illegal immigration is a problem that faces our nation and society as a whole and 

one, which must be dealt with at the national level. It is absolutely critical that our 

country develop a consistent unified national plan to deal with immigration and this 

plan must include the critical component of securing our borders to prevent illegal 

entry into the United States. 

Since the horrendous attacks of September 11, 2001, local law enforcement has 

been called upon to do its part in protecting the nation from future terrorist attacks. 

The response of local law enforcement to the call to protect the homeland has been 

tremendous. Today, local police agencies stand as the first line of defense here at 

home to prevent future attacks. Local law enforcement?s unending efforts include 

providing additional training and equipment to officers, increasing communication 

and coordination with federal agencies, gathering, assessing and sharing intelligence, modifying patrol methods and increasing security for potential targets such 

as power plants, airports, monuments, ports and other critical facilities and infrastructure. Much of these efforts have been at a high cost to local budgets and resources. 

The federal government and others have also called upon local police agencies to 

become involved in the enforcement of federal immigration laws as part of the effort 

to protect the nation. This issue has been a topic of great debate in the law enforcement community since September 11. The call for local enforcement of federal immigration laws has become more prominent during the debate over proposed immigration reform at the national level. 

Major city police departments have a long undeniable history of working with federal law enforcement agencies to address crime in the United States whether committed by citizens, visitors, and/or illegal immigrants. Local police agencies have not 

turned a blind eye to crimes related to illegal immigration. They have and continue 

to work daily with federal agencies whenever possible and to the extent allowable 
114

under state criminal law enforcement authority to address crimes such as human 

trafficking and gang violence which have a nexus with illegal immigration. 

How local agencies respond to the call to enforce immigration laws could fundamentally change the way they police and serve their communities. Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many daunting and complex legal, logistical 

and resource issues for local agencies and the diverse communities they serve. Some 

in local law enforcement would embrace immigration enforcement as a means of addressing the violation of law represented by illegal immigration across our borders. 

Many others recognize the obstacles, pitfalls, dangers and negative consequences to 

local policing that would be caused by immigration enforcement at the local level. 

It is important for Major Cities Chiefs [M.C.C.] as a leader and representative of 

the local law enforcement community develop consensus on this important subject. 

The purpose of this position statement is to evaluate and address the impact and 

potential consequences of local enforcement of federal immigration laws and highlight steps, which if taken might allow local agencies to become involved in immigration enforcement. It is hoped that this statement will help to draw attention to 

the concerns of local law enforcement and provide a basis upon which to discuss and 

shape any future national policy on this issue. In this regard it is absolutely critical 

that M.C.C. be involved in all phases of this debate from developing this official position statement to demanding input and involvement in the development of any national initiatives.

B. OVERVIEW OF IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRANT STATUS 

The federal government has the clear authority and responsibility over immigration and the enforcement of immigration laws. With this authority, the federal government has enacted laws, such as the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), 

that regulate a person’s entry into the United States, his or her ability to remain 

in the country, and numerous other aspects of immigration. The federal government 

has given federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement [I.C.E.] 

the specific authority to investigate a person?s immigration status and deport individuals who have no legal status or authority to be in the United States.

Under the current immigration laws there exists various immigration status classifications. The immigration status of any particular person can vary greatly. The 

most common status classifications include the following:

1) Legal Immigrants are citizens of other countries who have been granted a 

visa that allows them to live and work permanently in the United States and to 

become naturalized U.S. citizens. Once here, they receive a card, commonly referred 

to as a ‘‘green card’’ from the federal government indicating they are permanent 

residents. Some legal immigrants are refugees who fear persecution based on race, 

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion in 

their home countries. Refugees are resettled every year in the United States after 

their requests for asylum have been reviewed and granted.

2) Nonimmigrant Visa Holders are persons who are granted temporary entry 

into the United States for a specific purpose, such as visiting, working, or studying. 

The U.S. has 25 types of nonimmigrant visas, including A1 visas for ambassadors, 

B2 visas for tourists, P1 visas for foreign sports stars who play on U.S. teams and 

TN visas for Canadians and Mexicans entering the U.S. to work under NAFTA. Visa 

Holders are allowed to stay in the U.S. as long as they meet the terms of their status.

3) Illegal Immigrants are citizens of other countries who have entered or remained in the U.S. without permission and without any legal status. Most illegal 

immigrants cross a land or sea border without being inspected by an immigration 

officer. Some person falls into illegal status simply by violating the terms of a legal 

entry document or visa.

4) Absconders are persons who entered the United States legally but have since violated the conditions of their visa and who have had a removal, deportation, or exclusion hearing before an immigration 

judge and are under a final order of deportation and have not left the United States. 

Currently there are between 8-12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., 

with another estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants entering the country every year. 

These immigrants by their sheer numbers have become a significant part of local 

communities and major cities in our nation. Some major urban areas estimate that 

their immigrant communities, regardless of immigration status, comprise 50%–60% 

of the local population and other areas report similar trends. The reality for major 

local police agencies throughout the nation is that the communities they serve and 

protect are diverse and include significant immigrant communities including documented and undocumented immigrants.
115

C. CONCERNS WITH LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS 

Local police agencies must balance any decision to enforce federal immigration 

laws with their daily mission of protecting and serving diverse communities, while 

taking into account: limited resources; the complexity of immigration laws; limitations on authority to enforce; risk of civil liability for immigration enforcement activities and the clear need to foster the trust and cooperation from the public including members of immigrant communities.

1) Undermine Trust and Cooperation of Immigrant Communities 

Major urban areas throughout the nation are comprised of significant immigrant 

communities. In some areas the immigrant community reaches 50-60 percent of the 

local population. Local agencies are charged with protecting these diverse populations with communities of both legal and illegal immigrants. The reality is that 

undocumented immigrants are a significant part of the local populations major police agencies must protect, serve and police. 

Local agencies have worked very hard to build trust and a spirit of cooperation 

with immigrant groups through community based policing and outreach programs 

and specialized officers who work with immigrant groups. Local agencies have a 

clear need to foster trust and cooperation with everyone in these immigrant communities. Assistance and cooperation from immigrant communities is especially important when an immigrant, whether documented or undocumented, is the victim of or 

witness to a crime. These persons must be encouraged to file reports and come forward with information. Their cooperation is needed to prevent and solve crimes and 

maintain public order, safety, and security in the whole community. Local police 

contacts in immigrant communities are important as well in the area of intelligence 

gathering to prevent future terroristic attacks and strengthen homeland security. 

Immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities. If the undocumented immigrant?s primary concern is that they will be deported or subjected to an immigration status investigation, then they will not come 

forward and provide needed assistance and cooperation. Distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the police would develop among legal immigrants as well. Undoubtedly legal immigrants would avoid contact with the police for fear that they 

themselves or undocumented family members or friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Without assurances that contact with the police would not 

result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the hard won trust, communication and cooperation from the immigrant community would disappear. Such a 

divide between the local police and immigrant groups would result in increased 

crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes 

or preventing future terroristic acts.

2) Lack of Resources 

The budgets and resources of local police agencies are not unlimited. Local police 

agencies struggle every year to find the resources to police and serve their respective communities. Since the events of September 11, local agencies have taken on 

the added duty of serving as the first line of defense and response to terrorist attacks for our country. These efforts on the local level to deter and prevent another 

terrorist attack and to be prepared to respond to the aftermath of an attack have 

stretched local resources even further. Since the creation of the Homeland Security 

Department, federal funding for major city police departments has been greatly reduced. Local agencies have also had to take on more responsibilities in areas that 

have traditionally been handled by the F.B.I. whose investigative resources are now 

more focused on counter-terrorism efforts. Local agencies are forced to fill the gap 

left by the shift of federal resources away from investigating white-collar crimes and 

bank robberies; areas traditionally handled by federal agencies. 

Enforcement of federal immigration laws would be a burden that most major police agencies would not be able to bear under current resource levels. The cost in 

terms of personnel, facilities and equipment necessary for local agencies to address 

the 8-12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be 

overwhelming. The federal government which has primary authority to enforce immigration laws has itself failed to provide the tremendous amount of resources necessary to accomplish such enforcement to its own agencies specifically charged with 

that responsibility. Local communities and agencies have even fewer resources to 

devote to such an effort than the federal government given all the numerous other 

demands on local police departments. 

0Local police agencies must meet their existing policing and homeland security 

duties and can not even begin to consider taking on the added burden of immigra-
116

tion enforcement until federal assistance and funding are in place to support such 

enforcement. Current calls for local police agencies to enforce immigration come 

with no clear statement or guarantee to provide adequate federal funding. Local 

agencies also fear that the call for local enforcement of immigration laws signals the 

beginning of a trend towards local police agencies being asked to enter other areas 

of federal regulation or enforcement.

3) Complexity of Federal Immigration Law 

Federal immigration laws are extremely complicated in that they involve both 

civil and criminal aspects. The federal government and its designated agencies such 

as I.C.E. and the Department of Justice have clear authority and responsibility to 

regulate and enforce immigration laws. It is these federal agencies who have the 

authority to determine if a person will be criminally prosecuted for their violations 

of immigration laws or be dealt with through a civil deportation process. Based on 

their authority, training, experience and resources available to them, these federal 

agencies and the federal courts are in the best position to determine whether or not 

a person has entered or remained in the country in violation of federal regulations 

and the applicability of criminal sanctions. 

Immigration violations are different from the typical criminal offenses that patrol 

officers face every day on their local beats. The law enforcement activities of local 

police officers revolve around crimes such as murder, assaults, narcotics, robberies, 

burglaries, domestic violence, traffic violations and the myriad of other criminal 

matters they handle on a regular basis. The specific immigration status of any particular person can vary greatly and whether they are in fact in violation of the complex federal immigration regulations would be very difficult if not almost impossible 

for the average patrol officer to determine. At this time local police agencies are ill 

equipped in terms of training, experience and resources to delve into the complicated area of immigration enforcement.

4) Lack of Local Authority and State Law Limitations of Authority 

The federal government has clear authority over immigration and immigration enforcement. Federal law does not require the states or local police agencies to enforce 

immigration laws nor does it give the states or local agencies the clear authority 

to act in the area of immigration. 

Laws in their respective states define the authority of local police officers. The authority of local police officers to act to enforce against criminal acts is clear and well 

established. However, federal immigration laws include both civil and criminal process to address immigration violations. It is within the authority of federal agencies 

such as I.C.E. and the Department of Justice to determine if an immigration violation will be dealt with as a criminal matter or through a civil process. Given the 

complexity of the immigration laws, it would be difficult for local police agencies to 

determine if a particular violation would result in criminal charges or purely civil 

proceedings and regulation. This duality in immigration law creates a gap in authority for local police officers who generally are limited to acting only in criminal 

matters. 

In addition state laws may restrict a local police officer?s authority to act even 

in criminal matters in such a way that it would prevent or hinder the officer’s ability to investigate, arrest or detain a person for immigration violations alone. Federal 

agents are specifically authorized to stop persons and conduct investigations as to 

immigration status without a warrant. Local police officers may be constrained by 

local laws that deal with their general police powers such as the ability to arrest 

without a warrant, lengths of detention and prohibitions against racial profiling. 

An example of this conflict between the civil nature of immigration enforcement 

and the established criminal authority of local police exists in the federal initiative 

of placing civil immigration detainer notices on the N.C.I.C. system. The N.C.I.C. 

system had previously only been used to notify law enforcement of strictly criminal 

warrants and/or criminal matters. The civil detainers being placed on this system 

by federal agencies notify local officers that the detainers are civil in nature by including a warning that local officers should not act upon the detainers unless permitted by the laws of their state. This initiative has created confusion due to the 

fact that these civil detainers do not fall within the clear criminal enforcement authority of local police agencies and in fact lays a trap for unwary officers who believe 

them to be valid criminal warrants or detainers.

5) Risk of Civil Liability 

In the past, local law enforcement agencies have faced civil litigation and liability 

for their involvement in immigration enforcement. For example, the Katy, Texas Police Department participated in an immigration raid with federal agents in 1994. 

A total of 80 individuals who were detained by the police were later determined to 

be either citizens or legal immigrants with permission to be in the country. The 
117

Katy police department faced suits from these individuals and eventually settled 

their claims out of court. 

Because local agencies currently lack clear authority to enforce immigration laws, 

are limited in their ability to arrest without a warrant, are prohibited from racial 

profiling and lack the training and experience to enforce complex federal immigration laws, it is more likely that local police agencies will face the risk of civil liability and litigation if they chose to enforce federal immigration laws.

D. M.C.C. NINE (9) POINT POSITION STATEMENT 

Based upon a review, evaluation and deliberation regarding the important and complex issue of local enforcement of federal immigration laws, 

the members of M.C.C., who are the 57 Chief Executive Officers of police 

departments located within a metropolitan area of more than 1.5 million 

population and which employs more than 1,000 law enforcement officers, 

hereby set forth our consensus position statement, which is comprised of 

nine crucial components.

1) SECURE THE BORDERS 

Illegal immigration is a national issue and the federal government should 

first act to secure the national borders to prevent illegal entry into the 

United States. We support further and adequate funding of the federal 

agencies responsible for border security and immigration enforcement so 

they can accomplish this goal. We also support consideration of all possible 

solutions including construction of border fences where appropriate, use of 

surveillance technologies and increases in the number of border patrol 

agents. Only when the federal government takes the necessary steps to 

close the revolving door that exists at our national borders will it be possible for local police agencies to even begin to consider dedicating limited 

local resources to immigration enforcement.

2) ENFORCE LAWS PROHIBITING THE HIRING OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS 

The federal government and its agencies should vigorously enforce existing immigration laws prohibiting employers from hiring illegal immigrants. 

Enforcement and prosecution of employers who illegally seek out and hire 

undocumented immigrants or turn a blind eye to the undocumented status 

of their employees will help to eliminate one of the major incentives for illegal immigration.

3) CONSULT AND INVOLVE LOCAL POLICE AGENCIES IN DECISION 

MAKING 

Major Cities Chiefs and other representatives of the local law enforcement community such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police 

and local district attorneys and prosecutors should be consulted and 

brought in at the beginning of any process to develop a national initiative 

to involve local police agencies in the enforcement of federal immigration 

laws. The inclusion of local law enforcement at every level of development 

would utilize their perspective and experience in local policing, address 

their concerns and likely result in a better program that would be more effectively implemented.

4) COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY 

Any initiative to involve local police agencies in the enforcement of immigration laws should be completely voluntary. The decisions related to how 

local law enforcement agencies allocate their resources, direct their workforce and define the duties of their employees to best serve and protect 

their communities should be left in the control of state and local governments. The decision to enter this area of enforcement should be left to the 

local government and not mandated or forced upon them by the federal 

government through the threat of sanctions or the withholding of existing 

police assistance funding.

5) INCENTIVE BASED APPROACH WITH FULL FEDERAL FUNDING 

Any initiative to involve local police agencies in the enforcement of immigration laws should be an incentive based approach with full federal funding to provide the necessary resources to the local agencies that choose to 

enforce immigration laws. Federal funds should be available to participating local agencies to cover the costs associated with enforcement such 

as expenditures on equipment and technology, training and educational 

programs and costs of housing, caring for and transporting immigrants 

prior to their release to federal authorities.
118

6) NO REDUCTION OR SHIFTING OF CURRENT ASSISTANCE FUNDING 

The funding of any initiative to involve local police agencies in the enforcement of immigration laws should not be at the detriment or reduction directly or indirectly of any current federal funding or programs focused on assisting 

local police agencies with local policing or homeland security activities. Local police 

agencies are currently working on strained budgets and limited resources to meet 

local policing needs and strengthening homeland security and in fact need increased 

funding and grant assistance in these areas. Merely shifting or diverting federal 

funding currently available for local policing and homeland security activities to any 

new immigration enforcement initiative would only result in a detrimental net loss 

of total resources available to local police agencies to police their neighborhoods and 

strengthen homeland security.

7) CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 

The authority of local police agencies and their officers to become involved in the enforcement of immigration laws should be clearly stated and 

defined. The statement of authority should also establish liability protection and an immunity shield for police officers and police agencies that 

take part in immigration enforcement as authorized by clear federal legislation.

8) REMOVAL OF CIVIL IMMIGRATION DETAINERS FROM THE N.C.I.C. 

SYSTEM 

Until the borders are secured and vigorous enforcement against employers who hire illegal immigrants has taken place and the concerns regarding lack of authority and confusion over the authority of local agencies to 

enforce immigration laws and the risk of civil liabilities are adequately addressed, M.C.C. strongly requests that the federal agencies cease placing 

civil immigration detainers on N.C.I.C. and remove any existing civil detainers currently on the system. The integrity of the system as a notice system for criminal warrants and/or criminal matters must be maintained. 

The inclusion of civil detainers on the system has created confusion for 

local police agencies and subjected them to possible liability for exceeding 

their authority by arresting a person upon the basis of a mere civil detainer. 

M.C.C. would encourage the federal agencies to seek federal criminal 

warrants for any person they have charged criminally with violations of 

immigration laws and submit those criminal warrants on the N.C.I.C. system so the warrants can be acted upon by local police officers within their 

established criminal enforcement authority and training.

9) COMMITMENT OF CONTINUED ENFORCEMNT AGAINST CRIMINAL 

VIOLATORS REGARDLESS OF IMMIGRATION STATUS 

M.C.C. member agencies are united in their commitment to continue arresting anyone who violates the criminal laws of their jurisdictions regardless of the immigration status of the perpetrator. Those immigrants, documented and/or undocumented, who commit criminal acts will find no safe 

harbor or sanctuary from their criminal violations of the law within any 

major city but will instead face the full force of criminal prosecution.
119

—————————————

Major Cities Chiefs Association 

Sun Valley, Idaho 

June 7, 2006

The President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and Houston, Texas Police 

Chief Harold Hurtt announced today the adoption of nine recommendations for the 

United States Congress and the President to assist in resolving the immigration crisis facing America today. The Major Cities Chiefs Association, comprised of the largest police agencies in America, are the first responders to over fifty million residents. We are very concerned that the public policy under consideration does not 

take into full account the realities of local law enforcement in dealing with this 

issue on the ground. The foundation of the nine point position statement is five key 

concerns with local police enforcing federal immigration law. These concerns are:

1. It undermines the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities which 

are essential elements of community oriented policing. 

2. Local agencies do not possess adequate resources to enforce these laws in addition to the added responsibility of homeland security. 

3. Immigration laws are very complex and the training required to understand 

them would significantly detract from the core mission of the local police to create safe communities. 

4. Local police do not posses clear authority to enforce the civil aspects of these 

laws. If given the authority the federal government does not have the capacity 

to handle the volume of immigration violations that currently exist. 

5. The lack of clear authority increases the risk of civil liability for local police 

and government.

Given these concerns the Major Cities Chiefs are recommending that Congress and the President adopt the following nine points: 

1. Securing the borders must be a top priority. 

2. Enforcement of the laws prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants. 

3. Consulting and involving local police agencies when developing any immigration initiative is imperative if the initiative is to involve local agencies. 

4. Federal law must not mandate local enforcement of federal law—all law enforcement initiatives must be completely voluntary 

5. There should be no reduction or shifting of current federal funding for state 

and local programs to pay for new immigration enforcement activities 

6. Any initiative involving local police agencies should be incentive based 

7. The authority and limitation of liability for local law enforcement officers and 

police agencies must be clear. 

8. Civil immigration detainers must be removed from the NCIC system 

9. MCC members are united in their commitment to continue arresting anyone 

who violates the criminal laws of their jurisdictions regardless of the immigration status of the perpetrator.

Most local police agencies have adopted policies of not inquiring about immigration status of individuals that are reporting crimes or in other encounters unless 

the person is suspected of committing a crime. Those policies have developed over 

the past 25 years because of law enforcement’s commitment to provide protection 

to everyone within their jurisdiction and more recently because of state and federal 

laws prohibiting racial profiling. In addition, the federal government does not have 

the capacity to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the US 

today. As Congress and the President wrestle with these difficult issues it is important that national policy reflect a clear understanding of the enormous challenges 

that local police face in dealing with illegal immigration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. And as I made the 

point in my comments, that Federal funding that law enforcement 

receives right now requires nondiscrimination policies and practices. If we were to be placed under a mandate, a Federal mandate 

to enforce immigration law, then I could foresee the chief of police 

having to institute a broad process like we do with racial profiling 

so that officers, number one, have to enforce the immigration law 

on every person that they come in contact with. So now, you know, 

a simple ticket that, you know, maybe takes 10, 15, 20 minutes to 

write is now an hour. And then where do they go to ask the question? 
120

Then that officer has got to not only go through that process but 

now he has got to document the fact that he is enforcing the second 

law so that he is in compliance with the first law. 

I see that as being entirely impractical for the street cops to do 

in the city of Houston because it would be a disservice to those 

folks that are needing emergency response or general police presence in the community. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Chief Hurtt. 

Chief HURTT. Congresswoman, what is being incurred by the 

Houston Police Department and other police departments across 

the country is a lack of resources to do the job. Right now, as the 

council member stated, we are 1,000 members short in the Houston 

Police Department. If we took on this issue of doing enforcement 

of immigration or just providing normal police service—because 

right now in the city of Houston there is anywhere between 10—

to 50,000 to 100,000 undocumented people believed living here—

there are no resources, local or Federal, for us to provide policing 

services to that population. We do that with the resources that we 

have here. 

Now, if we are going to do enforcement, I would need just 1,000 

officers to do that. If we are going to do immigration enforcement, 

I would need maybe 2,000, 2,500 more officers to do that enforcement. 

So those are the strains that it would put on the system as well 

as ICE. In my dealing with ICE and Federal agencies, like the 

Chair stated, when you stop people—and if we did stop everyone 

and ask them if they are an undocumented individual, I doubt very 

seriously the Federal Government would have the resources to respond and take those people off our hands. I know they don’t have 

the beds because they have 1,800 beds in this State and 10,000 in 

the country. It cannot be done. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. Judge Ted 

Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to get back on the subject. The subject is not immigration. 

The subject is not lawful immigration or immigrants. The subject 

is crime committed by illegals in the United States and especially 

in this area. So, gentlemen, I want to address that specific issue. 

I do want to thank all of you for being here. Councilman Garcia, 

you know I am not in your city, but I still call you my councilman 

because I appreciate the things you have done. It is great, with my 

background and yours, to see people in law enforcement take the 

step to go into politics. God bless you, but I appreciate you doing 

that and great success I hope in your future career. 

Judge Eckels, how many illegals are there in Harris County? 

Judge ECKELS. Between 400 and 430 are the best estimates that 

we have for this region. Some estimates are on the high side, but 

that is the estimate, is that population is at least 430,000. 

Mr. POE. Major O’Brien, I want to specifically ask you, if you 

know, of the illegals in the county jail, how many of them, percentage-wise, are OTM, other than from Mexico. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Sir, I don’t have that, but I do have the figures that 

typically 60 percent are Mexican and 20 percent are South or Cen-
121

tral America. So that would leave 20 percent being from other 

areas. 

Mr. POE. All right. How about in the State prison system. 

Mr. MORIARTY. The majority are Mexican descent, of the Mexican 

nationality, but I don’t have the numbers here. 

Judge ECKELS. Congressman, just on a percentage basis, if it reflects the hospital district, where we have a much better record, it 

runs just under 10 percent or other than Mexico of illegal population. 

Mr. POE. Of the people that go through the hospital district. 

Judge ECKELS. Hospital system is slightly under 9.5 Mexico that 

are other-than-Mexico illegals in the population. 

Mr. POE. It is obvious that local government is now saddled with 

the costs of illegal entry into the United States, but, on the issue 

of crime, I will ask the chief, if you could help us solve the problem 

on the Federal basis, how could the Federal Government, whose responsibility is border security, the failure to protect the border allows people to illegally come into the United States, to stop in 

Houston, Texas. Why not? And they commit crimes. How could the 

Federal Government help you and the city of Houston to have a 

safer community. 

Mr. HURTT. Number one, as we talked about probably all morning, the fact that additional resources, additional officers—as you 

know, in the middle 1990s, it was believed that between 80 to a 

hundred thousand officers were put on the streets of America 

through the COPS program and Federal funding, and crime went 

down. That program that put those 80 to a hundred thousand officers on the streets of America has now been reduced by 85 percent. 

A lot of the grant has been eliminated. And we understand that a 

lot of that money has to go to Federal agencies for homeland security and support the war. We are very supportive of that. But, at 

the same time, we have forgotten about the needs of the State and 

local law enforcement. Because we are battling the gangs, we are 

battling the drugs, we are battling the alcoholism and the same 

problems that we had in the 1990s, and if you ask me what do we 

need, we need financial assistance from the Federal Government. 

Mr. POE. Last question to Councilman Garcia. With your extensive background being with gangs over the years, explain to me, if 

you would, how failure to secure the borders has promoted gang activity here in the Houston area, if it has. 

Mr. GARCIA. There has been an impact in MS–13 and other 

criminal street gangs that have come from various parts of Latin 

America as well as from Europe and Asia and other countries. 

Mr. POE. For the record, MS–13 originated in what country. 

Mr. GARCIA. In El Salvador. 

Mr. POE. Go ahead. 

Mr. GARCIA. The challenge is, one, that we do a great job arresting these guys when they are gang banging on our streets. 

The problem that I have seen firsthand in my travels through 

Guatemala, as an example, is that when we deport them we are 

deporting them to a third-rate law enforcement, you know, entity 

in those respective countries. They don’t have a handle with them. 

So the fact that you have poor border security and you have an active deportation process, all you are doing is creating a place where 
122

they can rest up, get going again and come right back. It just has 

empowered the overall subculture of the criminal street gang network. 

So it is important that good border security be present, obviously, 

but it is also important through our programs like easy tap that 

we make sure that agencies in other countries that we are funding 

are being given the expertise, the resources, the equipment to 

make sure that they are handling and can handle these violent individuals when they are deported back home. 

What I have just seen is they get back—it took me 30 days to 

convince the National Police of Guatemala to take me into some of 

their ghettos. Because they don’t patrol them. They are afraid; and 

after about an hour there, I understood why. I wanted to get out 

of there myself. 

So there are challenges, and it does perpetuate one to the other. 

Mr. POE. Thank y’all once again. 

Judge ECKELS. Congressman, one number that you asked for I 

did find here. Of all defendants of both misdemeanor and felony 

trials who were non-U.S. citizens, 60.4 percent were born in Mexico. 67 percent, about two-thirds of those from Mexico, were in Harris County illegally, which will make that about half of the total 

number of non—U.S. citizens legally and illegally. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, and Ms. Jackson-Lee has appealed to 

the Chair for 30 seconds. I will grant that, but hold your feet to 

the fire. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Thank you. Your generosity is overwhelming. 

That is how Texans work together. There are two gentlemen over 

there and one is holding on. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Your 30 seconds is expiring. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Let me just ask a direct question to Chief 

Hurtt. We understand that the Governor has asked for a hundred 

million dollars, again, out of very paltry State funds, to go to the 

border and is needed, but what effect does that have on you? Do 

you understand any of those funds will come to you for immigration work and law enforcement or is that, as we say, borrowing 

from Peter to pay Paul? 

Chief HURTT. To my knowledge, none of that fund is directed to 

the city of Houston for law enforcement purposes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent to impose into the record the Secure America 9/11 Commission security recommendations report that has been authored by 

the minority of Homeland Security. 

I would ask unanimous consent— 

Mr. MCCAUL. Without objection. 

[The information is maintained in the committee file.] 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I ask unanimous consent that an Effective 

Criminal Justice Coalition University Leadership Initiative be 

added to the record. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information is maintained in the committee file.] 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I ask, finally, the 9/11 report by the 9/11 Commission that has given F’s to risk-based homeland security funding, 
123

meaning that cities like Houston have been deprived of homeland 

security based on risk, I ask unanimous consent that be added. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Without objection. 

[The information is maintained in the committee file.] 

Mr. MCCAUL. The gentlewoman’s time has expired, I believe. 

I just wanted to end on the note that when—I worked in the Attorney General’s office, and the presence of gangs, MS–13, Mexican 

Mafia, many of whom are illegal not only on the streets but, as you 

know, in TDCJ and the prison system and they work very actively 

there and they are a threat. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing here today. Your testimony has been very insightful and very helpful to this committee. 

With that having been said, I will excuse the witnesses and call 

our third panel. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MCCAUL. The committee will now come to order. 

We have our third and last panel. I want to thank the witnesses 

for being here. We are going to try to keep our comments limited, 

but we understand we have a couple of personal stories that I want 

you to take your time with that and not feel restrained time-wise. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Steven Stone, Texas 

State trooper, to testify.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN MICHAEL STONE, TEXAS STATE 

TROOPER 

Mr. STONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, 

for allowing me to share my story with you; and I will try to paraphrase as much as possible. 

On March 22, 2006, I conducted what started out to be a routine 

traffic stop in Smith County. I stopped a pickup truck for speeding. 

Initially, the pickup truck did not want to stop, continued for some 

distance before doing so. 

When the vehicle finally pulled over to the shoulder of the roadway, I walked up and observed two Hispanic males inside the pickup truck. These Hispanic males were identified as Ramon Ramos 

and Francisco Saucedo at a later time. 

I asked Ramos to exit the vehicle. In doing so, I found an open 

container of alcohol in the vehicle. Further investigation was conducted, and Ramos was found have a small bundle of marijuana 

contained in his coat. 

As Ramos was being placed under arrest, Saucedo began to exit 

the vehicle. Saucedo was instructed twice to get back in the vehicle. 

However, he continued to exit and was not compliant. 

Saucedo was again instructed for a third time to get back into 

the vehicle. At this time, I felt threatened and drew my weapon 

and pointed it at him. It was at this time that I heard gunshots 

and felt an intense pain in my left shoulder. My vision had gone 

black, but I could still hear myself yelling and sounds of more gunshot. 

When I regained my vision, I was lying in a ditch looking up at 

Mr. Ramos, and Mr. Saucedo shooting down at me. I attempted to 

fire back at Ramos and Saucedo, but I was unable to do so. Ramos 

and Saucedo fired numerous rounds down into the ditch where I 
124

was lying before jumping in their vehicle and driving off, leaving 

me for dead. 

I had been hit two or three times in the neck, two times in the 

chest, one time in the left side of my back. One of the bullets that 

hit me in the chest rode just under the skin and exited near my 

neck. The bullet that went into my back fractured my shoulder 

blade and shattered my collarbone before exiting the top of my left 

shoulder. Despite these injuries, I was able to make my way back 

to my patrol vehicle and radio for help. I was able to give a brief 

description of the suspect vehicle and its direction of travel. 

When backup arrived, I was transported to the hospital by a 

Smith County sheriff’s deputy in a patrol car. 

While I was being transported to the hospital, Tyler Police Department, with the help of a Tyler citizen, were able to begin pursuing the suspect vehicle. Ramos and Saucedo led Tyler police 

units on a high-speed chase through the city of Tyler. Ramos and 

Saucedo shot at pursuing police units with automatic gunfire with 

total disregard for the officers or the civilians who sat innocently 

in their cars as the pursuit passed by. 

The pursuit ended when the suspects lost control of their vehicle 

and collided with another vehicle on the shoulder of the roadway. 

Ramos and Saucedo were both charged with 14 counts of aggravated assault on a public servant. 

Ramon Ramos just recently pled guilty to all 14 counts and was 

charged with two life sentences to be served consecutively. Investigation showed that Ramos had been criminally deported from the 

United States on two different occasions prior to this on Federal 

weapon and drug charges. Ramos had been living illegally in the 

United States for approximately 3 to 4 years prior to the 22nd of 

March 2006. 

On the night of the shooting, Ramos and his partner were in possession of body armor, a rifle modified for automatic fire, a handgun modified for automatic fire, two or more handguns, numerous 

knives, drugs and alcohol; and, at the time of this report, Mr. 

Saucedo still has not gone to trial. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Sir, I want to thank you for your testimony, your 

service to this State, your courage in what you did and your courage to come before us here today and testify; and we are very glad 

you are here to testify. 

Mr. STONE. Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of Mr. Stone follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT STEVEN STONE

On March 22, 2006 I conducted what started out to be a routine traffic stop. I 

had stopped a blue pickup truck on TX 31 in Smith County for speeding. The pickup 

was occupied by two Hispanic males who were later identified as Ramon Ramos and 

Francisco Saucedo. After asking Ramos to exit the vehicle an open container of alcohol was found in the front seat of the pickup. Further investigation was conducted 

and Ramos was found to have a small bundle of Marijuana inside one of his coat 

pockets. As Ramos was being placed under arrest, Saucedo began exiting the vehicle. Saucedo was instructed twice to get back into the vehicle; however, he continued 

exiting the vehicle. 

Saucedo was again instructed to get back into the vehicle; however, this time, I 

drew my duty weapon and pointed it at him. It was at this time that I heard gun 

shots and felt an intense pain in my left shoulder. My vision had gone black, but 

I could still hear myself yelling and the sounds of more gun shots. When I regained 

my vision I was lying at the bottom of a drainage ditch and was looking up at 
125

Ramos and Saucedo, but was unable to do so. Ramos and Saucedo fired numerous 

rounds down into the ditch where I was lying before jumping into their vehicle and 

driving off; leaving me for dead. 

I had been hit two or three times in the neck, two times in the chest, and one 

time in the left side of my back. One of the bullets that hit me in the chest rode 

just under the skin and exited near my neck. The bullet that went into my back 

fractured my shoulder blade and shattered my collar bone before exiting the top of 

my left shoulder. Despite these injuries I was able to make my way back to my patrol vehicle and radio for help. I was able to give a brief description of the suspect 

vehicle and its direction of travel. When backup arrived, I was transported to the 

hospital in the back of a Smith County Sheriff’s patrol car. 

While I was being transported to the hospital, Tyler Police Department, with the 

help of a Tyler citizen, had begun pursuing the suspect vehicle. Ramos and Saucedo 

lead Tyler Police units on a high speed chase throughout the city of Tyler. Ramos 

and Saucedo shot at pursuing police units with automatic gun fire with total disregard for the officers or the innocent civilians that sat innocently in their vehicles 

as the pursuit passed by. The pursuit ended when the suspects lost control of their 

vehicle and collided with another vehicle on the shoulder of the roadway. Ramos 

and Saucedo were both charged with 14 counts of aggravated assault on a public 

servant. 

Ramon Ramos just recently pled guilty to all 14 counts and was charged with two 

life sentences to be served consecutively. Investigation showed that Ramos had been 

criminally deported from the United States on two different occasions because of 

federal weapon and drug offenses. Ramos had been living illegally in the United 

States for approximately 3 to 4 years prior to March 22, 2006. On the night of the 

shooting, Ramos and his partner were in possession of body armor, a rifle modified 

for automatic fire, a handgun modified for automatic fire, two or more handguns, 

numerous knives, drugs and alcohol. 

At the time of this report, Saucedo has not been to trial.

Mr. MCCAUL. Next, the Chair now recognizes Mrs. Carrie Ruiz 

for her testimony.

STATEMENT OF CARRIE RUIZ 

Mrs. RUIZ. Thank you for having us here today. 

This is my husband Lucio, and we are the parents of 17-year-old 

Felicia Ruiz. She was murdered October 30, 1999, by an illegal 

alien from Venezuela who had been here since he was 4 years old. 

His mother, Stella Rosa Salazar, is still here in the U.S., right here 

in Houston illegally; and she helped him. She sent his passport to 

Miami, Florida, after he murdered our daughter where he went, 

and some friends had it there, and they gave his passport to him. 

His father flew down from Venezuela, picked him up and took him 

back. He left Houston on November 17. 

Felicia was murdered October 30, and we buried her November 

3rd. She was ambushed by Salazar and Felisa Muerta and J. Lewis 

Ferrill. She was beaten, her throat was cut, and she was stabbed 

over 39 times. She was our only daughter and our pride and joy, 

and she was a good-hearted girl. She never bothered anybody. She 

loved to talk on the phone. She had a lot of friends. 

But Salazar and Muerta wanted her to join a gang, and she refused to do that. She also helped the gang task force officers by 

ID’ing a gang member, and in the process some way it got back. 

It got back to Salazar and them, and they murdered her for that 

reason, for retaliation. 

So, you know, it is been real tough on my husband and I. And 

what we don’t understand is that Salazar had been here since he 

was 4 years old, and he spoke very good English, but nobody knew 

that he was from Venezuela. When he was taken down to homicide 

and questioned after he killed Felicia, he had cuts and bruises and 
126

things on his hands, and they took a picture of it, and they took 

a picture of him, and they took his statement, and then they let 

him go. They didn’t ask him if he was a citizen, American citizen 

or where he was from. They had no way of knowing that. 

When he walked out that door, he was gone. About a week or so 

later, the murder warrant came out on him; and he was already 

gone. He had already left for Venezuela. 

It is just—it has been—it is just something that my husband and 

I, we don’t understand. I mean, we all know about Venezuela. We 

all know that Chavez and the United States don’t mix. We all know 

that. We know everything about that. But the bottom line is, if 

these illegals are going to come into the country, come into America 

from Venezuela or El Salvador or wherever they come from and 

there is a no extradition to these countries, then if they commit felony murder here like Salazar did and then they go back to their 

countries to hide, to avoid prosecution, then the government needs 

to step in. 

There should be some kind of clause with these countries with 

these no extradition laws so that the American authorities can go 

in there and get these criminals and bring them back to stand trial 

for murder here in the U.S. 

Because they are protected here. Their rights are protected here. 

Then they commit murder, they go back to their country, and then 

they are protected there. So where is the justice for the victim? 

Where is the justice for my daughter, for our daughter and for all 

the other families who have had children or loved ones murdered 

by illegal aliens? Where is the justice? Because there is not any. 

It has been 7 years—going on 7 years, and Salazar has been in 

Venezuela. The FBI knows he is over there. They have been keeping up with him. But we finally had to turn to Congressman Green 

to help us because we were getting nowhere. The FBI couldn’t find 

ways to get him. There was no extradition, you know, and so we 

finally asked him to help us. So he got with the Ambassador of 

Venezuela, and the Ambassador of Venezuela told him that there 

is a 1922 treaty with the United States and Venezuela that is still 

in effect, the document that they needed to try to bring Salazar out 

of there. 

But we have had everybody, the homicide detectives, FBI, everybody involved in this. Except one person has refused to help us, 

and that is our own district attorney, Chuck Rosenthal, and why 

I can’t figure it out. His reasoning does not make any sense to our 

family. 

Even the district attorney on our daughter’s case that handled 

the trial agreed to give the Ambassador of Venezuela all the documents he needed, agreed to go along with it. But Chuck Rosenthal 

overruled him and refused to let that happen because he said that 

it would show favoritism, you know, for us to be able to get him 

back and him only do 30 years because Venezuelan law requires 

that he would be able to only do 30 years. 

We weren’t happy with that. We didn’t like the fact that Salazar 

could only get 30 years, but we were willing to accept it because 

we would rather see him in a Texas prison answering for what he 

did to Felicia instead of being over there living his life and never 
127

answering for it, and if we don’t do something now we may never 

get him back. 

So, you know, it is tough. We love her. We miss her. We think 

about her every day. I think about the pain and the fear she went 

through. 

I think about the three people being on top of her that night. I 

think about Salazar hit her so hard that they said her feet flew up 

in the air, and she landed in a fetal position. And when she came 

to, she tried—she fought like hell to stay alive, but she couldn’t because there were three of them on top of her. Muerta was cutting 

her throat and Salazar grabbed a knife and he stabbed her and 

stabbed her until I guess he got tired of stabbing her. 

They went to walk away, and when they looked back, her body 

must have moved or jumped, and they went back and flipped her 

over, and they kept standing on her until she stopped moving. And 

then they walked away like it was nothing, and they left her in 

that cold, empty field. 

Yes, the borders need to be secure; and, yes, you need to do 

something about this. All these illegals over here, all you hear 

about, oh, they are so good for the economy, so good for this. But 

what about the ones that come over here and they don’t get jobs 

and they do commit violent crimes and the first thing they do is 

dash back over to where they come from? They want to reap all the 

benefits from the U.S., but at the time, when they commit felony 

murder or something, then they want to run back and be protected 

in their countries, and that is wrong. 

Not all of them are over here to get a good job and to work and 

support their families. There is lot of them over here that do come 

and commit violent crimes, and it is wrong, and we do need to do 

something about it. 

We need Congressman Green’s help and everybody’s to be able 

to get Salazar back. 

What about his mom? I mean, I would like to know why she is 

still walking these streets when she helped him leave here, when 

she aided and abetted him in this homicide by helping him get out 

of the country. INS don’t pick them up. They don’t do anything. 

They haven’t gotten her. She always stays a step ahead of the detective, every time, when they try to find her. When they do finally 

catch up with her, she moves on somewhere else. 

It is tough, and I am sorry I was crying, but it just makes it 

makes me and my husband so upset because we want justice for 

our daughter. We are not satisfied with just the two that are in 

prison. We want Salazar brought back here and for him to answer 

for what he did to Felicia. 

This was a retaliation killing. She was a beautiful young girl 

with a lot of hopes and dreams. My husband will never get to walk 

her down the aisle, will never get to see her have grandkids, all 

the things that we looked forward to when we get old. He took all 

of that away from us, and he took everything away from her and 

that is wrong. 

He should not be allowed to be protected by Venezuelan law. You 

know, like I said, he was here since he was 4 years old, and nobody 

ever knew. He went to school here. Hell, he spoke better English 

than I do, you know. 
128

And what they say, the police officers can’t stop and ask them 

and all the kind of stuff and it takes so much time to do that. Well, 

you know what? Hey, okay, but what if one of these people they 

are stopping is wanted for a violent murder here in the U.S.? 

What? You just going to let them go because you are not going to 

bother to ask who they are or where they are from? 

So I don’t know. It is hard. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Let me express my heartfelt sympathy on behalf 

of myself and the committee for what you had to go through. As 

a father of four daughters, I can’t imagine the pain that you must 

be experiencing every day, and you are a victim every day when 

you have to remember this. That is why I thank you for coming forward to testify to tell your story. It takes a lot of courage. 

Mrs. RUIZ. We appreciate it very much. I am sorry about crying 

and everything, but I just—you know, she was a beautiful girl, and 

I just want everybody to see what they took away from us. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Let me also pledge my support to assist you in 

bringing Mr. Salazar to justice. 

Mrs. RUIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I know I speak for the other members standing 

here as well. Thank you for coming forward. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Next, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Dennis Nixon, 

the chairman of the International Bank of Commerce.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS E. NIXON, CHAIRMAN, 

INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE 

Mr. NIXON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

My name is Dennis Nixon. I am CEO and chairman of the International Bank of Commerce, also known as IBC Bank. I am also 

a resident of Laredo, Texas, a city on our southern border where 

I have lived and worked for 36 years. 

Today, I am also speaking as chairman of the Alliance for Security and Trade, a Texas-based coalition that is focusing on improving the security of our country while helping ensure the free flow 

of business and commerce, protecting American jobs, and thus ensuring our prosperity. 

There has been a lot of discussion here today on the crime and 

violence that is associated with illegal immigration. There is no 

doubt that we have problems along the borders, as well as the interior of this State and the country. 

I believe that in order to make any headway in reducing crime 

caused by illegal immigrants, we need to reduce the number of immigrants who enter this country illegally. That may sound simplistic and obvious, but the problem lies in our search for solutions. 

Illegal immigration is not a border issue. It is a national issue. 

Those who are focused on enforcement only, a feel-good security 

solution, are doing this country more harm by pushing an agenda 

that sounds warm and fuzzy but, in reality, undercuts our economy 

and makes us more vulnerability. The build-a-wall-and-throwthem-out mentality is, in essence, a denial of admission agenda 

that is anti-immigrant, antitourist and anticommerce. 

We cannot continue to abuse our neighboring countries through 

excessive border security, sending a ‘‘don’t come’’ message when all 
129

these visitors want to do is spend money and add value to our economy. We live in a global economy, and we must recognize that we 

cannot continue our prosperity by isolating ourselves from the 

world and abusing the relationships that have been built over the 

last several decades. NAFTA has been a huge success. We don’t 

want to turn back on the enormous value that this agreement has 

added to our economy and our quality of life. 

If security and terrorism is the real concern, then why should we 

treat the northern and southern border differently? It makes no 

sense to focus all our attention on the southern border and leave 

the Canadian border insecure. After all, the Canadian border is 

twice as long as the southern border and has represented more terrorist threats in the past than the southern border. 

Considering how far apart the House and Senate are on this 

issue, will we ever find the sweet spot that solves the problem and 

is acceptable to all parties involved? I believe the answer can be 

found in connecting the dots. 

We know that approximately 5—to 600,000 people enter this 

country illegally each year. Setting arbitrary caps on the number 

of workers will not reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. Employer 

sanctions won’t solve the problem. They will keep coming, because 

our economy creates a need for their work. Failure to recognize this 

need makes the consequences clear: continued illegal immigration, 

stagnation resulting from tight labor markets, more outsourcing because businesses will go where the labor is, and ensuring an 

underclass of illegal workers. 

What is our goal here? Is it to apprehend the criminals or prevent the crimes from ever occurring? As long as our focus is on enforcement, not prevention, the cycle will never end unless we start 

treating the problem and not just the symptom. 

A Border Patrol officer’s worst nightmare is that a 9/11-type terrorist will slip into this country under his or her watch. The scenario is possible if we spend all of our time chasing down people 

who come here to wash dishes and mow lawns so they can feed 

their families. 

Let us route those who want to come here through legal channels 

and by doing so we can weed out the criminals. That way the only 

ones crossing the border illegally are more likely to be the ones 

that mean us harm. This will allow our Border Patrol to make better use of their resources and catch the bad guys. 

There has been a lot of talk about Laredo and other border communities during these hearings across the country, much of which 

has been mischaracterized and misunderstood. We have crime like 

any other city, and no one disputes the violence across the border. 

But contrary to what you heard about Laredo, Texas, it is not a 

war zone. It is not high noon, and we are not at the OK corral. I 

feel just as safe walking downtown near our bank headquarters 

five blocks north of the border as I do at my ranch, which is eight 

miles north of the Rio Grande. 

We cannot allow a few opportunistic law enforcement officials to 

mischaracterize the problems any more than we can say no border 

at all. All things in life work best with proper balance. 

Workers are coming to this country because our economy would 

collapse without people to fill the vacant jobs. Across this country, 
130

we are experiencing labor shortages that are about to get worse if 

we don’t got the problem fixed. 

Our national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent, one of the lowest 

levels in our Nation’s history. For all practical purposes, we are at 

full employment in this country; and that includes all of the employed unauthorized workers. 

This tight labor market makes it difficult for many businesses to 

find good workers. Across this country we have jobs that are going 

unfilled, and I can say without hesitation the problem exists at IBC 

Bank. We have a large number of authorized positions we have not 

been able to fill. 

Recently, Florida citrus growers announced that many of their 

groves may go unharvested because of the scarcity of workers 

there. 

Several weeks ago, an Oklahoma saddle maker lost 50 of his 75 

employees in a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

This is one of Sulphur, Oklahoma’s, largest employers. 

If the workers were hired with forged documents, then we clearly 

need a system that people with expertise in saddle making don’t 

need to have expertise in verifying documents. This system must 

be accurate, fast and efficient. If the saddle maker knowingly hired 

illegal workers, then that is wrong, and he broke the law. Either 

way, it proves that workers are hard to come by in this tight labor 

market, and we need an immigration system with a guest worker 

program that works. Destroying this business has done no one any 

good. 

Business will go where the labor is, and if we don’t want jobs to 

go south of the border or overseas through outsourcing then we 

must be willing to import enough workers to keep the jobs here. 

We can’t have it both ways, and as a country we need to make up 

our mind which direction we are going. 

The country needs a stable workforce so that business can grow, 

prosper and create more jobs. However, hurdles lie ahead that 

could prevent a stable workforce. 

The baby boomers are on the leading edge of retirement, and it 

is estimated that over the next 10 to 20 years 82 million baby 

boomers will retire and be replaced by 67 million new workers, resulting in a shortage of 15 million workers. 

At the same time, the U.S. fertility rate is projected to fall below 

replacement level; and in a report released last November to Congress, the Congressional Budget Office made it patently clear that 

unless native fertility rates increase most of the growth in the U.S. 

labor force will come from immigration by the middle of the century. 

The failure to provide enough workers to satisfy our demand for 

labor means many businesses will be forced to fight for the small 

pool of available native workers by bidding up wages. That will 

have significant and long-lasting consequences for our economy, including stagnation at some point. Because our population continues 

to age, and when the baby boomers retire and our native fertility 

rates decline, we will increasingly run short of willing and able 

workers. This action will likely force many companies to outsource 

their jobs in order to grow their business, but many who have no 

choice will suffer extreme hardship in terms of accomplishing their 
131

business goals. The hotel, food service, construction, and agricultural industries are just a few that will suffer as a result of their 

inability to find workers in such a tight labor market. 

Across Texas, police departments in cities like San Antonio and 

Dallas and Houston are facing manpower shortages as positions go 

unfilled. I foresee a similar situation with our Armed Forces. A 

tight labor market will cause a ripple effect in the economy, including competitive pressure that could mean young Americans might 

be more likely to choose a job in the private sector instead of one 

in the military, resulting in reinstitution of the draft. 

One way to stop illegal immigration is to relieve the pressure on 

the border by creating a guest worker program that will supply us 

the workers we need, bring them through legal channels, and help 

us keep better track of who is in this country and why. 

When we installed fences in southern California, we treated the 

symptoms. While illegal crossings decreased in the urban areas, 

overall illegal immigration continued to increase. In the end, we diverted immigrants from safe crossing points only to watch them die 

in the desert. In the process, we destroyed circularity. People no 

longer come and go. They stay in the United States, and they bring 

their families. 

Let’s not make the same mistake in our approach to fixing the 

immigration system. An enforcement-only approach will only continue to encourage illegal immigrants to go around the system or 

stay in the shadows. 

I believe Mayor Bloomberg said it best. ‘‘It is as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: 

defeat the natural market forces of supply and demand and defeat 

the natural human desire for freedom and opportunity.’’ 

That is why we must focus on the problem, which is making sure 

we provide enough workers to supply the labor demand that will 

keep our country strong. That will result in a reduction in crime 

and give our law enforcement agencies the time to hunt down the 

bad guys, instead of spending a disproportionate amount of their 

time looking for the next generation of construction workers. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Nixon. 

[The statement of Mr. Nixon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS E. NIXON

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Dennis and I am the CEO 

and Chairman of International Bank of Commerce, also known as IBC Bank. I’m 

also a resident of Laredo, Texas, a city on our Southern Border where I have lived 

and worked for 36 years. 

Today, I am also as chairman of the Alliance for Security and Trade—a Texasbased coalition that is focused improving security efforts of our country, while helping ensure the free flow of business and commerce, protecting American jobs, and 

thus assuring our prosperity. 

There has been a lot of discussion here today on the crime and violence that are 

associated with illegal immigration. There is no doubt that we have problems along 

our borders as well as in the interior of this state and country. 

I believe that in order to make headway in reducing crime caused by illegal immigrants, we need to reduce the number of immigrants who enter this country illegally. That may sound simplistic and obvious, but the problem lies in search for solutions. Illegal immigration is not a border issue, it’s a national issue that emanates 

deep from within the heartland. 

Those who are focused on an enforcement-only, a feel-good security solution, are 

doing this more harm by pushing an agenda that sounds warm and fuzzy, but in 

reality, undercuts our economy making us more vulnerable. 
132

The ‘‘build-a-wall and throw-them out’’ mentality is in essence a‘‘denial-of-admission agenda’’ that is anti-immigrant, anti-tourist, and anti-commerce. 

We can not continue to abuse our neighboring countries through excessive border 

security sending a ‘‘don’t come’’ message when all these visitors want to do is spend 

money and add value to our economy. We live in a global economy and we must 

realize that we can not continue our prosperity by isolating ourselves from the world 

and abusing the relationships that have been built over the last several decades. 

NAFTA has been a huge success, we don’t want to turn our back on the enormous 

value that this agreement has added to our economy and our quality of life. 

If security and terrorism is the real concern, then we should treat the Northern 

and Southern Border the same. It makes no sense to focus all our attention on the 

Southern Border and leave the Canadian Border insecure. After all, the Canadian 

Border is twice as long as the Southern Border and has represented more of a terrorists’ threat in past than the Southern Border. 

Considering how far apart the House and Senate are on this on this issue, will 

we ever find the sweet spot that solves the problem and is acceptable to all parties 

involved? 

I believe the answer can be found in connecting the dots. 

We know that approximately five to six hundred thousand people enter this country illegally each year. Setting arbitrary caps on the number of workers won’t reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. Employer sanctions won’t solve the problem. 

They will keep coming because our economy creates a need for their labor. Failure 

to recognize this need and create a program that works makes the consequences 

clear: • Continued illegal immigration; • Stagnation from a tight labor market; and • More outsourcing because business will go to where the labor is. • Insuring an underclass of illegal workers 

What is our goal here? Is it to apprehend the criminals? Or prevent the crimes 

from ever occurring? As long as our focus is on enforcement and not prevention, the 

cycle will never end unless we start treating the problem—and not just the symptom. 

A border patrol officer’s worst nightmare is that a 9/11-type terrorist will slip into 

this country under his or her watch. That scenario is possible if they spend all of 

their time chasing down people who are coming here to wash dishes and mow lawns 

so they can feed their families. 

Let us route those who want to come here—through legal channels and by doing 

so, we can weed out the criminals. That way, the ones crossing the border illegally 

are more likely to be the ones that mean us harm. This allow our border patrol to 

make better use of their resources to catch the bad quys. 

There has been a lot of talk about Laredo and other border communities during 

these hearings across country—much of which has been mischaracterized or misunderstood. We have crime like any other city, and no one disputes the violence 

across the border, but contrary to what you may have heard—Laredo Texas is not 

a war zone. It is not high noon and we are not at the O-K Corral. I feel just just 

as safe walking downtown near our bank headquarters five blocks north of the border, as I do at my ranch eight miles north of the Rio Grande. 

We cannot allow a few opportunistic law enforcement officials to mischaracterize 

the problems anymore than we can say we need no border security at all. All things 

in life work best with proper balance. 

Workers are coming to this country because our economy would collapse without 

people to fill vacant jobs. Across this country, we are experiencing labor shortages 

that are about to get worse if we don’t fix the problem. 

Our national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent, one of the lowest levels in our 

nation’s history. For all practical purposes, we are at full employment in this country and that includes all of the employed unauthorized workers. 

This tight labor market it difficult for many businesses to find good workers. 

Across this country we have jobs that are going unfilled and I can say without hesitation, that problem exists at IBC Bank—we have a large number of authorized positions we have not been able to fill. 

Recently, Florida citrus growers announced that many of their groves may go 

unharvested because of the scarcity of workers there. 

Several weeks ago, an Oklahoma saddle maker lost 50 of his 75 employees in a 

raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This was one of Sulphur, Oklahoma’s largest employers. If the workers were hired with forged documents, then 

we clearly need a system so that people with expertise in making saddles do not 

need expertise in verifying documents. That system must be accurate, fast and efficient. 
133

If the saddle maker knowingly hired illegal workers, then that was wrong and he 

broke the law. Either way, it proves that workers are hard to come by in this tight 

labor market, and we need an immigration system with a guest worker program 

that works. Destroying this business does no one any good. 

As I mentioned, business will go to where the labor is and if we don’t want jobs 

to go south of the border or overseas through outsourcing, then we must be willing 

to import enough workers to keep the jobs here. We can’t have it both ways, and 

as a country, we need to make up our mind. 

The country needs a stable work force so that businesses can grow, prosper and 

create more jobs. However, hurdles lie ahead that could prevent that stable work 

force.

The baby boomers are on the leading edge of retirement and it is estimated that 

over the next 10 to 20 years, 82 million baby boomers will retire and be replaced 

by 67 million new workers, resulting in a shortage of 15 million workers. 

At the same time, the U.S. fertility rate is projected to fall below ‘‘replacement’’ 

level. And in a report released last November to Congress, The Congressional Budget Office made it patently clear that ‘‘Unless native fertility rates in- crease. . . .most of the growth in the U.S. labor force will come from immigration by the middle of the century,′′ European fertility rates have been steadily falling for the past two decades. In 

countries like Spain and Italy, one-child families are getting closer to being the 

norm. That means the growth of our labor force is going to come from immigrants, 

and the children of immigrants from this hemisphere. 

The failure to provide enough workers to satisfy our demand for labor means 

many businesses will be forced to fight for the small pool of available native workers 

by bidding up wages. That will have significant long lasting consequences for our 

economy, including stagnation at some point because as our population continues to 

age, the baby boomers retire and our native fertility rates decline, we will increasingly run short of willing and able workers. 

This action will likely force many companies to outsource their jobs in order to 

grow there business, but many who have no choice will suffer extreme hardship in 

terms of accomplishing their business goals. The hotel, food service, construction 

and agricultural industries are just a few that suffer as a result of their inability 

to find workers in such a tight labor market. 

Across Texas, police departments in cities like San Antonio, Dallas and Houston 

are facing manpower shortages as positions go unfilled. Police officials in those cities 

cite the perfect storm of baby-boom retirements combined with a younger generation 

that is shying away from police work. 

I foresee a similar situation with our armed services. A tight labor market will 

cause a ripple effect in the economy including competitive pressure that could mean 

young Americans might be more likely to choose a job in the private sector over one 

in the military. 

And if the military can’t sign up enough volunteers with carrots, it might resort 

to sticks and bring back the draft as a way to ensure our armed services are adequately staffed. 

An enforcement-only approach that limits migration in the name of homeland security could very well be what poses the greatest threat to our volunteer military. 

The United States has always been a super power because of our economic stability and strength. After all, the best homeland security is economic security. 

That’s why it’s so important we get this right. 

One way to stop illegal immigration is to relieve pressure on the border by creating a guest worker program will supply us the workers we need, bring them 

through legal channels, and help us keep better track of who is in this country and 

why. 

When we installed fences in Southern California, we treated a symptom. While 

illegal crossings decreased in the urban areas, overall illegal immigration continued 

to increase. In the end, we diverted immigrants from safe crossing points only to 

watch them die in the desert. In the process, we destroyed circularity. People no 

longer come and go—they stay in the U.S. and they bring their families. 

Let’s not make that same mistake in our approach to fixing the immigration system. An enforcement-only approach will only continue to encourage illegal immigrants to go around the system or stay in the shadows. 

I believe Mayor Bloomberg said it best. ‘‘It’s as if we expect border control agents 

to do what a century of communism could not: defeat natural market forces of supply and demand and defeat the natural human desire for freedom and opportunity.’’ 

That’s why we must focus on the problem, is making sure we provide enough 

workers to supply the labor demand that will keep our country strong. That will 
134

result in a reduction in crime and give our law enforcement agencies the time to 

hunt down the bad guys instead of spending a disproportionate amount of their time 

looking for the next generation of construction workers. 

Thank you.

Mr. MCCAUL. The Chair now recognizes a good friend, Jaime 

Esparza, the District Attorney from El Paso.

STATEMENT OF JAIME ESPARZA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, EL 

PASO, TEXAS 

Mr. ESPARZA. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. 

Let me first applaud you for allowing the victims of crime to 

speak just before me. As a prosecutor and, I know, judge, you have 

seen this as well, that voice is not heard loud enough in our Texas 

courtrooms. So I am very glad that you allowed that to happen, 

and I am proud to sit with them here at the table. 

With all due respect to Trooper Stone and Mr. And Mrs. Ruiz, 

I am going to take a different perspective, though, because I would 

like to talk to you a little bit about El Paso and my view of the 

world. 

I appreciate this opportunity to address you today regarding 

criminal activity and violence along the southern border. My perspective comes from being the chief State prosecutor for 14 years 

of a large county jurisdiction, three-county jurisdiction, along the 

U.S.-Mexico border. It is estimated that between 2.1 to 2.4 million 

people inhabit the El Paso-Juarez borderplex. Approximately 1.65 

million of those reside in the Ciudad de Juarez, Chihuahua. 

There are over a hundred thousand legal crossings into the U.S. 

through El Paso area bridges each day, resulting in approximately 

35 million crossings per year. El Paso’s population almost doubles 

on a daily basis with those people from Juarez crossing to shop, 

study, worship, visit and work. 

This nuance makes the city unlike any other cities in Texas in 

that it is a primary corridor for the flow of goods and services. The 

ebb and flow of these populations presents a unique and direct set 

of challenges for law enforcement and prosecutors in the region. 

The millions of annual crossings might suggest a like criminal 

activity, but based on national comparisons of criminal activity on 

the U.S. side of the El Paso-Juarez borderplex, El Paso is consistently ranked as one of the three top safest cities for a city of its 

size in the Nation. Currently, we are the second safest city in the 

country for a city our size. 

It is a mistake to equate this distinction with the conclusion that 

the border is not violent. While the city of El Paso side of the border had three narcotics-related homicides from 2003 to 2005, the 

Ciudad Juarez side of the same border had 260 narcoexecutions 

during the same period. For the rest of the border, my jurisdiction, 

which is primarily desolate and sparsely populated, the Border Patrol is probably the best source for firsthand information, confirming the violent conditions that exist there. The most extreme 

and frequent violence, though, I believe is attributable to the drug 

trade. 

As many recognize, the Texas-Mexico border, and particularly my 

jurisdiction in El Paso, Texas, remains a main corridor for the 
135

entry of illegal drugs into the United States; and despite much success in the interdiction and prosecution efforts, these harmful 

drugs continue to be a big problem in our country. 

The consensus is that 170 tons of marijuana and two tons of cocaine that were seized in 2005 in the West Texas corridor are but 

a fraction of the contraband that make it through undetected. The 

destination cities for the drugs that were seized appear to include 

Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York 

City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Louis, Toledo and Washington, D.C. 

The primary criminal threat to the entire country stemming from 

the portion of the U.S.-Mexico border, that southern border that is 

my jurisdiction, I believe is drugs. 

Today, there is much discussion about State and local agencies 

acting as a second line of defense in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. While the Federal, State and local governments all 

have a valid interest in the enforcement of Federal immigration 

laws, Texas State and local law enforcement agencies can only provide assistance for such enforcement on a very limited basis due to 

the constraints of Texas statutory criminal law, budgetary issues 

and sound public policies. 

In my community, we work in partnership with the Federal Government through various initiatives such as the Southwest Border 

Prosecution Initiative and SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. These initiatives differ from the current discussion 

where State and local agencies are asked to share the primary enforcement responsibility of Federal immigration laws with the Federal Government. 

As of 2001, the Federal Government created the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative as a reimbursement program to counties 

that assisted with the prosecution of lower-level Federally initiated 

drug cases. This reimbursement program was designed to facilitate 

an efficient use of limited resources available to prosecute drug 

traffickers entering the country. However, during the last 2 years, 

the program has not received the funding needed to sustain this 

initiative. El Paso County has received only 50 cents in reimbursement for every dollar bill under this program this past year. 

The SCAAP program, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, moneys that are received by my jurisdiction are also tenuous. We received $357,000 in the 12-month period ending June of 

05. In the preceding 12-month period, we received even less, 

$150,000. We believe these amounts fall far short of the actual 

costs which are borne by the taxpayer in my jurisdiction. 

Based on this experience with the funding shortfalls in comparative efforts between the Federal and local governments I am doubtful that full funding would be secure for cooperative effort for the 

enforcement of Federal immigration laws. 

Many communities in this Nation, certainly including border 

communities, have a significant immigrant population. Police and 

prosecutors have worked hard to build trust and cooperation with 

immigrants and immigrant communities to assist them as victims 

of crime and to obtain information from them in prosecuting crimes 

they have witnessed. Focusing on illegal immigrants and enforcement of immigration law against them would deter, undermine and 
136

negatively affect the trust and cooperation between police and prosecutors and immigrant communities. In fact, if we sustain the same 

level of cooperation that is previously experienced, I don’t believe 

that would occur. In my opinion, it would lead to crimes against 

immigrants not being reported, and these immigrants would likely 

not come forward regarding crimes they have witnessed. 

Furthermore, my grave concern is that it leaves the door open for 

these communities to be preyed upon at will and also puts thought 

to the rise of organized gangs purporting to protect illegal aliens 

due to the void left by the failure of trust in police and prosecution 

agencies who are mandated to protect all persons, legal or illegal, 

residing in this country. 

Presently, in my community, much attention has been focused on 

the local sheriff. His policy to provide reinforcement to Federal immigration law and law enforcement efforts I know has brought attention in our community. I know of instances where the sheriff’s 

policies have led to crimes against illegal aliens not being reported. 

This is alarming because it could lead to lawlessness in the community and hinder the prosecution of those who endanger the public. 

This is simply not good for society as a whole. This gives rise to 

the potential for significant disruption of the entire criminal justice 

process. The disruption could likewise provide organized criminal 

gangs the ability to exploit immigrant communities. Immigrant 

communities could easily turn to rogue criminal gang units to provide them with the protection they seek instead of traditional law 

enforcement agencies. 

There are many instances where it is vital that Federal, State 

and local law enforcement agencies should collaborate and form 

partnerships. In that regard, there are cases where the primary arresting agencies are Federal law enforcement officers and State 

prosecutors who accept those cases for prosecution and the Federal 

Government reimburses local governments for the criminal justice 

costs, as in the case of the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative. 

The Federal Government also reimburses local government for the 

cost of housing jailed inmates who are charged with State criminal 

offenses and are illegal aliens. 

However, it is not a good idea for State and local agencies to 

share the primary responsibility for the enforcement of Federal immigration law. Clearly, the enforcement of immigration law should 

remain the function of the Federal Government due to the legal 

constraints in the State of Texas, budgetary concerns and, most importantly, because of sound public policy. 

In closing, I don’t know if the judge will ask me this question, 

but I will put what I hope the answer is. I don’t really know what 

the answer is, but part of my career I was chairman of the southwest border HIDTA, and I know you are aware of the HIDTA. 

There are many throughout the country, but when it started there 

were only five. Houston was one of the first ones, and the southwest border was one of the first ones on both sides. Now it has proliferated, and I think it is political. 

But you shouldn’t look at the investment the Federal Government has made in those HIDTAs. You have created through those 

HIDTAs collaboration. You have made Federal agencies work to-
137

gether with State and local agencies. You make those agencies vet 

their programs. You make sure that the outputs and the outcomes, 

the successes or nonsuccesses, are reviewed all the time. Because 

I think if you are going to attack this problem—it is not just resources. Because that is always—I am sure everybody asks you 

that and tells you just send me more money. It is not just resources. It is going to require cooperation. It is going to require collaboration, and there is only one way to do that. 

I think that is the infrastructure you have created through 

HIDTA. Maybe HIDTA is not the vehicle you use here, but you 

have invested in intelligence centers. You have invested lots of 

money to put agencies together, boots on the ground. 

I agree with Chief Hurtt. You put boots on the ground, but you 

do it in a coordinated way, a way that somebody vets the process 

to make sure that those programs will work or at least if they don’t 

work we know what we expected, and then, if it doesn’t happen, 

we move on and we change our strategy. 

Thank you for your time. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Jaime. 

[The statement of Mr. Esparza follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAIME ESPARZA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to address you today regarding criminal activity and 

violence along the southern border. My perspective comes from being the chief state 

prosecutor for 14 years of a large three-county jurisdiction along the U.S./Mexico 

border. 

It is estimated that between 2.1 to 2.4 million people inhabit the El Paso/Juarez

borderplex. Approximately 1.65 million of those reside in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. There are over 100,000 legal crossings into the U.S. through the El Paso

area bridges each day resulting in approximately 35 million crossings per year. El 

Paso’s population almost doubles on a daily basis with Juarenses crossing to shop, 

study, worship, visit, and work. This nuance makes this city unlike any other in 

Texas in that it is a primary corridor for the flow of goods and services. The ebb 

and flow of these populations present a unique and direct set of challenges for law 

enforcement and prosecutors in the region. 

The millions of annual crossings might suggest concomitant criminal activity. But 

based on national comparisons of criminal activity on the U.S. side of the El Paso/

Juarez borderplex, El Paso is consistently ranked as one of the top three safest 

cities of its size in the nation—currently, we are the second safest city. It is a mistake to equate this distinction with a conclusion that the border is not violent. 

While the City of El Paso side of the border had 3 narcotics-related homicides 2003 

through 2005, the Ciudad Juarez side of the same border had 260 narco-executions 

during the same period. For the rest of the border in my jurisdiction, which is primarily desolate and sparsely populated, the Border Patrol is the best source for 

first-hand information confirming the violent conditions that exist there. The most 

extreme and frequent violence is attributable to the drug trade.

Primary Criminal Threat along the U.S./Mexico Border: 

As many recognize, the Texas/Mexico border, and particularly my jurisdiction in 

El Paso, Texas, remains a main corridor for the entry of illegal drugs into the 

United States, and despite much success in interdiction and prosecution efforts, 

these harmful drugs continue to be a big problem in our country. 

The consensus is that the 170 tons of marijuana and 2 tons of cocaine that were 

seized in 2005 in the West Texas Corridor are but a fraction of the contraband that 

made it through undetected. The destination cities for the drugs that were seized 

appear to include Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New 

York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Saint Louis, Toledo, and Washington D.C. 

The primary criminal threat to the entire country, stemming from the portion of the 

border that is in my jurisdiction, is drugs. 

Today, there is much discussion about state and local agencies acting as a second 

line of defense in the enforcement of the federal immigration laws. While the federal, state, and local governments all have a valid interest in the enforcement of 
138

federal immigration laws, Texas state and local law enforcement agencies can only 

provide assistance for such enforcement on a very limited basis due to the constraints of Texas statutory criminal law, budgetary issues, and sound public policy. 

Enforcement of federal immigration laws by Texas state and local peace officers 

would be made primarily through an encounter with a peace officer that escalates 

into a warrantless arrest. In Texas, warrantless arrests are authorized only in limited circumstances and are governed primarily by Chapter Fourteen of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure. Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d 407,413 (Tex.Crim.App 1991). 

In fact, the issue of the authority for local peace officers to arrest illegal aliens without a warrant has come before the Attorney General of Texas who has issued an 

opinion that such arrests can only be made if a particular state warrantless arrest 

statute is satisfied. OP. TEX. ATT’Y GEN. NO. H–1029 (1977). A Texas peace officer 

may not arrest without a warrant an alien solely upon the suspicion that he has 

entered the country illegally. OP. TEX. ATT’Y GEN. NO. H–1029 (1977). It is also 

doubtful that a Texas peace officer could simply detain an illegal alien for federal 

authorities if no arrest was being made and turn that person over to federal authorities. This is because once the original purpose for the stop is concluded, the detention must end. Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). A detention may not be unnecessarily prolonged solely in hopes of finding evidence of 

some other crime. The stop may not be used as a ‘‘fishing expedition for unrelated 

criminal activity.’’ Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d at 243. And, of course, Texas state 

and local law enforcement officers may not engage in racial, ethnic, or nationality 

profiling. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 2.131 and 2.132 (Vernon 2005). Thus, 

it is quite clear that Texas state and local law enforcement officers may not stop 

or apprehend persons solely because of any belief that the person is in this country 

illegally, Federal immigration authorities should only be contacted if the local law 

enforcement officer has arrested a person on a criminal charge and the officer knows 

the person is an illegal alien. 

Status of Funding from the Federal Government for State and Local Assistance along the U.S./Mexico Border: 

In my community we work in partnership with the federal government through 

various initiatives such as the SWBPI (Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative) and 

SCAAP (State Criminal Alien Assistance Program). These initiatives differ from the 

current discussion where state and local agencies are asked to share the primary 

enforcement responsibility of federal immigration laws with the federal government. 

As early as 1998, myself and district attorneys along the southwest border from 

Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California, formed a coalition to alert the federal 

government that some of the poorest border counties were shouldering the financial 

burden for assisting the federal government with the prosecution of federally referred drug cases that were apprehended at the U.S./Mexico ports of entry and border checkpoints. For years it was the practice of state and local law enforcement 

and prosecutors to adjudicate the cases at a huge expense to the counties and municipalities, in effect double-taxing border residents. United States Attorneys and 

District Attorneys are in agreement that the partnership between federal, state, and 

local law enforcement offers efficiency and flexibility in the successful prosecution 

of these federally initiated drug cases. As of 2001, the federal government created 

the SWBPI (Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative) as a reimbursement program 

to counties that assisted with the prosecution of lower-level federally initiated drug 

cases. This reimbursement program was designed to facilitate an efficient use of the 

limited resources available to prosecute drug traffickers entering the country; however, during the last two years, the program has not received the funding needed 

to sustain this initiative. El Paso County received only fifty cents in reimbursement for every dollar billed under the program. 

The SCAAP (State Criminal Alien Assistance Program) monies that are received 

by my jurisdiction are also tenuous. We received $357,000 in a twelve-month period 

ending in June of 2005. The preceding twelve-month period we received even less: 

$150,000. We believe these amounts fall far short of the actual cost, which are borne 

by the taxpayers in my jurisdiction. 

Based on this experience with funding shortfalls in cooperative efforts between 

federal and local governments, I am doubtful that full funding would be secured for 

a cooperative effort for the enforcement of federal immigration law.

Public Safety Concerns 

Many communities in this nation, certainly including border communities, have 

a significant immigrant population. Police and prosecutors have worked hard to 

build trust and cooperation with immigrants and immigrant communities to assist 

them as victims of crimes and to obtain information them in prosecuting crimes they 

have witnessed. Focusing on illegal immigrants and enforcement of immigration law 
139

against them would undermine and negatively affect the trust and cooperation between police and prosecutors and immigrant communities. In fact, it is doubtful that 

enforcement of immigration laws against immigrant communities would sustain the 

same level of cooperation as previously experienced. In my opinion it would lead to 

crimes against immigrants not being reported, and these immigrants would likely 

not come forward regarding crimes they have witnessed. Furthermore, my grave 

concern is that it leaves an open door for these communities to be preyed upon at 

will and also could foster the rise of organized gangs purporting to protect illegal 

aliens due to the void left by the failure of trust in police and prosecution agencies 

who are mandated to protect all persons, legal or illegal, residing in this country. 

Presently, in my community, much attention has been focused on the local Sheriff 

and his border coalition and their policy to provide reinforcement to federal immigration law enforcement efforts. I know of instances where the Sheriffs policies have 

led to crimes against illegal aliens not being reported. This is alarming because it 

could lead to lawlessness in the community and hinder the prosecution of those who 

are a danger to the public. Too many resources and efforts have been committed 

to establish and practice community policing across this nation, and these positive 

effects are being reversed today due to the latest policies of the coalition of sheriffs 

in Texas. This has led to the underreporting of crimes committed in communities 

with large immigrant populations. Simply the perception by immigrant communities 

that law enforcement is ‘‘out to get them’’ creates a chilling effect on cooperation 

with local law enforcement. This is simply not good for society as a whole. 

This gives rise to the potential for significant disruption of the entire criminal justice process. This disruption could likewise provide organized criminal gangs the 

ability to exploit immigrant communities. Immigrant communities could easily turn 

to rogue criminal gang units to provide them with the protection they seek instead 

of traditional law enforcement agencies. 

There are many instances where it is vital that federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies collaborate and form partnerships. In that regard, there are 

cases where the primary arresting agency are federal law enforcement officers, and 

state prosecutors accept these cases for prosecution and the federal government reimburses local government for the criminal justice costs, as in the case of SWBPI. 

The federal government also reimburses local government for the cost of housing jail 

inmates who are charged with state criminal offenses and are illegal aliens. However, it is not a good idea for state and local agencies to share the primary responsibility for the enforcement of federal immigration law. Clearly, enforcement of immigration laws should remain the function of the federal government due to legal constraints in the State of Texas, budgetary concerns, and most importantly because 

it is sound public policy.

Mr. MCCAUL. We will have one round of questioning, try to limit 

it as brief as possible. 

I do want to thank the victims who appeared here today to testify. Officer Stone and the Ruizes, I know how difficult it must be 

to retell the story and relive the agony and the pain that you experienced firsthand and that you experienced firsthand through your 

daughter’s untimely death. As I mentioned earlier, I will pledge all 

my support to work with you to help bring this murderer, Mr. 

Salazar, to justice. 

Mrs. RUIZ. Thank you so much. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I personally sat down, as a prosecutor, with victims, but also, as a Congressman, I sat down with families of 42 

U.S. citizens who had been kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo. I had to 

talk to the parents like yourself who lost their daughters. They 

said, help me, Congressman. What can you do to help me? As a 

Member of Congress, I have never felt so powerless, but I pledged 

to help them in any way I can. 

We are dealing with foreign nations, and it is very difficult. Extradition is a difficult thing to achieve. Again, 42 U.S. citizens, 42 

parents who have lost their children to this violence which has 

come into our country, I believe that is unacceptable, and we need 

to do something about that in this country and in this Congress. 
140

I just had a quick question about your particular story. Mr. 

Salazar was taken into custody for questioning? 

Mrs. RUIZ. Yes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Okay. How long was he 

Mrs. RUIZ. They came—actually, he showed up at our house after 

our daughter was murdered, and he was trying to tell us that he 

didn’t kill her, and we knew that he did. So we called the police. 

An HPD officer came out, and we told him we believed him to be 

involved in our daughter’s murder, a suspect, and so they took him 

the officer called Homicide, and they told him to bring him in and 

they took him to Homicide. I guess he was probably down there 

maybe a couple of hours, if that long. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Do you know if any check was made as to his legal 

status in this country. 

Mrs. RUIZ. No, no. And I have spoken with Lieutenant Walker 

with Homicide who is handling our daughter’s case. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Had that check been made and his status verified 

that he was here illegally? He could have been detained and possibly could have prevented him from leaving this country. 

Mrs. RUIZ. Yes, but nobody checked. Nobody bothered to check. 

And, you know, by the time the warrants did come out and they 

did go out to look for him, he was long gone. As a matter of fact, 

the apartment complex where he lived told Homicide that the 

mother and him moved out in the middle of the night and so— 

Mr. MCCAUL. I am so sorry. This is another example of our failed 

immigration policies resulting— 

Mrs. RUIZ. You know what is so bad about it, Mr. McCaul, is that 

Salazar ended up going to Miami, like I said, and his mother did 

send his passport to people there and she got it to him. But the 

fact that his father was able to fly from Venezuela, because he 

worked for a Venezuelan oil company, so he flew down from there 

to Miami in a company plane and picked him up. Now he was 

going to take Muerta with him, but because she was born here she 

couldn’t go. They wouldn’t let her. So she got on a bus and she 

went back to San Antonio, and she turn herself in 2 months later. 

But Salazar got on that plane, and his father knew and took him 

back to Venezuela, and he has been there ever since. 

Mr. MCCAUL. You have two former prosecutors up here who will 

be looking into this. I appreciate you coming forward today and 

telling your story, and Mr. Stone as well. 

Jaime, I just had a couple—hold the line in El Paso is, in my 

view, a tremendous success. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. ESPARZA. I agree. Congressman Reyes, back then Chief 

Reyes, it was a great idea. If you look statistically—I didn’t talk 

about that because of time, but if you look statistically, our crime 

rate is one of the others

Mr. MCCAUL. Which is one of the reasons why I guess there is 

such a low crime rate, right. 

Mr. ESPARZA. Right. We dropped radically. If you went by El 

Paso just this afternoon and you went along the border, which I 

happen to drive to work every day, you would see the Border Patrol, their vehicles, I don’t know, mile, quarter of a mile, whatever 

it is and they watch it vigilantly. 
141

Mr. MCCAUL. There is a law enforcement presence on the border 

where it actually does work. You got results, right 

Mr. ESPARZA. I think it has made a big difference, yes. 

Mr. MCCAUL.—in El Paso. Of course, you put the finger in the 

dike, and it comes out elsewhere. You wouldn’t deny there is violence all along our southern border. 

Mr. ESPARZA. No, I wouldn’t. 

Mr. MCCAUL. You would agree to that. 

Mr. ESPARZA. I would agree there is. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I am interested. Because I, like you, value these 

collaborative task forces. Whether HIDTA, which I worked with 

you, joint terrorism task forces seem to work well. In the post-9/

11 world, there is no reason why we should not be able to work together to prevent terrorism. That is just my view, as some of you 

worked in that field, but it has to be done in an integrated way 

that works. I think we have had models that seem to work, whether it be HIDTA or the JTTF. 

I introduced legislation, the Border Area Security Initiative, that 

tries to create a similar framework that would designate high-risk 

areas where you would have a collaborative arrangement between 

Federal, State and local, including the sheriffs, but you would have 

supervision and you would have accountability. I would ask that 

you take a look at that bill and give me your comments on that 

legislation. Obviously, it would be after the hearing. 

Mr. ESPARZA. I am a big believer in what HIDTA does. I am not 

sure if all of the committee has had an opportunity to tour what 

the HIDTAs are doing, but they invest a lot in intelligence. They 

spend a lot of time on different task forces. But I think the most 

important thing they do is, instead of just sending a pile of money 

to one agency, you send it to a group and force us to get along. The 

fact of the matter is we don’t always get along. 

As a group, when I sit—when I used to sit either as the chairman of the Southwest Border HIDTA or as chairman of the West 

Texas HIDTA, we had to discuss what the strategy would be, we 

had to decide whether or not we were going to spend our limited 

resources in that area or not, and we took a vote. Not everybody 

was happy, not everyone left the table smiling, but we worked together, and we were forced to, and in that environment you understand it. 

Plus, you leverage. I believe you leverage the use of local and 

State officials in a really smart way. It is a smart use of your 

money to do that. 

It is exactly the same model that the Southwest Border Prosecutor Initiative does as well. It is allowing State prosecutors to 

prosecute these low-level drug dealers. 

It is a smart use of your money. It is less expensive. We take 

care of them. You do reimburse us, but a lot of the Federal Government—what I think a Federal prosecutor ought to be going after 

is the big guy. I don’t mind going after the little guy. We have got 

to work together. I think that is the next idea. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I look forward to visiting with you some more 

about that. 

My time has expired. 
142

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila 

Jackson-Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Let me offer to Mr. Stone and the Ruiz family 

a collective offer of sympathy and thank your Congressperson, Congressman Green, whose district you are in, for his leadership and 

offer, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, we deal with 

a number of the criminal extradition cases, to be able to join in. 

I think it is important to note, and it gives you little comfort, 

that all of us have been frustrated by the extradition laws, and I 

would encourage your district attorney to accept the offer of providing the documentation so that Members of Congress can give 

the added support to the diplomatic role that we play, working 

with ambassadors, to encourage the Ambassador from Venezuela to 

act on his request. 

As I offer this evidence, it certainly will not be of comfort to the 

loss of a beautiful daughter, but this is the frustration we face, and 

I ask the chairman unanimous consent to put in the record an article about France postponing extradition. This is an epidemic. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. This has to do with Ira Amhoff who murdered 

a young lady many, many years ago, and he still lives free in 

France that long ago. So this is an extradition question. 

I would also raise the dilemma, because as I was looking over the 

various provisions, when someone is in custody—and I am going to 

pose this question to Mr. Esparza. When police have someone in 

custody and have arrested someone and brought them from wherever they are, the perpetrators of this violent murder crime of this 

beautiful young lady, there is no prohibition now to prohibit any 

law enforcement from asking about status, is that not correct? 

Mr. ESPARZA. Once they have a State charge, they are free to ask 

them their citizenship, their status, if they like, but my reading of 

the law is they are not allowed to approach someone and simply 

ask them their status without something more than some unreasonable suspicion. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. No, that is what I am saying. If you are now 

in custody. 

Mr. ESPARZA. The answer is yes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. No prohibition. 

Mr. ESPARZA. No prohibition. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. So my understanding is that this individual 

had been brought into custody. 

Mrs. RUIZ. No, he had been brought in for questioning. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. He was in custody; and, therefore, in questioning they could have asked. 

Mrs. RUIZ. They could have asked. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. In questioning, Mr. Esparza, I don’t believe 

there is any prohibition. You are in for questioning, that question 

could be asked because it related to an alleged criminal offense. 

Mr. ESPARZA. I believe they should have done that. I am sure 

Judge Poe ruled on that matter many times, but I believe they 

could have done that. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Stone, let me also thank you for your 

service. 
143

One of the, if you will, programs that I am a big supporter of is 

the Cops on the Beat program and, of course, the—what we call the 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, and I believe 

will come to law enforcement agencies like yourself. Are you familiar with those programs? 

Mr. STONE. To be honest with you, ma’am, I am not. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. It adds extra police, extra DPS. Would that 

help, by adding more local police, more DPS, funding from the Federal Government to be utilized for more local police and more local 

DPS officers? Would that be helpful. 

Mr. STONE. Ma’am, I think in all scenarios more manpower is always helpful. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. You agree with boots on the ground. 

Mr. STONE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. One of the terrible aspects of your tragedy is 

that individual had come back over and over again. 

Mr. STONE. Yes, ma’am. He had been criminally deported twice 

prior. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. So the real question is that, when someone is 

found to be criminally deported, what happens on the other side? 

Why wasn’t that person incarcerated? Why wasn’t that person tried 

for some violation? This is the frustration we have in dealing with 

the barriers, countries that are around our area. I think that when 

we talk about immigration we need to separate out the bad guys 

and the lack of response to bad guys from issues that I think Mr. 

Nixon is speaking of. 

Mr. Nixon, might I just pose this question on what we do with 

this whole issue of 12 million undocumented? Remember, we are 

talking about comprehensive immigration reform, and I think one 

of your quotes was that you feel it is safe in Laredo, which I tried 

to distinguish from Nuevo Laredo versus Laredo, as you have ever 

experienced. You walk to your bank or around your bank, and you 

also feel safe on your ranch. Then how do we distinguish having 

a comprehensive reform plan, if you will, to address the question 

of the present status of immigration in our country and secure the 

border? 

Mr. NIXON. Well, I think you have to start by putting in place 

a comprehensive program that allows people that want to come 

here to work that we need to have here working. 

I don’t think anybody makes a need for these workers. In fact, 

if we provide them attractive citizenship, which people don’t like 

the word amnesty—I don’t particularly like the word amnesty. I do 

like the word ‘‘awarded’’ citizenship. Someone comes in and registers, does not have a criminal record, abides by our laws and 

wants to work in a citizenship capacity, then we should permit 

them to be here because they are coming because of the demand 

for their work. I think we mix all the good with bad is when we 

have a problem trying to manage that process. 

So in our efforts to what should be—what you heard here today, 

I think if we allow this many of these people to enter our system 

and separated them from these people who come to commit crime, 

we have a much more manageable process. We can employ our resources more effectively to deal with a much smaller group of people. 
144

I think in any society there is a certain percentage of bad people. 

It doesn’t matter what type of background you are. There is a percentage of the bad. So I think we have to separate the willing 

worker, person who wants to be a good citizen and come here and 

register and get them out of that pot that we are trying to manage 

that is too big and cumbersome. Our borders are too long and our 

resources are too small to be able to deal with. We just have to face 

up to reality. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Nixon. 

Mr. Esparza, what would happen if we had an amendment in 

place that would, in essence, take Federal funding away from any 

jurisdiction that the Federal Government could claim was not asking the questions or going out aggressively throughout the city and 

bringing in individuals? 

Mr. ESPARZA. Well, we rely heavily on Federal funding not just 

in the criminal system. In El Paso, I am sure I could make a whole 

line of people who benefit, agencies who benefit, lots of our community that benefit from Federal funding that is provided by the government; and if they were to take that from us certainly it would 

impact my community seriously. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. You have already testified that there is certainly no prohibition that someone is in custody to ask those questions. I would also imagine if you are familiar with the language 

that says if there was any sort of documenting process that the 

criminal background of the individual would be checked. Possibly 

the perpetrators that did this dastardly act either on Mr. Stone or 

the beautiful daughter of the Ruizes would have been discovered. 

Documenting or attempting to document weeds out the offenders, 

the criminals, the individuals who are here to do harm. Would that 

not have been a possibility? 

Mr. ESPARZA. It could have been a possibility, but I would just—

on behalf of my community, I think it is bad policy to have State 

and local police officers enforcing immigration law. They could have 

asked—in the scenario you asked me, they could have asked that 

question, because I do believe they were in custody and maybe 

even to the level of an arrest. So they could have asked that question. But there is just too much trust between the community and 

the police and the most important issue of protecting each other, 

and if we start to enforce immigration law versus the Border Patrol, the Federal agencies, I think that it is extremely detrimental 

to our community. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Let me follow up. 

I agree with you. The question I posed was not what you just answered, which we have an agreement, but I wanted to be able to 

give an answer to those victims who can’t understand why we 

didn’t catch or hold those individuals. If there was a documentation 

process, the proposed legislation indicates no criminal background 

and, therefore, if that was a process and people got into the process, individuals with criminal backgrounds would obviously be detected. That is on the Federal side. So my question to you is that 

would be a more helpful process if you knew who was here and 

who was undocumented by way of detecting or having for them to 
145

represent what their backgrounds were. That is the Federal system. 

Mr. ESPARZA. Yes, ma’am, that would help. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. That would be a helpful process. 

Mr. ESPARZA. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The Chair now recognizes the judge. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Esparza, good to see you. Compliment you on your work, 

working here, of course, in Harris County and then moving out 

West and doing a great service for the people in El Paso, but it is 

good to see you. 

I want to thank all of you for being here. I am going to start on 

this end and, in as much time as I have got, I am going to go 

through all the witnesses. 

Trooper Stone and the Ruiz family, sympathies from everybody. 

Just a couple of issues, Trooper Stone. When I got to Congress, 

as Mr. Esparza has pointed out, victims don’t have a lobbyist in 

Washington, D.C. It is not one of those items people get interested 

in. So I started the Victims Rights Caucus made up of Members of 

the Republican party and the Democratic party. Because criminals 

don’t ask whether persons, a victim, is a Democrat or Republican. 

They just do what they do, as you know. 

So victims is a tremendous important issue to me based on my 

background as a judge for 22 years and then prosecuting outlaws 

right here in Harris County. I want to commend you on the work 

that you do and all the troopers in Texas do. 

But it seems to me if governments—foreign governments continue to promote illegal entry into this Nation, then people like 

yourself and the Ruiz family who become victims of crime should 

be able to sue in our Federal courts those foreign governments and 

have a cause of action against those governments for reparations, 

that those governments ought to pay at least financially for failure 

to secure their own citizens in their nation. 

So we are going to work on that project. The Victims Rights Caucus is promoting that idea where you have a cause of action against 

the nations of the individuals who committed these crimes against 

you. 

And to the Ruiz family, I, like the chairman here, have four kids, 

three of them girls, one of them a son, have four grandkids; and 

we have got one in the hopper, so to speak. No parent ever wants 

to see the death of their child, ever. That is the absolute worst 

thing that could happen to any parent anywhere in the world. So 

our sympathies are with you. 

And I suggest, just immediately, Andy Quan is here from the 

Mayor’s Victims Service. You ought to talk to him, see if you can 

get this thing moving here in the county. 

We will see what we can do on the Federal law. We will bring 

the outlaw back, and he will be tried, and he will meet a Texas 

jury for the crimes he has committed. But thank you for being here 

and sharing that true story about the impact of crime by illegals 

that are in the United States. 

And that is the issue. It is not immigration. It is not lawful 

entry. It is not the legal immigrants. It is the people that are here 

illegally. And you have described in a very simplistic, powerful way 
146

how they come here and they flee back to their haven and nothing 

seems to happen. The Federal Government has a responsibility to 

work on that specific issue as well. 

Mr. Nixon, I was kind of stunned by your comments. I have been 

down to Laredo. I have been with Sheriff Flores and his deputies. 

You disagree with what he has to say about your Webb County 

community, I assume. I doubt if you are tracked and followed by 

GPS when you go to work, that your kids have to be taken to 

school by bodyguards, as many of the deputies do in south Texas 

because they are fearful of the drug cartels doing crimes against 

them. 

But I recall, of course, that you are in the banking business; and 

your bank, like many other banks, stands to make a lot of money 

off of people illegally in the United States that ship money back to 

their country. So this isn’t a Chamber of Commerce meeting. This 

is an issue that has to deal with criminal conduct by illegals in the 

United States. 

So I was quite surprised by your analysis of the no crime in Laredo, the standard Chamber of Commerce statement that we heard 

while we were down there. But the sheriffs, nonpartisan, concerned 

about the safety of their citizens, seemed to take a completely different position. 

I have been all up and down the Texas border. I, like Ms. Jackson-Lee, have been to California and other States and you know 

the sheriffs all say the same thing. There is crime on the border, 

both sides, worse on the other side, but it is happening in America, 

too. 

So I will investigate more of your statements that you have made 

in writing to try to see where I can find out how can you differ so 

much from the border sheriffs, the Border Patrol, all Federal agencies. Every law enforcement group in the United States takes a different position than you, the banker, takes from Laredo, Texas. 

But we certainly have to work with other nations to get the 

criminals that flow back and forth from our open borders captured 

and put them in jail wherever they belong. 

But, once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of these witnesses for being here, especially this family, and Trooper Stone for 

the great work you do. We all appreciate what you do. 

One thing that I have learned today, though, it seems to be universal, across the board, with this panel and the other two panels, 

nobody trusts the Federal Government to do what they are supposed to be doing; and hopefully we can resolve that problem. So 

thank you very much. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, a question was posed to the 

witness, and I assume Congressman Poe would like an answer. He 

hasn’t yielded to give Mr. Nixon an opportunity to respond. It is 

a fact-finding hearing. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Would the gentlelady yield to the Chair. 

Mr. POE. So do you disagree with Sheriff Flores about the safety 

of Laredo, Texas? That was the question. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The witness may answer. 

Mr. NIXON. Yes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Is that your answer. 
147

Mr. NIXON. I live in Laredo, Texas, and lived there for 36 years; 

and I frequently move about my community. I am a high-profile 

person, and I would be a target of crime. I don’t believe I am unsafe. 

I do believe that crime exists in every city in America. We are 

no different than any other city. We need to enforce the laws. We 

need to protect our citizens as well. But we are mixing two issues 

up in one pot, and I think they need to be separated. The people 

who are here and want to work and earn a living I think should 

have a right and try to— 

Mr. POE. I agree we ought to separate the issue of legal immigration from criminals that come here who are illegally in the country. 

I agree with that. 

I yield back the remainder of my time to the Chair. 

Mr. MCCAUL. The Chair thanks the members and the subcommittee and the witnesses. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, before we finish, I have some 

articles I need to put in the record. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I want to thank the witnesses for being here to testify and particularly the victims who are here today. 

The record will be held open for 10 days, if you get additional 

questions from the members to respond to. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ