U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

29-470 PDF 2006

BORDER SECURITY ON

FEDERAL LANDS

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

Saturday, August 5, 2006, in Santee, California

Monday, August 28, 2006, in Hamilton, Montana

Serial No. 109-60

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

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

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Vice Chair

George P. Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina

Thelma Drake, Virginia

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado

Vacancy

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Jim Costa, California

Charlie Melancon, Louisiana

Dan Boren, Oklahoma

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Jay Inslee, Washington

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis Cardoza, California

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on Saturday, August 5, 2006 ........................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Bilbray, Hon. Brian, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 3

Pearce, Hon. Stevan, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 1

Statement of Witnesses:

Borchard, Steve, District Manager, California Desert District, Bureau

of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................ 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Ingram, Christopher John, Vice President, Gulf South Research

Corporation .................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Keeler, Judy, Co-Owner, Keeler Ranches, Animas, New Mexico ................. 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Manjarrez, Victor, Deputy Chief Patrol Agent, Office of Border Patrol,

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland

Security .......................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

McGarvie, James, Vice President, Off-Road Business Association .............. 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30

Nassif, Hon. Thomas A., President and CEO, Western Growers ................. 31

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33

Powers, Carolyn E., Spokesperson/Historian, Tijuana River Valley

Equestrian Association, Jamul, California ................................................. 16

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

Additional materials supplied:

Watson, Muriel, Bonita, California, on behalf of LIGHT UP THE

BORDER, Statement submitted for the record .......................................... 37

(V)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on Monday, August 28, 2006 ........................................................... 59

Statement of Members:

Rehberg, Hon. Dennis R., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Montana ..................................................................................................... 62

Tancredo, Hon. Thomas G., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Colorado ..................................................................................................... 60

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61

Statement of Witnesses:

Copp, Jeffrey, Special Agent in Charge, Denver, Colorado, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland

Security .......................................................................................................... 72

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 73

Dusterhoff, Wayne, Sheriff, Glacier County Sheriff’s Office, Cut Bank,

Montana ......................................................................................................... 87

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 89

Harris, Robert, Chief Patrol Agent, Spokane Sector, U.S. Customs and

Border Protection, Spokane, Washington ................................................... 78

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 80

House, Jeremy, Detective Sergeant, Billings Police Department, Billings,

Montana ......................................................................................................... 93

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 94

Kimbell, Abigail, Regional Forester, Northern Region, USDA Forest

Service ............................................................................................................ 64

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66

(1)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON BORDER

SECURITY ON FEDERAL LANDS: WHAT CAN

BE DONE TO MITIGATE IMPACTS ALONG

THE SOUTHWESTERN BORDER.

Saturday, August 5, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Resources

Santee, California

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in the

Auditorium, West Hills High School, 8756 Mast Boulevard, Santee,

California, Hon. Stevan Pearce [member of the Committee]

presiding.

Present: Representatives Radanovich, Pearce.

Also Present: Representative Bilbray.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVAN PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

NEW MEXICO

Mr. PEARCE. The hearing will come to order. Before we start, we

would like you all to join us in the pledge that is going to be led

by Muriel Watson who is the founder of Light Up the Border and

a true pioneer in immigration reform.

[Pledge of Allegiance.]

Mr. PEARCE. Before we get started, just a comment that today’s

hearing is a formal House hearing and, as such, there will be no

testimony from the floor. We will accept written statements that

will go into the official record but today we will concentrate on our

panel and the panelists and the questions from the Members here.

I would like to say thanks to The Honorable Duncan Hunter for

graciously hosting this hearing. As everyone knows, Representative

Hunter has been a strong and effective advocate for border

security.

On today’s Congressional panel we have Mr. Bilbray from Southern California and then also Mr. Radanovich is on his way from the

airport as his plane was delayed coming out of L.A. but he will join

us. We should have a good hearing.

I have heard the comments from many saying that we are just

having 27 hearings on immigration nationwide to draw attention

away from something. For myself, I think we are doing the people’s

business. A year and a half ago I did 18 townhall meetings on

2

immigration throughout the 2nd District of New Mexico that I

serve in. We did 20 townhalls on Social Security.

We went in senior citizen centers and talked to them about that.

I did another 18 on the Medicare reform bill. For me this process

is one that is very important. The only thing that I ask is why do

we only have 27 of the hearings because I have been having 18 to

20. This past week I did eight townhall meetings on methamphetamines.

The problem is being exacerbated by an open border, and we will

do another seven, eight, or nine of those next week. I am constantly

doing these, and allegations that we are simply doing these for political reasons just don’t have much standing or bearing.

We would like to additionally set the context for this hearing

today by quoting former Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton who

said that while the primary responsibility for border security rests

with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Interior agencies have an obligation to protect natural resources and

agency facilities.

As the Congressional committee that has oversight for the

Department of the Interior, we also have an obligation to ensure

America’s Federal lands are not destroyed by the traffic that is

crossing the border illegally. For decades illegal immigrants have

crossed into the United States by the vast Federal lands along the

southwestern border that encompasses California, Arizona, New

Mexico, and Texas. The ‘‘conduits’’ created by this illegal immigration have endangered these national treasures and put lives in

danger.

Notwithstanding the efforts by the Administration to deal with

this tide of people crossing into the U.S. via Federal lands, the

problems associated with illegal immigration continue to plague

our National Parks, National Forests, Wilderness Areas and BLM

lands. Trash, fires, abandoned vehicles and other debris still ravage

the Federal lands.

As the Chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee, I visited

a couple of months ago the Sequoia National Park in California

and saw the marijuana groves that are growing inside our national

park. Sometimes we are finding booby traps on the trails leading

up to the areas that are infested with the illegal drugs that are

being grown right there in our parks.

Tomorrow I am going to visit the Oregon Pipe National Monument in Southern Arizona where a fatality occurred four years ago

with one of our rangers who was shot by an AK-47. One-third of

that park has simply been decommissioned because of the illegal

traffic that is coming across the border. Thus, it is clear that securing these borders is job one.

In the past, some have suggested that border security and sound

stewardship of Federal lands were a mutually exclusive concept.

For example, there was much consternation about the environmental impacts of border security measures here in San Diego

County. Evidently the environmental doomsday scenario never materialized and, moreover, the security measures have vastly improved the lands they protect. Using environmental scare tactics to

prevent secure borders is, at the very least, irresponsible.

3

This brings me to the point of this hearing. Today we are hearing

about solutions. It is important for the Committee to hear what

border security measures will be put in place as well as their benefits to all those who depend on Federal lands for their livelihood

and recreation. The key to implementing these solutions is the

legislation that ultimately passes Congress and is signed into law.

It is at this point where the House and the Senate depart ways.

We passed a bill in the House that is primarily designed for border

security leaving the two other issues of both legal and illegal immigration literally to be solved at a later date. The Senate took a different approach and brought in a bill that said we are going to try

to solve the three aspects—border security per se, illegal immigration, and legal immigration. I don’t think that we can do all three

at one time.

Having said that, being one of the people on the Homeland Security Committee primarily responsible for the House border security

bill, my office wrote much of that bill. I am the only member of the

House Homeland Security Committee that is on the southern border. I understand the issues, I think, more than most.

Having gotten a very good bipartisan bill out of the House when

it got to the Floor, the Judiciary Committee Chairman added three

provisions which I thought detracted from the bill so I voted

against the bill, one of about 50 Republicans to vote against that

bill when it came to the House. I know there are things that we

can and should do to that bill to make it more acceptable. As far

as my perspective, we need to secure the border first, stop the

problem from getting worse, and then take a quiet, patient look at

how to unravel the problem of 15 to 30 million illegals who are

here right now understanding that there is not one single solution

that will affect all.

We are happy to have you all here today to listen to the discussion about the issues which our panel will testify on. Now I would

like to recognize Mr. Bilbray for an opening statement.

I am cautioned to remind you that in formal Congressional hearings, which this is one, we encourage no applause on either side.

It tends to enliven some and scare some. We are just here trying

to get the facts and I appreciate that but if you would refrain it

would facilitate my relationship with my bosses who want us to

keep these things on formal terms.

Mr. Bilbray, thank you.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank you for having this hearing here in San Diego. This is actually the third hearing here in our community. Some people may say

why is San Diego having so many hearings. I think it is quite

appropriate as somebody who is born and raised along the frontera.

Those of us in San Diego have known for a long time a lot about

the impacts of illegal immigration and have been rather frustrated

with our fellow countrymen in Washington at being so naive as not

to see what we see every day in our neighborhood.

4

I think it is quite appropriate that San Diego is the source of

many of these hearings and that we are able to finally now tell the

story, the very tragic story of the neglect of the Federal Government in enforcing our immigration policies and protecting our

neighborhoods here in San Diego.

This hearing specifically talks about the impact on the environment, something that San Diegans are very sensitive to. It places

huge burdens on us and our community to try to maintain our environment and then to have the Federal Government look the other

way while those violating our national immigration laws destroy

what we hold very precious in our natural environs is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, there are certain issues that I think we need to

look out for and that is the history that we have seen along the

border. Border Patrol agents will remember the days before Mr.

Hunter built the fence when agents would catch illegals in Imperial

Beach Sector with endangered least tern eggs in their pockets

because they were going to eat them for breakfast. They didn’t

know any better but in an area where it was illegal for an American citizen to even walk, thousands of illegals were going through

and destroying the habitat.

I remember the issue of the least Bell’s vireo in the Tijuana Valley itself. There was a time before the temporary fence was built,

as Ms. Powers will point out, that all our horse trails went north

and south because the smugglers and the coyotes were cutting the

trails at night in an area that equestrians were told they weren’t

allowed to ride in, but it was estimated tens of thousands of people

were traipsing across all evening.

The fact is that when I authored a bill to create a wilderness

area on Old Time Mountain, there were people in the environmental community in Washington and the Interior Department

that were appalled at the fact that I had roads going through a wilderness area. In fact, I remember the national Sierra Club strongly

saying that this would destroy the entire concept of a wilderness

area and they strongly opposed it.

Gratefully, the local Sierra Club, who knew what needed to be

done to protect the environment, supported my bill with the roads.

In fact, I remember the Secretary of the Interior under Clinton actually flew out and was going to make a strong stand against the

roads until he saw the absolute destruction caused by illegal immigration and completely reversed himself.

To this day, the Otay Wilderness Area has roads and helicopter

pads because the immigration issue is so tough and so bad that it

is essential to protect the environment. We have had to change the

rules on things like wilderness and have those roads and those

pads in there.

I would have to say, too, Mr. Chairman, that one thing I cannot

go without bringing up and that is the fact that the impacts are

not just along the border that degrade our environment. The neighborhoods and the canyons that we have preserved in San Diego

County as part of being a San Diegan to stop the wall-to-wall

urban sprawl that I have seen our neighbors to the north in the

Los Angeles basin accept. San Diegans want to keep open space.

The trouble is with illegal immigration these open spaces have

5

been an open invitation to set up housekeeping in what we call spider holes.

Those spider holes, those illegal dwellings in our open space, in

our wildlife preserves have created not only major damage to the

environment but is a major threat to the citizens that live adjacent

to those areas. I think you will see when we talk about what just

happened this week with the massive fire that occurred and it has

occurred historically over a long period of time because of the lack

of control at our border.

These are all issues that we hope you are able to take back to

Washington to show that the immigration issue is not just an issue

of people breaking the laws, not just the issue of people gaining

benefit by hiring illegals. It is also an issue of destroying those

things that the Federal Government has thought so important that

we are willing to go in and restrict private property rights.

However, are we willing to control our national sovereignty to be

able to protect that?

Again, thank you very much for this. I look forward to asking

questions specifically on issues like why are people still living in

our neighborhoods knowing they are there and what is the Federal

Government doing about going and getting them. Why are we having people that are living illegally in canyons and then going up

to the Home Depot unable to stand on the street corner at the

Home Depot.

People in my district are saying why isn’t anybody at least checking those documents because they see that those people being hired

at the Home Depot are the ones who are living in the canyons in

the open space and we need to get to those sources to be able to

protect our environment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Radanovich will be joining us very shortly. He is en route

from the airport. As we discuss this issue, it is important to remember that in Washington we have a saying, ‘‘If it ain’t broke, fix

it until it is.’’

I would like for you to all know who our panelists are today.

First of all, to discuss the impacts of the Department of Interior

lands is Steve Borchard, District Manager of the California Desert

District, Bureau of Land Management. Thank you for being here

today.

To talk about the interaction of border enforcement and resource

management agencies is Victor Manjarrez, the Deputy Chief Patrol

Agent, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chris Ingram, the Vice President of Gulf South Research

Corporation, has confirmed that he will be here. He was on vacation. I suspect negotiations with his wife took the same turn mine

would if I were leaving vacation to do something like this.

We have Carolyn Powers, an equestrian and a member of the

Tijuana River Valley Equestrian Association, who is going to discuss why border security measures on Federal land can be beneficial for those who use these lands for recreation. She joins us

from nearby Jamul, California.

6

From the District of Southern New Mexico that I represent we

have Judy Keeler who is the owner of Keeler Ranches and she discusses the issues that our constituents in the wide-open rural

spaces of New Mexico see every day.

Jim McGarvie is going to tell us how the off-road vehicle community has been negatively impacted by the effects of illegal immigration on Federal land, particularly the BLM land.

And Ambassador Thomas Nassif, President of the Western

Growers Association, will offer his perspective on ways illegal

immigration can be slowed thus taking the burden off the Federal

lands along the border.

We will go ahead and start hearing the panelists now with Mr.

Borchard. I would just bring to mind we will put your entire written statement in. The lights here are just like the lights on the

freeway. Green means go, yellow means go faster, and the red one

means to stop. If you all would confine your comments to five minutes and then we will put the entire written testimony in. That

way we have time for questions and answers.

Thank you very much, Steve. Appreciate you being here today.

STATEMENT OF STEVE BORCHARD, DISTRICT MANAGER,

CALIFORNIA DESERT DISTRICT, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT

Mr. BORCHARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,

thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss border security on Federal lands and how we can mitigate impacts of

illegal immigration on Bureau of Land Management managed

lands in California. I am the District Manager for the California

Desert District, and am responsible for the management of nearly

11 million acres of public land in southern California.

I would begin by pointing out that the Administration supports

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 that are already in the

country. The range of activities on the public lands managed by the

Bureau of Land Management is extremely diverse and requires the

agency to balance multiple and potentially conflicting uses while

protecting sensitive resources.

Given the proximity of many of these lands to the international

border and the environmental degradation caused by illegal immigration across these lands, border security plays a critical role in

helping us manage and protect these valuable resources. Many activities associated with illegal immigration can have a dramatic impact on public lands including immigrant trails, trash, abandoned

vehicles, human waste, and wildland fires started by immigrant

campfires.

When Operation Gatekeeper began pushing illegal immigration

eastward in 1994, the fragile resources of Otay Mountain were at

great risk. By 1999 Representative Brian Bilbray had helped create

the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area crafting legislation that balanced the important wilderness values with a need for law enforcement and border interdiction efforts.

7

Beginning in the late ’90s, the combined efforts of the Border

Patrol, BLM, and other resource and law enforcement agencies

resulted in a decrease in illegal immigration here in California.

However, in the past three years those numbers have once again

risen due to improved border infrastructure and security in our

neighboring states.

Today the threats to public lands and the California border are

escalating. We have found that working partnerships offer the most

effective tool for mitigating the impacts to public land resources

along the California border. As a result, BLM and California has

increased its collaborative efforts by working with a multitude of

agencies to provide for a more secure border and protection of natural resources.

Wildfires caused by illegal immigrant campfires and the resulting emergency fire suppression and law enforcement activities are

clearly a threat to public land users and resources. In response to

this threat the 42-member Border Agency Fire Council was established to address the dual mission of border security and national

resource management. This group represents local, state, and Federal Government entities as well as representatives from the Republic of Mexico.

The BLM produced bilingual educational videos and public service announcements focusing on campfire safety for distribution to

media, schools, and public institutions in both the U.S. and Mexico.

Another very effective partnership in which we participate is the

Border Land Management Task Force. The Task Force brings together state, Federal, and local government agencies to address

issues along the border in California including environment impacts of cross-border traffic, Border Patrol access and infrastructure, and public and employee safety concerns.

The group has been instrumental in expediting the installation

of roads, vehicle barriers, and remote cameras along the border all

of which serve to mitigate resource impacts and assist the border

patrol in carrying out their important mission.

The BLM and the U.S. Border Patrol meet regularly to coordinate management decisions that might affect border operations

taking into consideration such concerns as travel routes, species

habitat, and wilderness issues. Border Patrol agents receive resource protection training jointly developed by BLM and other resource management agencies.

This training will also be provided for National Guard members

joining in the border security effort.

BLM law enforcement closely coordinates with San Diego and

Imperial County Sheriff’s Department. The BLM law enforcement

officers conduct routine patrols to safeguard BLM employees and

visitors to the public lands, and to protect BLM managed natural

resources and cultural resources. Their presence also serves as a

deterrent to illegal immigration.

Another very important collaborative effort to address border security and resource management is the Department of the Interior’s Border Field Coordinating Committee made up of representatives from all over the Department of the Interior agencies, as well

as the Office of the Secretary.

8

The Field Coordinating Committee addresses resource protection

and sustainable development in the border region and has made

significant progress cooperating with Mexican officials to mitigate

resource damages and protect natural and cultural resources.

In conclusion, border security is extremely important in managing natural and cultural resources on public lands, and protecting the safety of public land users. In southern California, it is

a shared responsibility and the BLM continues to work collaboratively with a broad diversity of partners and in cooperation with

our Congressional delegation to provide appropriate support to border security activities that assist in meeting our resource protection

mandate.

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before the

Committee today and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much. The staff just pointed out

that I failed to do the process our Resources Committee always

does and that is to swear in the witnesses so, Mr. Borchard——

Mr. BILBRAY. You will have to give your testimony all over again.

[Laughter.]

Mr. PEARCE. No, you will have to swear in the past tense. If I

could get you all to stand with me.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. PEARCE. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have

answered in the affirmative. You can take your seats.

As you all can see in the audience, Mr. Ingram did join us. He

was here all along actually. I appreciate your dedication to duty.

I question your judgment. We will discuss domestic tranquility

questions after the hearing.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Borchard follows:]

Statement of Steve Borchard, District Manager, California Desert District,

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

appear here today to discuss the importance of border security on Bureau of Land

Management (BLM)-managed Federal lands in California. I would first like to point

out that the Administration supports 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.

I am the District Manager, California Desert District, and am responsible for the

management of nearly 11 million acres of public land in the southern California

counties of Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,

and San Diego. The California Desert District is divided into five BLM field offices:

Barstow, El Centro, Needles, Palm Springs/South Coast, and Ridgecrest.

Two of those field offices—El Centro and Palm Springs—manage approximately

3.3 million acres that are within the borderland zone, roughly within 100 miles of

the United States border with Mexico. These Federal lands include Wilderness

Areas, National Register cultural sites, and other special designations.

Our mandate from Congress through the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976 is to manage the public lands for multiple uses and to sustain the

health, diversity and productivity of these lands for the use and enjoyment of

present and future generations. The range of activities on the public lands managed

by the BLM is as diverse as the land itself. Responsible stewardship means the

BLM must balance multiple and potentially conflicting uses, including increased demands for recreation and energy production, while protecting sensitive resources.

Given the proximity of many of these lands to the international border and the environmental degradation caused by illegal immigration across these lands, border security, as I will further explain, plays a critical role in helping us manage and protect these valuable resources.

9

My testimony today will focus on recent and on-going cooperative efforts to address illegal border crossings in southern California and the impact illegal immigration has had on the public lands in the region. A brief overview of past illegal immigration impacts to public lands resources along the border will help clarify and provide a context for the current management situation.

In October 1994, the U.S. Border Patrol initiated Operation Gatekeeper, increasing interdiction efforts (including improved fencing, additional agents, and patrols)

in southwestern San Diego County. Because Federal lands along the border, for the

most part, are remote and isolated areas, they became a popular route for illegally

entering the United States. The rugged terrain of Otay Mountain was once thought

to present a natural barrier to illegal immigrants seeking access routes east of San

Diego. However, illegal traffic across public lands dramatically increased throughout

the 1990’s, resulting in serious environmental impacts. By June 1996, over 300

wildfires caused by campfires of illegal immigrants posed a significant threat to

human safety and natural resources. Illegal immigration also resulted in increased

impacts to soils, vegetation, cultural sites, and other sensitive resources.

In response to this crisis situation, the first of three formal interagency, cooperative efforts to address the dual missions of border security and natural resource

management was established. The Border Agency Fire Council (BAFC) was formed

during the 1996 fire season with the goal of saving lives and property. The BAFC

is now made up of 42 organizations, including local, State, and Federal fire protection, law enforcement, State and local legislators, Members of Congress, natural resource managers, and representatives of the U.S. State Department and the Republic of Mexico. The group meets every six to eight weeks and is currently chaired by

the Fire Marshal of San Diego County.

The BLM took the lead for the BAFC in producing two videos and several public

service announcements to discourage campfires and educate the public on fire safety

and exposure. The BLM shot most of the footage and contributed $25,000 to the

California Association of Independent Commercial Producers to complete the project.

The video was produced in both Spanish and English and distributed to media,

schools, and various public institutions in the U.S. and Mexico.

Beyond the impacts of wildfires, resource problems occurred from trail and road

damage, and litter left behind by groups and individuals crossing public lands as

they entered the United States. Of special concern were the fragile resources on

Otay Mountain—in Wilderness Study Area status during most of the 1990s—that

were heavily impacted when illegal immigration moved east into that area. The Border Patrol and BLM joined with San Diego County and others to meet this threat.

To further address the situation, in 1999, the Congress passed the Otay Mountain

Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-145), sponsored by Representative Brian

Bilbray, which designated the 18,500-acre Otay Mountain Wilderness Area. This

legislation balances important wilderness values with the need for law enforcement

and border interdiction efforts that are necessary to curtail illegal immigration in

the immediate area. The legislation recognized the land management need for Border Patrol, drug interdiction, and fire management authorities to continue to access

the area, consistent with law, given the proximity of the area to the international

border.

Beyond the resource issues posed by illegal immigration, the BLM is concerned

about the number of immigrant deaths both at Otay Mountain and in the Imperial

Desert, and the associated humanitarian and public safety concerns. In recent

years, the Border Patrol has reported a steady increase in the number of deaths due

to drowning in canals, dehydration, and exposure to the elements.

While the combined efforts of the Border Patrol, BLM, and other resource and law

enforcement agencies resulted in a decrease in illegal immigration here in California, we have seen numbers rise again over the last three years as the infrastructure along the border in Arizona and elsewhere is put in place and border security

is strengthened in those areas.

As a result, the threat and impacts to public land on the California border are

once again increasing. Immigrant trails are increasingly being used, trash and

human waste along these trails and at campsites is increasing, and escaped campfires lit by immigrants continue to be a major threat to wildlands along the border.

The increased frequency of wildland fires is a primary issue for resource management along the border and is having a serious impact on our ability to sustain

unique species, such as the Tecate Cypress found on Otay.

The BLM is committing more time and effort to the management of the public

lands along the border. The BLM has increased its collaborative efforts by working

with a multitude of agencies to provide for a more secure border and protection of

natural resources.

10

In addition to the BAFC, a second formal collaborative effort of several State, Federal, and local government agencies is the Borderland Management Task Force (San

Diego Chapter). The focus of this Task Force is to identify and discuss issues along

the border in California, including environmental impacts of cross border traffic, access and infrastructure issues with Border Patrol, and public and employee safety

concerns. The Task Force has been instrumental in expediting the implementation

of infrastructure—such as fences, vehicle barriers, and remote cameras—along the

border which serves the Border Patrol in carrying out their important border security mission. The BLM and the U.S. Border Patrol meet regularly to coordinate

management decisions that might affect border operations, such as routes of travel,

species habitat, and wilderness issues.

A special training program has also been developed for new and veteran Border

Patrol agents developed by the BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Diego

County, and the California Department of Fish and Game. In order to better manage the immigration issues now facing the Border Patrol and land managers, the

training emphasizes local natural history, resource protection, agency missions and

goals, the Endangered Species Act and the Wilderness Act, and low impact hiking

skills. New Border Patrol agents receive this training, and refresher training is provided for senior agents and trainers. This training is being expanded to include

newly assigned National Guard personnel joining in the border security effort.

The BLM and the U.S. Border Patrol have placed more than 100 signs warning

migrants of the hazards associated with crossing the border illegally. The signs

warn of the dangers from heat, fire, rugged mountains, drowning, and poisonous

snakes.

The BLM law enforcement staff closely coordinates with the San Diego and Imperial County Sheriff’s Departments to meet two major objectives: 1) to protect public

land, resources and BLM facilities; and, 2) to maintain safe environments for public

land users and BLM employees. When BLM law enforcement officers conduct routine patrols and provide information to visitors, their presence serves as a deterrent

to illegal immigration. In addition, they provide support for volunteer groups and

BLM employees conducting habitat restoration. They also assist with fire investigations and rescue stranded immigrants.

Due to the close proximity of the border to several major highways in the area

(in one area the distance is less than 1,000 yards), illegal immigrant and drug trafficking is often intense. If these smugglers manage to reach the road, they often resort to excessive speed, driving without lights, or driving down the wrong side of

the freeway to escape, resulting in vehicle accidents and serious injuries.

Vehicles that don’t make it to the road are often damaged, resulting in fluid spills

(gasoline, motor oil, radiator fluid, etc.) as well as hazardous objects (glass, torn

sheet metal, etc.) that harm public land environments. Abandoned vehicles are often

left in place and the burden for removing them falls on the BLM. If the vehicles

are not removed quickly, they are often set afire by vandals, creating an even larger

safety and environmental concern.

A third very important formal collaborative effort to address border security and

resource management is the Department of the Interior’s Border Field Coordinating

Committee. The Field Coordinating Committee is made up of field representatives

from the BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, Minerals Management Service, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, as well as representatives from the Office of the Secretary of the

Interior.

The Field Coordinating Committee addresses natural and cultural resources protection and sustainable development in the border region. Partnerships and agreements with Mexico’s Secretariat for the Environment and Natural Resources,

National Institute of Anthropology and History, National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Information, and other Mexican organizations have been fostered and

maintained by the Field Coordinating Committee. These relationships have been invaluable in educating Mexican officials about the resource damages associated with

illegal immigration, reinforcing the message that maintaining border security is a

vital factor in protecting natural and cultural resources.

In conclusion, border security is extremely important in managing natural and

cultural resources on public lands, and protecting the safety of public land users.

In southern California, it is a shared responsibility and the BLM continues to work

in close collaboration with a broad diversity of partners—and in cooperation with

our Congressional delegation—to provide appropriate support to border security activities that assist us in meeting our resource protection mandate.

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before the Committee today.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

11

Mr. PEARCE. Thanks a lot. Mr. Manjarrez, why don’t you give us your five

minutes and let us keep moving along. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF VICTOR MANJARREZ, DEPUTY CHIEF PATROL

AGENT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

Mr. MANJARREZ. Good morning, gentlemen. Chairman Pearce

and Congressman Bilbray. On behalf of the men and women of the

Border Patrol welcome to San Diego Sector. It is an honor and a

privilege to appear before you today to discuss our continuing

efforts along the border in the interest of homeland security. The

Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection are steadfast in our commitment to securing the homeland.

Operation Jump Start gives CBP an immediate short-term resource that allows an increase in border security while recruiting

and training additional Border Patrol agents and implement the

Secure Border Initiative. Operation Jump Start will greatly assist

in moving forward with our mission as we continue to gain, maintain, and expand operational control of the border using the right

combination of manpower, tactical infrastructure, and smart border

technology.

Tactical infrastructure is a key component but not the only component of this mix of resources needed to accomplish our primary

mission of preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons of destruction from entering the United States. Tactical infrastructure that

is currently being built by National Guard Department of Resources along the southwest border is a great example of partnership with the Department of Defense. These projects include many

along the southwest border including my area of responsibility,

Tucson Sector.

Through Department of Defense and National Guard support

today, which includes pre-Jump Start time periods, the southwest

border has received 47 miles of all-weather roads, 75 miles of primary fencing, 54 miles of permanent vehicle barriers, and 57 miles

of high-intensity lighting. Our efforts in these urban areas have already produced tangible results and we are expanding the support

with the National Guard personnel as entry identification teams on

the immediate border.

We recognize there are many challenges that lie ahead. We are

concerned with the level of illegal activity in our remote border

areas. Many southwest border locations have unique environmental

concerns and lack road infrastructure conducive to efficient border

enforcement operations. We must work toward an enforcement solution in these areas that promotes conservation of our natural resources. Yet, enhances our ability to secure the border.

As you know, an important key to the overall strategy of border

enforcement is a collaborative effort among the law enforcement

partners. An example of this effort is a memo of understanding was

recently signed with the Department of Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

This MOU allows us to make significant strides toward providing

access for Border Patrol agents in sensitive locations, improving coordination, joint training, and a greater understanding of each other’s mission. We believe improved relations from this MOU and our

day-to-day interactions will lead to a greater preservation of the

12

environment as well as a safer one. The Border Patrol with the Department of the Interior has implemented a National Public Land

Liaison Officer Program to foster already strong and growing working relationships.

The purpose of this program is to increase interaction, closer

relationships, and it is a vital requirement to gain greater

operational control in remote border areas as we make gains in

immediate urban areas. The men and women of the CBP and

Border Patrol face challenges on a daily basis and are determined

to protect the United States and its citizens. They place themselves

in harm’s way to protect us and to protect our way of life.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today and look forward to answering any questions that you

may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manjarrez follows:]

Statement of Victor Manjarrez, Deputy Chief Patrol Agent, Office of Border

Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland

Security

Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, and other distinguished Members of

the Committee, it is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss

our latest efforts along the border, which include the critical role tactical infrastructure has in assisting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and especially

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in our mission of securing our Nation’s

borders.

Our immigration system is broken. Every day, thousands of people try to enter

our country illegally. Most of these people are coming to America to work and provide a better life for their families. After all, in their home countries, they make

only a fraction of what they could make in the United States. Our strong economy

creates the demand for these workers, places tremendous pressure at the border,

and makes our job of securing the border very difficult.

To most effectively secure our border, we must reform our immigration system to

relieve this pressure. We need comprehensive immigration reform that provides additional resources for 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.

We are taking significant steps to secure the border—more than any other time

in our history. Since 2001, funding for border security has increased by 66 percent.

DHS, working in conjunction with its Federal partners, has apprehended and sent

home more than 6 million illegal aliens. On May 15, President Bush announced his

plan to increase the number of CBP Border Patrol agents by 6,000 by the end of

2008. This will bring the total number of Border Patrol agents to over 18,000, doubling the number of agents since the President took office in 2001. These additional

agents will serve as a tremendous resource and will go a long way in helping us

secure the border.

As interim measure, until CBP can hire and train these additional Border Patrol

agents, the President ordered the Secretary of Defense to work with our Nation’s

Governors to deploy up to 6,000 National Guard soldiers to the Southwest Border.

Since the President’s Oval Office address, DHS and CBP have worked closely with

the Department of Defense and National Guard Bureau to get these soldiers integrated in our efforts to secure the border. We are calling this mission Operation

Jump Start.

As of July 27, there are nearly 5,000 National Guard troops on duty for Operation

Jump Start and in the four Southwest border states. These troops are making a difference. Over the last several weeks, the National Guard, working in their support

capacity, has contributed to over 1,200 alien apprehensions and helped seize over

12,200 pounds of Marijuana. Even if this infusion were not occurring, there would

be hundreds of National Guard troops assisting DHS in our counter-narcotics mission. The Guard troops have also allowed us to move 263 Border Patrol agents from

the back offices, where they were performing essential support functions and logistics jobs, to the front lines. These agents are now working every day on the border

to detect and apprehend illegal aliens, and seize narcotics and other contraband.

13

The National Guard soldiers currently are, or will be, supporting the Border

Patrol with logistical and administrative support, operating detection systems, providing mobile communications, augmenting border-related intelligence analysis efforts, building and installing border security infrastructure, and providing training.

However, law enforcement along the border between the ports of entry will remain

the responsibility of Border Patrol agents. The National Guard will play no direct

law enforcement role in the apprehension, custodial care, or security of those who

are detained. With the National Guard providing surveillance and logistical support,

Border Patrol agents are free to concentrate on law enforcement functions of border

enforcement. The National Guard engineering and technology support of tactical infrastructure has been a tremendous force-multiplier, expanding the enforcement capacity of the Border Patrol while freeing up additional agents who were performing

some of these support tasks.

The Border Patrol has a history of nearly two decades working with National

Guard and Reserve units to leverage their unique expertise, workforce, technology,

and assets, in support of our mission and as a force-multiplier. We’re proud to work

shoulder-to-shoulder with our National Guard colleagues. They have given us a tremendous jumpstart on our overarching plan to secure the border—the Secure Border Initiative (SBI).

As I mentioned earlier, National Guard support will be an immediate, short-term

measure that allows DHS to increase our deterrence and border security capabilities, while DHS trains additional Border Patrol agents and implements SBI which

is a broad, multi-year initiative that looks at all aspects of the problem across the

board—deterrence, detection, apprehension, detention, and removal. SBI, as envisioned by the Secretary and Commissioner, addresses the challenges we face with

integrating the correct mix of increased staffing, greater investment in detection

technology and infrastructure, and enhanced coordination with our partners at the

Federal, state, local, and international levels for every segment of our Nation’s borders. CBP Border Patrol’s component of SBI, named SBInet, will integrate multiple

state-of-the-art systems and traditional security infrastructure into a single comprehensive border security suite for the department. Under SBI, DHS wants to create a common operating picture for agents, via the use of integrated sensors and

other interoperable technologies and systems. The technologies will help agents detect, identify and respond to illegal activities.

There is no stretch of border in the United States that can be considered completely inaccessible or lacking in the potential to provide an entry point for a terrorist or terrorist weapon. Stretches of border that in the past were thought to be

impenetrable, or at least highly unlikely locations for entry into the United States,

have in recent years, become active illegal entry corridors as other routes have been

made less accessible to smugglers. We must consider all available information, including the vulnerability of our Nation’s borders, when determining future infrastructure requirements and asset deployments.

SBI undertakes an integrated approach to the continuum of border security and

future deployments of personnel, infrastructure and technology. The deployment of

the various components will be risk based, considering, for example, current intelligence, operational environment and field commander’s requirements. Under this

approach, one portion of the border may require more technology in relation to personnel, while another portion may require more tactical infrastructure improvements than either personnel or technology. SBI will not be a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ deployment.

One part of SBI, is the placement of Tactical Infrastructure (TI), such as fencing,

vehicle barriers, high intensity lighting, and road improvements. These infrastructure elements act as a force multiplier, helping agents to secure the border, with

speed and flexibility of personnel redeployment made possible by shortened response

times. TI elements are critical for the U.S. Border Patrol to achieve the proper balance between personnel, technology, and border infrastructure. But, TI alone will

not secure the border.

We recognize the challenges that lie ahead. Our goal is nothing less than to gain,

maintain, and expand operational control of our Nation’s borders through the right

mix of personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure. The assistance of the

National Guard and our Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners,

will greatly enhance our ability to effectively and efficiently protect our Nation’s

borders.

The men and women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection face these challenges

every day with vigilance, dedication to service, and integrity, as we work to

strengthen national security and protect America and its citizens. I would like to

thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today. I look forward to

responding to any questions that you might have.

14

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ingram.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS INGRAM, VICE PRESIDENT,

GULF SOUTH RESEARCH CORPORATION

Mr. INGRAM. My name is Chris Ingram. I am Vice President of

Gulf South Research Corporation. I did convince her that I could

come but I don’t know what the cost is going to be.

GSRC is a small environmental services firm located in Baton

Rouge, Louisiana, but we do provide environmental services to Federal agencies nationwide. Particularly we have been involved in environmental planning services for every border patrol sector along

the southwest border.

I personally have been involved in planning tactical infrastructure along the southwest border for over 15 years starting with

Joint Task Force 6 which was established in 1989 by the first

President Bush.

I was also GSRC’s project manager for the Environmental Impact

statement for the border infrastructure here in San Diego. Our efforts on that project included wetland delineations, surveys for protected species, permit assistance, agency and public scoping meetings. In fact, we conducted well over 24 agency coordination meetings during the preparation of the BIS.

Our efforts also included mitigation planning and implementation. In fact, right now we have two major mitigation restoration

programs ongoing here in San Diego County.

Although Secretary Chertoff signed the waiver last year, CBP

and Border Patrol has still kept us involved in environmental planning for the continuation of the border infrastructure system here

in San Diego.

The BIS that we prepared identified there were going to be significant impacts as caused by the construction of the border infrastructure system. However, Border Patrol consistently, continuously planned and designed the BIS and is still doing so in a manner to try to minimize the impacts. Although the mitigation plan

presented in the BIS is no longer viable due to the waiver, I still

believe that the long-term benefits are going to far outweigh the

short-term adverse effects of construction of the BIS.

These benefits would be derived from the elimination of illegal

traffic that cuts across Lichty Mesa, Spooner’s Mesa, the Tijuana

estuary and other sensitive areas trampling vegetation, discarding

trash, disturbing sensitive wildlife. The BIS has also been designed

to reduce the sedimentation from entering the Tijuana estuary

from the current enforcement footprint.

There have been many lessons learned from the San Diego border infrastructure system that have been transferred to other border patrol sectors across the southwest border. I have personally

seen a lot of the damage that has been caused by illegal foot and

vehicle traffic in many of our national parks and wildlife refuge

areas. I feel that with the proper planning, coordination, and mitigation the tactical infrastructure can be constructed to minimize

the short-term adverse impacts and provide long-term benefits.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I will answer any

questions that you might have.

15

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ingram follows:]

Statement of Christopher John Ingram, Vice President,

Gulf South Research Corporation

Gulf South Research Corporation (GSRC) is an environmental consulting firm located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. We have been in operation under our current ownership for 13 years. GSRC provides environmental planning services, primarily for

the Federal Government, throughout the Nation. GSRC has provided these services,

including protected species surveys, wetland delineations, cultural resources surveys, environmental restoration, and impact analyses, to the Border Patrol for 8

years. These services have been provided to every Border Patrol Sector along the

entire southwest border and in several northern border Sectors. Personally, I have

been involved in planning Border Patrol projects for over 15 years.

I served as GSRC’s Project Manager for the completion of the San Diego 14-mile

Border Infrastructure System (BIS). GSRC was first contracted to participate in this

project in May 2000 and we continue to be involved in the planning aspects, even

though Secretary Chertoff signed an environmental waiver last year. GSRC was initially contracted to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the completion of the BIS. However, that scope quickly expanded to include additional protected species surveys, wetland delineations, over 24 agency coordination and public

meetings, permit assistance, and mitigation planning and implementation. Regarding the latter issue, we currently have mitigation programs on-going at Arnie’s

Point and Spring Canyon, west of Cactus Road. The mitigation at Arnie’s Point is

a 23-acre vernal pool restoration site. The Spring Canyon mitigation is a 16-acre

site, which is being used to offset wetland impacts at Spring Canyon, Deadman’s

Creek, and Johnny Wolf Creek. The Spring Canyon mitigation program is in its infancy. However, the Arnie’s Point mitigation program is in its 3rd year and has

proven to be very successful, to the point that we have additional protected species

which had not been reported at Arnie’s Point and surrounding areas for many years.

While admittedly, the completion of the BIS would result in significant impacts,

as indicated in the EIS, the BIS has been designed and will be constructed in a

manner to minimize these effects. Although the mitigation proposed in the EIS is

no longer viable or valid due to the waiver, I still believe that in the long-term, the

BIS will provide substantial benefits to the area north of the BIS, particularly the

Tijuana River Valley and estuary. The numerous illegal foot trails that cut across

Lichty Mesa, Spooner’s Mesa and the estuary will be eliminated and these trails

will be revegetate naturally. Trash and illegal fires will also be reduced or eliminated. And, finally, the erosion and sedimentation that currently exits along the

border roads in these areas will be ameliorated.

There were many lessons learned during this project and most of these lessons

have been transferred to other OBP Sectors that are planning similar tactical infrastructure. With proper planning and coordination, such infrastructure can be constructed to minimize short-term adverse impacts and provide long-term benefits to

the environment.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Ingram.

Mr. Bilbray has notified me, Ms. Powers, that I have pronounced

your town the way that I would expect it to be in Washington and

he says it is the way we would do it in New Mexico, from Jamul,

California. Thank you very much for being here today and let’s

hear from you.

Ms. POWERS. Thank you.

Mr. BILBRAY. Just to say how confusing it was, I remember the

International Boundary and Water Commission called our

community to the north up there, the back country, Hulian instead

of Julian and he proceeded to lecture me on the fact that it is actually a Spanish name. I tried to remind him that it was named after

a Julian from the American South who was a Civil War veteran.

Just shows you we can confuse everybody.

Go ahead. I am sorry.

16

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN POWERS, SPOKESPERSON/

HISTORIAN, TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY EQUESTRIAN

ASSOCIATION

Ms. POWERS. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Bilbray, it is an

honor to appear before you today to discuss the importance of the

increased border security efforts on Federal lands to stem the flow

of illegal immigration for a highly permeable border.

My name is Carolyn Powers and I am an equestrian. I have been

a longstanding border resident and activist. I have two grandchildren to which I would like to leave a legacy of a safe and sane

U.S./Mexican border area. The Tijuana River Valley has a history

rich in diversity. The Kumeyaay Indians, Hernan Cortes, Juan

Cabrillo and Father Serra and Kino have left their mark.

Representing the darker side of the sieve-like stretch of land we

have endured rum runners during Prohibition, drug smugglers

since the ’60s, and a constant stream of ‘‘coyotes’’ or smugglers, and

‘‘pollos’’ or illegal immigrants, streaming across our borders.

Criminal acts such as rape, robbery and murder have impacted

those border areas that are also recreational areas such as Smugglers Gulch, Goat Canyon, Soccer Field and Spooner Mesa. Due to

the persistence of ‘‘Light Up the Border’’ advocate Muriel Watson

who gave our pledge tonight, and the exposure given by ex-mayor

and conservative talk show host, Roger Hedgecock, and the resolve

of Congressman Duncan Hunter, most of the border between the

San Diego/Tijuana border crossing and the Pacific is now lit up decreasing the frequency and severity of criminal activities.

Prior to ‘‘Operation Gatekeeper,’’ it was not unusual to encounter

80 to 100 illegals running down our equestrian trails with Border

Patrol in hot pursuit. Gatekeeper was characterized by high concentrations of agents working the border itself and requires a very

extensive budget to maintain.

My horse would spook at the border action. I began carrying carrots and stopping the runners and asking them to please feed one

to my horse, first in Spanish to the illegals and then in English to

the agents. My horse now begs for carrots on the trail.

The pollos act subservient when met on the trail, stepping back

to allow you to pass, but the smugglers do not. A typical group of

six to eight hard-looking men burdened with identical backpacks,

tell-tale tattooed tears on their cheeks (prison) and a bad attitude

would block the trail and wait like trolls to be asked for permission

to proceed.

They would look thoughtful as if reluctantly considering if you

should be allowed, and then finally nod indicating you could ride

by. A higher percentage of these arrogant empowered smugglers

travel our trails now. It is frightening and grossly insulting to have

this occur on American soil.

As Congressman Bilbray mentioned, we used to joke about the

trails in the Tijuana River Valley all being north-south trails. The

trails ran through farms, estuaries, ranches and homes avoiding

the streets and the waiting Border Patrol. Congressman Bilbray

can tell you about the time his old lifeguard skills were called upon

when he and his family were awakened in the middle of the night

by screams. He found that an illegal family had jumped his fence

17

and fallen into his swimming pool. They couldn’t swim so Congressman Bilbray came to the rescue.

Not everybody had happy endings. Undocumented aliens startled a quarter horse worth $40,000 in a valley ranch and the horse

bolted, injured its leg and needed to be put down. Another property

owner was successfully sued by an illegal who his dog had bitten

as he trespassed in the middle of the night.

Every afternoon cast-off plastic bags were collected by workmen

paid by the county and every morning there would be another

mountain of plastic north of the river. They used the plastic bags

as boots. They were sold by an entrepreneur vendor south of the

river. There is an area that used to be called ‘‘Underwear Point’’

in a national estuary due to the amount of castoff muddy clothing.

There is also the cost of medical care to illegal aliens that is

shouldered by county governments. Resources which should provide

a safety net for our citizens have become inadequate. The recent

‘‘Horse Fire’’ in San Diego County, that, again, Congressman

Bilbray mentioned, scorched over 17,000 acres which included some

really prime recreational areas including our revered Horsethief

Canyon. It has been gone for years.

Tijuana is the most violent cartel-oriented border city in Mexico.

We are now plagued with a new kind of border violence. Beheadings are not just reserved for the terrorist activities abroad. This

vile act has become part of the criminal cartel scene in Baja California. A headless body was recently discovered in Smugglers

Gulch at the border. Many of the criminals and organized crime

syndicates responsible for these types of heinous acts are known to

operate on both sides of the border and lives of Americans are increasingly being placed in jeopardy.

Where infrastructure has been installed along the border crime

rates have decreased, in some areas as much as 80 percent. Modern infrastructure such as electronic cameras, satellite surveillance,

border lights, and a strong border fence are needed to protect us

from criminal activities. We need our Government to protect us. We

remember when it was not safe for motorists to drive down Interstate 5 because of a high number of illegals walking in the median

of an interstate highway.

U.S. Border Patrol responsible for securing our borders and protecting the lives of Americans understand how grave the consequences may be if they fail to get it right every single time and

the adversary gets it right only once.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today

and I look forward to responding to any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Powers follows:]

Statement of Carolyn E. Powers, Spokesperson/Historian,

Tijuana River Valley Equestrian Association

Chairman Pombo and members of the committee, it is an absolute honor and

privilege to appear before you today to discuss the importance of the presence of federal law enforcement agencies and increased border security efforts on federal lands.

My name is Carolyn Powers, and I am an equestrian and a long standing border

resident and community activist. I have two daughters and two grandchildren to

which I would like to pass along the legacy of a safe, sane and clean environment

who live in and use the lands near the U.S./Mexican border.

The issues I have been involved with these last 15 years have included border security and sovereignty, recreational safety, wastewater collection and treatment

18

facilities, water quality, availability and flood prevention in the Tijuana/San Diego

area with emphasis on the Tijuana River Valley.

In 1992 we started a political watch group, CARE, formed to monitor and improve

conditions affecting border infrastructure, parklands and recreational access. We

have hosted issue-oriented meetings for the Public, as needed, to address specific

problem areas. I have educated legislators and their staff concerning border issues

and agencies. I used to give a two day post election ‘‘classroom’’ for new community

reps including a horseback tour of the Tijuana River Valley. You know the rap—

‘‘...but just what is an IBWC?’’

I am a fund raiser for The Water Station, a volunteer oriented group dedicated

to saving lives in the California-Arizona deserts by placing water at strategic

locations. No Politics...just humanitarian kindness.

I am here now to talk to you about life as it exists today along the US-Mexican

border and the threats we suffer due to illegal immigration and terrorist activities

due to our highly permeable border.

The Tijuana River Valley has a history rich in diversity that has ranged from the

Kumeyaay Indians clamming and fishing through the summer months along our

beaches, explorations by Hernan Cortes and conquistador Juan Cabrillo through the

spreading of the gospel according to Fr. Junipero Serra (in 1769) and Fr. Kino.

Representing the dark side of the sieve-like stretch of land considered our national border, we have suffered rum runners during Prohibition, drug smugglers

since the 60s and a constant stream of ‘‘coyotes’’ (smugglers) and ‘‘pollos’’ (undocumented immigrants) streaming across our borders.

Criminal acts such as rape, robbery and murder have impacted those border areas

such as Smugglers Gulch, Goat Canyon, Campos Ditch, the Soccer Field and

Spooner Mesa. Due to the persistence of ‘‘Light Up the Border’’ advocate Muriel

Watson, the exposure given same by ex-mayor and conservative talk show host,

Roger Hedgecock and the resolve of Congressman Duncan Hunter most of the border between the San Diego/Tijuana crossing and the Pacific is now lit up, decreasing

the frequency and amount of the criminal activities.

Prior to ‘‘Operation Gatekeeper’’ in the 1990s, it was not at all unusual to encounter 80-100 immigrants running down our equestrian trails. I was more often than

not riding alone when encountering the northbound illegal immigrants. After Gatekeeper activities had begun, there were often Border Patrol agents in hot pursuit.

Gatekeeper was characterized by high concentrations of agents working the border

itself.

My horse tended to spook with the activities and the smell of fear in the air. In

order to counter this reaction I learned to say ‘‘carrot’’ in Spanish and started to

stop the runners and asked them to please feed my horse a carrot (I would hand

them carrots), first in Spanish to the immigrants, then in English to the Border

Patrol. Pretty soon, instead of spooking, when disturbed on the trail, my horse

would beg for the carrots she had learned to expect.

The pollos have been relatively subservient in their demeanor when encountered

on the trail, stepping back to allow our passage, but the smugglers are not. A typical

group of 6 to 8 hard looking men burdened with identical backpacks, tattooed tears

on their cheeks (denoting prison time) and a bad attitude would block the trail and

wait for me to apologetically request passage. When I would acquiesce, they would

nod their heads as if reluctantly considering allowing me to pass and finally nod

their heads indicating that I could ride around them. It was pretty frightening and

actually grossly insulting to have occurring on U.S. soil.

We used to joke about the trails in the Tijuana River Valley all being north-south

trails. Most of the trails ran through farms, estuaries, ranches or residences avoiding the streets and the waiting Border Patrol. Congressman Bilbray can tell you

about the time his old lifeguard skills were called upon when he and his family were

woken in the middle of the night by screams from his backyard. When he investigated, he found that a Mexican family had jumped the fence and fallen into his

swimming pool. They couldn’t swim, so Congressman Bilbray to the Rescue.

Many residents’ tales didn’t have such happy endings. Immigrants startled a

quarter horse worth $40,000 in a valley rim ranch and the horse bolted, caught it’s

leg on some fencing and needed to be put down to end it’s suffering. Another unlucky property owner was successfully sued by an immigrant who his dog had bitten

as he trespassed on his property in the middle of the night.

Vendors used to sell plastic trash bags for a dollar apiece to use as boots to cross

the Tijuana River. Every day the bags were collected by workmen paid by the County of San Diego and every morning there would be another mountain of plastic waiting on the north side of the river.

There is also the cost of medical care to illegal immigrants that is shouldered by

County governments. Resources that should provide a safety net to U.S. citizens are

19

inadequate in border states due to the hit taken by those counties from our neighbors coming north to have their babies, collect welfare and treat their infirmities.

Passing laws against illegal immigration does not enforce those laws. The Border

Patrol does.

Throughout the north of the border zone there are inordinate signs of illegal trespass. The infamous north/south trails, frequently traveling through sensitive habitat, are littered with plastic bottles, disposable diapers, clothing and human excrement. In the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve there is an area

that used to be called ‘‘Underwear Point’’ due to the castoff muddy clothing littering

the estuary. The estuary itself is scarred with trails that will take years to revegetate, even though American citizens would be cited and fined for just being caught

there. This is an environmentally sensitive area regarded nationwide as being a

prime breeding site for fisheries and endangered wildlife alike.

The recent ‘‘Horse fire’’ in San Diego County which has razed over 17,000 acres

is believed by fire investigators to have been the result of a campfire built by the

immigrants and not extinguished. I was on alert for days lining up transportation

and boarding facilities for friends and their animals. One of my very favorite trails,

Horsethief Canyon has been totally wiped out by the fire. We continue to endure

brush and forest fires regularly that have been set by coyotes to divert the Border

Patrol.

A few years ago, when I was preparing to write a comment on an environmental

impact report about making improvements to some access and patrol roads on BLM

lands adjacent to the border in the Otay Mesa area, I requested a ride-a-long with

a patrolling Border Patrol agent. There were individuals, NGOs and agencies that

were contesting the plans to make the rutted dirt roads safer with grading plus regularly scheduled maintenance. The agent and I began our drive east of the Tijuana

border crossing and ended up on Otay Lakes Road close to a popular camping site.

I mentioned to the agent that I was used to riding my horse on long trail rides so

that other than being cautious around cliffs (I do have a fear of heights) for him

to carry on with his patrol as usual. The next day, I ended up with blood in my

urine and a bump on the head from bouncing so hard that my head was hitting the

vehicle roof, even with my seat belt in place. My ride only lasted 2 hours while normally, agents are patrolling for 4-6 hours a day. Efforts to improve border conditions

would far exceed any negative impact that these activities may have on environmentally sensitive areas.

Tijuana is the most violent Mexican cartel-oriented border city in Mexico. We are

now plagued with a new kind of border violence. Beheadings are not just reserved

for the terrorist activities abroad. This vile act has become part of the drug cartel

scene in Baja California and there has been a recent discovery of a headless body

in Smugglers Gulch at the border. This reprehensible sight should not be tolerated

for the sake of not only ourselves, but more brutally, our children and grandchildren

who also ride these trails regularly.

Equally important is the killing of innocent civilians, government officials, and

law enforcement officers, robberies, assaults, kidnappings, and extortion, which is

becoming an all too familiar scenario in many cities just south of our border. Many

of the criminal entities and organized crime syndicates responsible for these types

of heinous acts are known to operate on both sides of the border and the lives of

innocent Americans are increasingly being placed in jeopardy.

This is U.S. soil and we should not have to endure fear and danger while being

or recreating near our border s.

When funding became available for the manpower required to implement ‘‘Operation Gatekeeper’’ in the 90s, illegal border passage decreased greatly. Gatekeeper

required, however, consistent and expensive budgetary considerations to keep it

going successfully. The operation was dependent upon a high number of Border

Patrol agents maintaining visual and audible contact with each other across the

stretch of border to be controlled. The Gatekeeper era became the safest period to

recreationalists in many years.

The funding available for Border Patrol operations has proven to be extremely

variable. I remember some years when agents were coming in to work on their vehicles on their days off because money was not available for mechanics. Because living

expenses are so high, especially in California, many agents would leave their employment shortly after costly training, to work for other law enforcement agencies

where they were paid more. The attrition rate has been deplorable. It has resulted

in a higher percentage of arrogant, empowered smugglers on our trails and considerably more traffic in the U.S..

Where infrastructure has been installed at the border, crime rates have decreased, in some areas as much as 80%. Complaints about illegal crossers running

through neighborhoods have decreased and overall community safety has increased.

20

Apprehension numbers in the San Diego Sector have dropped more than 75%

from a high of over 500,000 per year in1995 to less than 130,000 per year in 2005.

The installation of the primary fence has almost eliminated vehicle drive-throughs

and high-speed pursuits at the border.

Electronic camera and satellite surveillance, border lights, vibration detection sensors, a strong, safe border fence and a few additional agents should be prerequisites

in, at least, high traffic areas. I realize that this isn’t the answer to all of the problems associated with illegal immigration, but it is a step in the right direction and

as citizens of the U.S., we need our government to protect us.

The all too recent terrorist activities of 9-11 should be strong reminders of just

how vulnerable our Mexican borders really are. It is important that we take very

seriously the ever-growing threat of terrorism and also recognize that individuals

from other parts of this world would do harm to innocent Americans if they were

only able to gain entry into the United States.

Without infrastructure in the border area of the Tijuana Estuary, the County Regional Park or the State Park, any trails or recreational plans will place users at

a significant risk for criminal activity, robberies, assaults, theft and rapes. Infrastructure in the area south of the Tijuana Estuary will reduce the law enforcement

operational footprint from almost 5,000 acres to about 200 plus acres. This will

deter the uncontrolled foot traffic through the estuary, helping to protect the sensitive environment, and making it safe for recreational users of the park system.

We remember when it was not safe for motorists to drive down interstate 5

because of high numbers of illegal crossers walking or running in the median of an

interstate highway. Billboards warning traffic along the freeway depicted families

holding hands and running across the road.

The men and women of U.S. Border Patrol, who are responsible for securing our

borders between the ports of entry and protecting the lives of Americans, understand how grave the consequences may be if they fail to get it right every single

time and the adversary gets it right only once. If more isn’t done to secure our borders, then our generation needs to be prepared to accept responsibility for placing

the future of this great nation in a precarious and potentially unmanageable position.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today and

look forward to responding to any questions you might have.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much.

Ms. Keeler, thank you for making the drive over from New

Mexico. We appreciate you being here.

STATEMENT OF JUDY KEELER, CO-OWNER, KEELER RANCHES,

ANIMAS AND HACHITA, NEW MEXICO

Ms. KEELER. Thank you for letting me come and speak to you

today.

My husband and I have two ranches. One is located 30 miles

south of Animas and it has a unique problem in that there is a lot

of drug trafficking going through it. The other ranch is five miles

east of Hachita, New Mexico, and there we have a lot of illegal immigrants passing through on their way to I-10. Both ranches have

their share of illegal activities and both illegal activities are killing

our nation.

I am here today to tell you I have been raised on the border. I

lived there all of my life. I have spent 50 plus years and I have

a lot of friends, both Mexican-Americans and Americans, and this

is not a racial issue. This is an issue dealing with people. There

are atrocities happening not just to our public lands but to the

people that are trying to cross the border and it needs to be noted

in the records that Mexico is aware of what is happening but they

are turning a blind eye to what is happening to their people.

For instance, July 3rd we were having a family gathering on the

ranch and an individual that no one saw come in was in the corrals. He fell to the ground in convulsions. We ran over to assist

21

him. He had been walking with a group of Mexicans coming into

the U.S. and he had not been able to keep up with the rest of the

group.

The coyote offered him some speed pills to help him keep up but

it didn’t work so they left him behind. He showed up in the corrals

convulsing because he was dehydrated and the pills had a negative

effect on him. We called the emergency services and they came as

fast as they could. Of course, the Border Patrol showed up first and

he was taken to the Silver City Hospital.

There was another incident just recently where a whole group

was going through. They had three young children that were dehydrated and exhausted. We asked them if we could call the Border

Patrol and have them come assist them but the group wouldn’t

wait and they went on and we have no idea what happened to

these small children.

The human impacts, both to the Mexican people that are coming

across and the impacts to the people in the United States, are tremendous. Not just that. There is also impacts to our wildlife and

to our livestock operations and it is economically draining on the

ranchers that are along the border. It is economically draining to

the communities that are along the border and it is not a good

deal.

New Mexico shares 186 miles of border and we have a lot of open

space. Most of that consist of ranches. It is made up of public and

Federal lands, state lands, and also public lands. In our ranch in

Hachita we share five miles of the border with Mexico. Actually, we

are still five miles north of the border but Highway 9 runs all the

way from Rodeo, New Mexico to El Paso, Texas. In that area of five

miles we have at least 20 to 30 foot paths that are going from Mexico to the interstate and each foot path carries at least six to 30

immigrants. This is on a daily basis.

They carry in their backpacks. We find backpacks. We find plastic bags. We find human feces. We find all sorts of things on our

ranch. It is not healthy for us. It is not healthy for the livestock.

One rancher reported that one of his calves had a plastic bag hung

in its throat. It couldn’t eat, couldn’t spit it out, couldn’t drink. He

finally rescued the calf.

In another instance he had pasteurella show up in his livestock.

The New Mexico vet was called in and, after researching, they determined that the illegal immigrants were congregating around our

troughs and they have kept the livestock at a distance so that they

couldn’t get a drink of water. This had lowered their resistance and

they were unable to fight off the disease.

If this is happening to our livestock, it is definitely happening to

our wildlife as well. We have deer and antelope. We also have several threatened species, aplomado falcons. We haven’t seen any but

we have the habitat potential for it. BLM provided nets to go over

three steel-rimmed tanks but the illegal immigrants cut the nets.

The Bureau of Land Management comes back, patches the net so

that now it is just a patchwork of net. It was supposed to keep any

aplomados or the eagles from drowning if they got into the nets.

These are resources that our Government is putting out to protect

these endangered species that are not being very effective and it

is costing us money. It is draining our tax dollars.

22

The greatest tragedy in my mind is what is happening to the

Mexican people and to the people. We need some relief. We need

a fence. I don’t know that a large tall fence is going to work. We

do need a road. In New Mexico where I am at there is no road

along the border so the Border Patrol patrols Highway 9 but it is

not very effective and we have so much open space it is not even

funny. It is hard for them to protect the area. It is hard for them

to get there.

The local sheriff’s department if you have a problem or anything

like that, the response time to get to our ranch is usually four

hours. If we have an emergency—and we did several years ago

have 16 Chinese immigrants show up at our ranch in Animas—it

took the Border Patrol and the state police and the local law enforcement agencies four hours to get down there.

In the meantime, the Chinese guys were very agitated. They

were kicking their coyote, the guy that brought them across. It was

a very frightening experience for my children because they weren’t

sure if they were going to overwhelm us and steal a vehicle or eat

their cats. They were very concerned about their cats. These instances happen. It happens to people. That is what I am concerned

about is the people that live down there and the wildlife.

Do I have any solutions? Yes. I think we need to put up a fence.

I think we need to build a road. I think while we are building the

road we should put in some fiber optics so that cameras can be put

in that can monitor the traffic. This could be a great deterrent. I

don’t think a high wall is going to work. I don’t think building a

wall like China is going to work because people are going to get

across.

I believe we need a guest worker program because there are a

lot of people that need the help. And the people in Mexico need to

be able to come here and get a job. That is my personal belief.

[Reaction from the crowd.]

Mr. PEARCE. I will remind you that you will not make comments.

These people are trying to do their best to describe their viewpoint.

You will please refrain.

Thank you, Ms. Keeler. Please continue.

Ms. KEELER. Well, we don’t all have to agree but I do think that

we need to work together to forge some solutions. I would like to

suggest while I am talking that maybe the Border Patrol could do

some sensitivity lessons and learn that the ranchers are not their

enemies. We are their friends and we can work with them. This

isn’t across the board. There are sectors that work better with the

people than other sectors do.

I do believe our biggest resource, our most important resource,

is not our open spaces or our scenic rivers. It is our people and it

is the people in Mexico and we need to treat them with civility. We

also need to hold Mexico accountable for their actions. I do believe

that they know what is happening to their people as they cross into

the United States. We do need a border policy that we can all agree

upon.

I am very proud to be an American and I just want to leave you

with this thought. I don’t blame the people for wanting to come

across to this great land because we do have a great land. What

other nation started by declaring that, ‘‘We hold these truths to be

23

self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed

by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.’’ Rights that cannot be transferred to their government or another individual, the

right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated, ‘‘Can the liberties of

a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm

basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties

are a gift of God?’’ We need to export not just our democratic form

of Government. We need to export our constitution and our Bill of

Rights and our Christian heritage. If Mexico would incorporate

those into her democracy and treat her people like we treat our

people, it would be a much better world for everybody. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Keeler follows:]

Statement of Judy Keeler, Co-Owner, Keeler Ranches,

Animas and Hachita, New Mexico

Honorable Chairman Pombo, members of the House Committee on Resources, and

especially our most honorable Congressman Steve Pearce from New Mexico. On behalf of my neighbors, family and myself, I thank you for holding this hearing on

the importance of border security on federal lands, and for the opportunity to testify

before you.

My name is Judy Keeler. My husband, Murray, and I own two ranches along the

New Mexico/Mexico Border. One ranch is located 30 miles south of Animas, New

Mexico. It’s approximately 12 miles north of the Mexican border and 5 miles east

of the Arizona border in what’s called the Bootheel of New Mexico. The other ranch

is 7 miles east of Hachita, New Mexico, 45 miles west of Columbus, New Mexico

and 5 miles north of the Mexican border. Both ranches are comprised of federal,

state and private lands. Both ranches have their unique challenges; one has a lot

of Latin Americans passing through it, the other has a lot of drug traffic passing

through it. Both activities are illegal and both are destroying our nation.

As I read through the Resources Committee’s Disclosure Requirement I was

struck by question 6—what professional licenses, certifications, or affiliation do I

hold that are relevant to my qualifications to testify on this subject matter? I wrote,

None.

In reality, however, I have 54 years of experiences living along the border. I serve

on the Hidalgo County Public Land Advisory Committee, have served 9 years on the

Jaguar Conservation Team for Arizona and New Mexico and belong to several

ranching and civic organizations.

As a third generational New Mexican, and a 5th generational rancher, I grew up

in the border lands, received my formal education in the border schools and enjoyed

the border lands for recreation, as well as sustenance.

As a young, impressionable child I was blessed to have grown up in the small

town of Hachita, NM. Before Hillary Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, was published, I lived the phenomenon of a totally integrated community. Our town was a

composite of America.

I learned my first words in Spanish while tagging along with our Mexican worker

as he built fences on our ranch. Although he never spoke English with anyone else,

he taught me Spanish, using his broken English. He was a friend and a helper.

Many of my school mates were bilingual. I shared meals with them. Their parents

watched over my brother and I, just as my Mother and Dad cared for their children.

We learned quickly, at an early age, regardless of nationality, none of us could get

away with any mischief in our community. It didn’t matter what language we spoke,

we were neighbors. No we were more than that, we were family.

Even today, my friends are from every race, color, creed and religion. That’s how

I was raised, that’s how I live and that’s the example I set for my children. It was

to these friends and family members, many with Spanish surnames that I turned

for advice when invited to speak. The testimony I’m giving today is a composite of

their thoughts and suggestions, as well as my own.

I’m giving you this background in order to preface what I’m about to say. The solutions offered here are not developed from some racial bias. They come from our

heart and are based on facts and personal experiences.

The problems along our southern border were not created in a single day and they

won’t be solved in a single day. They were not created by the Democrat Party or

the Republican Party. They were created by imperfect human beings, irregardless

24

of their nationalities or party affiliations, trying to solve a problem from the top

down. What I see happening along our border cannot compare to 50 years ago.

Times have changed and I’m here to discuss those changes.

What are the problems along our southern border today?

When the flood of illegal immigration finally came to the attention of our national

leaders, their first reaction was to provide additional personnel and protections in

and around our urban areas. As a former resident of El Paso, Texas, I understood

this emphasis and agree it needed to be done.

However, as border security tightened around the urban areas, the illegal traffic

began to be funneled through the more open, rural areas of the border states, first

in California, then Arizona and finally into New Mexico.

Now, in order to resolve this situation, we’re going to have step up border security

in the rural areas, just as we did around the urban areas.

We don’t need more laws; we only need to enforce the ones that are already on

our books.

Mexico certainly enforces her immigration laws. If you’ve ever visited Mexico, you

know they have check points where you must show your permiso (permission) to

visit the interior. If you’re papers are not in order, you will be detained by the

Federales until the matter gets resolved. Your living conditions won’t be the most

comfortable for the duration of the time you spend in that nation.

Why should the U.S. be expected to do anything less?

How many illegal immigrants are coming across our border? What is happening

to our federal, state and private lands as a result of this immigration? And, how

do we resolve it? These are the answers we seek today.

New Mexico shares 186 miles of border with Mexico. There are three (3) Border

Patrol Sectors along this route: Las Cruces, Deming and Lordsburg. According to

the Lordsburg Border Patrol Sector Chief, where our Animas ranch is located, one

thousand (1,000) illegal immigrants are apprehended on a monthly basis. Although

I tried to find out the apprehension rate for the Deming Sector, where our Hachita

ranch is located, I ran into computerized answering machines and endless bureaucratic red tape.

However, since the Deming Sector contains the border towns of Palomas and

Chiapas, Mexico where many illegal immigrants start their trek into the United

States, in addition to about 50 miles of border, it’s safe to assume they apprehend

twice (2xs) the number of illegal immigrants.

It’s the opinion of many that for every one illegal immigrant the Border Patrol

apprehends; at least three (3) to five (5) pass through undetected. I hope you can

envision what 3,000—10,000 people can do to the natural resources in one month.

I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that ranches in the West are a checkerboard

of federal, state and private lands. The destruction to the land is not limited to just

the federal lands. It’s happening across ownership boundaries.

Our ranch in Hachita has about 5 miles of frontage on New Mexico State Highway 9 which runs parallel with the Mexican border from Rodeo, New Mexico to

Santa Teresa, New Mexico. It’s not uncommon in that 5 mile radius to find 20 to

30 footpaths on a daily basis. Each footpath bearing anywhere from 6 to 30 individuals trekking northward from Mexico to Interstate 10, or other predestined pickup

sights.

A neighboring rancher told me he built 4 1/2 miles of fence recently, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). They did it through a cooperative

project that used range improvement—8100 money—as its source. In that 4 1/2

miles he came across at least 60 trails. His concern before building the new fence

was that it would be cut by the illegal immigrants as they passed through. He’s

been lucky; so far the fence is still intact.

The nets the BLM placed over his 3 steel rim tanks several years ago have not

faired as well. Originally placed there to protect any Aplomado Falcons from drowning, these nets have been cut by the illegal immigrants and patched by the BLM

so many times they are now just a mass of patches.

Border Patrol agents are not above cutting fences or laying them over when pursuing illegal immigrants. I can’t begin to tell you how many times we’ve come across

our fences cut, not just by the illegal immigrants, but by the Border Patrol themselves. We understand the need to pursue and capture the illegals, especially their

coyotes, but it would be nice if the Border Patrol would repair the damage they create, or at the very least, contact us so we can make the repairs.

In fact, it would a lot of help if Border Patrol agents were given ‘‘sensitivity’’ classes and encouraged to befriend ranchers instead of taking an adversarial approach.

Ranchers are not their enemies; we can assist them in their task if they won’t talk

down or berate us.

25

We live in a very tender desert environment that has been hard-hit by drought

over the last 10 years. Additional human impacts only serve to further stress the

land, our livestock, the wildlife and our limited resources.

One of our most limited resources is water. As one couple from Washington State

observed as they walked the Continental Divide Trail in our area, ‘‘the only water

we found was at the windmills’’. This always comes as a surprise to people that visit

from the eastern and western coastal states.

Water is vital to every community and business, including the ranching industry.

But it is very limited in the West. Wildlife and cattle are both dependent upon the

permanent waterings ranchers provide. Most of these waters are found on private

land where our predecessors developed windmills, troughs and dirt tank impoundments, and we, as modern-day ranchers, maintain and continue to develop additional ones.

These waterings are also utilized by the illegal immigrants. Unlike cattle and

wildlife, humans can and do turn on valves and break floats draining the precious

water onto the ground. They also defecate and bathe in these waters, cut nets that

are supposed to protect the wildlife and continually stress our limited water resources. In addition, they congregate near the waters to rest. Livestock and wildlife won’t

come to water when there are a lot of people around. One rancher in our area had

an outbreak of pasteurella in his calves. The state veterinarian was called in to find

out how the outbreak originated. After a week of research, they determined the cattle were stressed by all the activity that kept them away from the water, which

made them more susceptible to disease. If this is happening to our livestock, one

can rightly surmise the wildlife are also impacted making them just as susceptible

to diseases.

One of the biggest impacts from the illegal activity is the trash. All one has to

do is drive along Highway 9 between Rodeo and El Paso, Texas to see the trash

that has been dropped by the illegal immigrants. Plastic water jugs, plastic bags,

paper and other items litter the area.

To really see the impacts, however, one needs to get off the road and walk

through some of the draws and gulleys. My husband and I make it a habit of picking up the litter on our ranches, regardless of whether it’s federal, state or private

land. It always amazes me how many backpacks and water bottles we find. No one

else cleans up after the illegal immigrants. In fact, the Border Patrol will often

make the immigrants leave their water bottles, sacks of food and clothing or

backpacks on the ground before loading them into their vehicles.

One rancher in our area reported he had a calf with a plastic bag hung in its

teeth. The poor animal couldn’t spit the bag out nor could he swallow it. No doubt

he had a hard time eating and drinking until the rancher dislodged the bag. No telling how many other calves die before they can be found and rescued.

We also find human feces and toilet paper littering our ranches. This trash not

only creates an eye sore for those who pass by, but a health hazard to livestock,

wildlife and other human beings.

Reports tell us that many of the illegal immigrants are bringing invasive species,

as well as diseases, into our country. An employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service reported that one reason the Chiricahua Leopard Frog is on the brink of extinction is because of a lethal fungus that can be transported from one water hole

to another by wildlife and humans alike. Called the chytrid fungus it has been

linked to amphibian deaths in places as far away as Australia and Costa Rica. It

kills frogs by growing on their skin, making it hard for them to use their pores to

regulate water intake. The frogs literally die of thirst in the water.

Archeological sites are also being impacted by this traffic. Perhaps not intentionally, but these sites are being destroyed by the increased human activity.

Our grasses are being trampled out where the trails cut across the land. In the

places where large groups of illegal immigrants congregate to rest and regroup,

vegetation becomes nonexistent. Fire can also have a negative impact on grasses.

Several fires, started by illegal immigrants building campfires, have burned so hot

they’ve destroy not just the grass, but the root systems so the grass can never grow

back. As a rancher, we cannot afford to lose our grasses. Without them we have no

livestock operation.

It’s also costing our communities a lot of money to provide medical services for

the illegal immigrants. On July 3rd we had an immigrant show up in our corrals

during a family gathering. No one saw him walk in. But we did see him thrashing

on the ground in convulsions and ran to his assistance. We called the border patrol

and emergency services, which are very limited and not always available in our

rural community. Until one of them arrived, we made him as comfortable as possible; offering him Gatorade and water to rehydrate him.

26

He told us he was from Oaxaca that’s in the extreme southern portion of Mexico

and had sold everything he owned to pay a coyote $3,000 to bring him into the U.S.

When he couldn’t keep up with the rest of his group, the coyote gave him some pills

to pep him up. When this failed to help, he was left behind. Lost, dehydrated and

despondent, he found his way to our home.

The Border Patrol was the first to respond, placed him in the back of their vehicle

and transported him. We learned the next day he was in the Silver City hospital

with kidney failure.

In another instance my husband came across an illegal immigrant that had been

beat up by his coyotes. They also stole the money he had in his pockets and left

him to die. The poor guy wanted a ride into town, but my husband knew if he was

caught transporting an illegal immigrant his vehicle could be impounded and he

could be fined. Offering him some crackers and what water he had, he asked if it

was okay to call the Border Patrol as soon as he was within cellphone service.

The man was afraid the Border Patrol was like the Federales in Mexico and

begged him not to call. Murray assured him the federal agents were different in the

U.S. and would take care of him. The guy finally agreed to let him call for help.

We never heard whether the Border Patrol was able to find him.

A few weeks ago three illegal immigrants, a husband, wife and young native

Indian girl from Mexico, came to our home in Hachita seeking help. The Indian girl

had not been able to keep up with their group so the coyote had left them in the

mountains. The couple was concerned that if they left the girl alone, she would die.

Although they had sold everything they owned to buy their way into the U.S., and

would return to their country destitute, they stayed to help their fellow human

being. We called the Border Patrol. They picked them up.

Most recently we had a group with three young children pass through. The children were dehydrated and exhausted. Although we tried to persuade them to let the

Border Patrol come get them, they trekked on. Only the Lord knows if they made

it.

According to the Luna County Sheriff’s Department, they find at least 10 illegal

immigrants dead each year. These are the ones that are reported and they are able

to find. Many go unreported and undiscovered. Although damage reports to property

are down this year, the sheriff’s office still has 5 to 6 reports each month that range

from minor damage to broken water lines and valves to grand theft of guns, cash,

and autos.

I could go on and on with my stories but my time to speak is limited. In my mind

the human impacts; to both the residents that live along the border and the illegal

immigrants that pass through, are the most tragic results of all this illegal activity.

We’re leaving a legacy to our children that won’t be a positive one. No doubt my

children and grandchildren will never forget the trash, resource damages, or our little friend from Mexico writhing in convulsions as he lay in our corrals fighting for

his life.

I don’t believe elected officials in Mexico are blind to the tragedies and indignities

their people suffer in order to come to the United States. Many of my friends believe

they turn a blind eye to this travesty and allow the United States to care for their

downtrodden and poor.

NAFTA may have brought industrialization to northern Mexico, but it has not resolved the problems lurking farther south. Many of the illegal immigrants are from

southern Mexico, as well as Central America. They hope to find a better life here.

No one can fault them for this desire. But, they have no idea what ordeals they will

pass through in order to achieve their dream.

One immigrant showed up at our ranch in Animas asking how far it was to Denver. We asked if he intended to walk there. When he responded affirmatively we

told him it was about 600 more miles and it would take him at least a month to

walk it. He let us call the Border Patrol. They returned him to Mexico.

What are our solutions? How can we resolve the situation?

The solutions will not be easy. There must be a many pronged approach, including

a fence and a guest worker program.

We must show our neighbors to the south some tough love. Mexico has to acknowledge it has a problem. They must assume the responsibility to care for their

people and own up to the failure of their country to meet those needs. The nation

must be held accountable.

The U.S. needs to realize Mexico has a caste system. They have the haves and

they have the have nots. There is no middle class even though it is nation rich in

untapped natural resources and with a people that have tremendous potential.

Under the present conditions individuals born into this caste system have no means

of escape, except to come to the United States.

27

Have you ever wandered why we don’t have an influx of immigration from Canada? Could it be because Canada does not have the abject poverty Mexico has? Mexico must stop shipping its poverty across the border. They must create opportunities

for their people and give them hope for a future. How do they do this? They need

to encourage and support small businesses other than illegal drugs. They also need

to provide free education beyond the 8th grade. They must build trust between their

government and their people. This is an awesome task that can only be accomplished by men of integrity and honor.

In the meantime, Mexico needs to reciprocate in securing the border.

I’m not a proponent of building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. I believe it

will be too expensive and ultimately it will not stop the illegal immigrants. But, we

do need a fence. First, we need a law that clearly defines the border area, not the

50-150 miles zone as proposed in Border XXI, but a 60 foot easement where a road

can be built along the border. And, the money to build a fence and road must be

appropriated by Congress.

Fiber optics could be put in as the road and fence are built with well-placed cameras that can monitor illegal crossings. With the fiber optics this information could

be sent to the nearest Border Patrol headquarter and monitored 24/7.

The fence does not have to be some colossal feat. It can be practical and achievable. It could be built with railroad ties set on 4 feet centers with 4 or 5 strands

of wire that would allow the wildlife to migrate between the U.S. and Mexico. The

cameras could act as the deterrent, not the fence.

We also need to define whose responsibility it will be to maintain this fence. I

know ranchers that have gone to their grave trying to seek a solution to this issue

with our federal government. It’s time to get it resolved!

The Army can be very efficient in patrolling our borders. In October of last year

they held maneuvers in the Hachita/Columbus area. They headquartered on the federal lands on our ranch next to Highway 9. In 10 days they assisted the Border

Patrol in apprehending over 1,000 illegal immigrants. Although they slowed down

the crossings during the month they were there, the illegal crossings resumed as

soon as they left. In fact, a big celebration was held in Palomas, Mexico the evening

the Army headed for Fort Bliss.

Their Strikers and some of their other heavy equipment tore up the land where

they headquartered but we were impressed with their dedication to our country,

their technology and their resolve to apprehend the illegal immigrants.

The Army is not a long-term solution, however. They need too much support personnel and equipment to carry out their job. It is estimated that for every one (1)

Army personnel to watch the border, three (3) support personnel are required. They

require sleeping quarters, food and other essentials while on deployment. This can

be very expensive over an extended period of time. The Border Patrol does not require the same kind of support. They do need, however, the same technology that

is available to our Army.

I understand the number of illegal immigrants apprehended has very recently

dropped. No one knows why. The numbers began to fall about a week before the

National Guard arrived. Some think it’s because the Border Patrol might be doing

a better job apprehending the coyotes that guide the immigrants across the border;

others believe changes in the catch and release policy have kept a lot of the illegal

immigrants from recycling.

No matter the reason, we are pleased President Bush has called up the National

Guard. Their assistance will help the Border Patrol agents stay on task and alleviate some of the administrative details that so often bog them down.

New Mexico State Police have also had a physical presence along the New Mexico

border for some time now; thanks to Governor Richardson. However, we also need

to think about empowering our local law enforcement agencies. The local sheriff offices are all too often under-funded and understaffed. It’s their job to respond quickly to their rural constituents. But, their resources are stretched to the max. They

need additional officers, improved communications and support from our federal

government. It would be nice if Congress would allow some of our tax dollars to

trickle back down from Washington, D.C., to help out the local law enforcement

agencies instead of building up the federal bureaucracy.

Although joint agency agreements may bring some of the federal money down to

the local law enforcement level, all too often the federal hierarchy signing on to

these agreements are rotated out of the local area so there’s never any consistency

in personnel or policy. Neither do they take the time to get acquainted with the

local people, their customs, the rural roads or the land. All too often there is little

accountability to the state and local law enforcement agencies; or the rural citizens.

The usual response to mishaps and misunderstandings is CYA. We don’t need more

federal bureaucrats, just some financial help to do the job ourselves!!

28

In addition, we need to start penalizing big corporations that recruit and hire

illegal immigrants. Our first bad experience with illegal immigration happened

about 12 years ago. Nineteen (19) Chinese immigrants and their coyote showed up

at our Animas ranch. They had been lost in the Peloncillo Mountains for three days

without food or water. Visibly agitated and upset, they kept kicking and pushing

their coyote and would not let him out of their sight.

Their behavior frightened my children. They were afraid the Chinese immigrants

would overpower my husband, steal our vehicle, eat their pets; or worse yet, kill one

of us. Gratefully, none of this happened. But it did take four hours before the law

enforcement agencies arrived. In the meantime, the immigrants fought over the

water hose to get a drink, cooked some pork from our freezer and fought over the

spoon so they could lick the grease that was left in the pot.

Although we had a hard time communicating with them, we finally understood

they wanted to use our phone. They called Van Nuys, California and the Bronx,

New York. Sixteen other Chinese immigrants were discovered hiding on the Gray

Ranch the next day. We found out later they were a part of a large group that had

paid $10,000 a piece to be transported into the United States. They came by boat

from China to Columbia, crossed Mexico by bus, and were going to walk across the

border mountains to Rodeo where they were to be picked up and transported to

Phoenix, Arizona, then flown to New York city. There they would be indentured to

their employer until the money was paid back. And some think slavery has been

abolished in the United States of America. For sure it was too expense for the U.S.

to deport them back to China. I’ve always wandered what happened to them.

Our nation’s greatest resources are not our old growth trees, pristine grasslands,

scenic rivers or open spaces. Our greatest resource is the people who make up this

great country. We need to know that we too are secure in our own freedoms so we

can build a better future for ourselves, as well as our fellow human beings. Only

then will all the resources of our world be protected and plentiful.

In my opinion, if all the nations in the world, starting with our sister nation Mexico, would adopt, not just our democratic form of government, but the precepts our

Founding Fathers tried to instill in our nation, life would be much better for everyone. What other nation began by declaring that ‘‘we hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain inalienable rights’’: Rights that cannot be transferred to their government

or another individual; the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated: ‘‘Can the liberties of a nation be

thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the

minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?’’

I thank God for the Constitution of the United States of America and that I live

here. Instead of exporting democracy, we should be exporting our Constitution, including our Bill of Rights and our Christian heritage! If we would all treat one another in the same way we want to be treated, what a better world we would all

live in. It’s such a novel concept!!

Until these human rights can be secured in other nations, we need some relief

from the flood of people that our seeking what does not exist in their own countries.

In summary, there are no easy solutions to our border dilemma. It may take years

to resolve these issues. Fences won’t work. Diplomacy isn’t working. Perhaps it’s

time we start thinking out of the box, put our head together and come up with solutions that will work.

Thank you for inviting me to give my testimony.

[NOTE: Pictures attached to Ms. Keeler’s statement have been retained in the

Committee’s official files.]

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much.

Mr. McGarvie, appreciate you being here today.

STATEMENT OF JIM McGARVIE, VICE PRESIDENT,

OFF-ROAD BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MCGARVIE. Thank you. I would like to respectfully object to

the sequence of speakers. That is a difficult testimony to follow.

She did a great job of personalizing the situation.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressmen Radanovich and

Bilbray. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.

29

My name is Jim McGarvie. I am Vice President of the Off-Road

Business Association (ORBA), a nonprofit trade association of businesses in the off-highway vehicle recreation industry. Our members, the future profitability of our members businesses rely upon

the continued existence of OHV recreational opportunity on public

lands. I am also on the board of directors of the San Diego Off-Road

Coalition, another nonprofit organization of end users, off-roaders

gathered together to try to promote our sport in a responsible

manner.

I am here not only representing those two organizations but

speaking for the OHV recreation community in general. At first

glance border security would seem to have little to do with OHV

recreation. Certainly there are impacts from illegal immigration

with far greater import than those impacting OHV recreation. Impacts to OHV recreation are not insignificant and are important.

I will break those impacts down into two broad categories, the

impact of border security upon OHV recreation and the impact on

OHV recreation when that border security fails.

The impact upon OHV recreation of border security. No one believes more strongly than I in the necessity of a strong border but

there is always a price for security. Including in the negative impacts of a strong border are a few which effect OHV recreation.

Probably the greatest of those are the closures of public lands to

OHV recreation in the name of border security. There are dirt

roads and trails in the Cleveland National Forest east of San Diego

which used to be open to OHV recreation but are now closed to us

in the name of Homeland Security.

There is a portion of the desert managed by the Bureau of Land

Management between Interstate 8 and the Mexican border known

as the Yuha Desert. In the Yuha, all privately owned motorized vehicles are required to remain on designated roads and OHVs, those

not licensed for street use, are restricted to only three of those

trails presumably to protect species that exist in that area.

If we violate those restrictions, we are subject to fines, vehicle

confiscation and possible jail time. However, the Border Patrol frequently traverse the area in pursuit of illegal immigrants. We understand and sympathize with the mission of the Border Patrol

but, in effect, the illegal immigrants are causing the area to be

heavily utilized by vehicles in chase with the consequent impact

upon the environment, while we cannot access the area with vehicles for recreation.

The impact on OHV recreation when border security fails. The

border fencing in the San Diego area has proven quite successful

in reducing illegal border crossings in that area, but has pushed

the problem further east into public lands managed by the BLM

and the Forest Service. A prime example is in the Imperial Sand

Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) in Imperial County near the Arizona and Mexico borders.

This is one of the most popular OHV areas in the country, seeing

as many as 200,000 off-roaders on a busy holiday weekend. The

Mexican border is ill-defined where it crosses the dunes and impossible to fence in that area. It is relatively easy to violate the border

without realizing it.

30

Because of the proximity to the border, the ISDRA, particularly

that portion known as Buttercup Valley between Interstate 8 and

the border has been the scene of armed robberies and shootings attributed to thieves entering the country illegally and then fleeing

back across the border. I provided you gentlemen with a map of

that area and a newspaper article about that particular incident.

There has also been drug smuggling reported in that area. Many

off-roaders now stay away from the Buttercup area due to the risks

involved. In fact, one BLM employee told me under the condition

of anonymity that he would not take his family camping there.

That tells you something.

Another example of lost OHV opportunity due to a less than secure border has been referred to a couple of times already this

morning, the ‘‘Horse Fire,’’ a wildfire which occurred in the mountains east of San Diego just last month. This fire consumed almost

17,000 acres, most of which are in the Cleveland National Forest

including portions of two wilderness areas.

In addition to the terrific impact upon our natural resources as

consequences of fire suppression efforts, as well as the fire itself,

the OHV area closes to San Diego and the largest of only two legal

OHV areas this side of the desert was largely consumed and will

be closed for the foreseeable future.

What was the cause of this fire? According to a Cleveland

National Forest press release, and I quote, ‘‘Based on the fire investigation, the cause of the fire was an abandoned campfire in a

side drainage of Horsethief Canyon. Evidence collected at the scene

suggest that the campfire was left by undocumented immigrants.’’

More OHV opportunity lost, more recreational opportunity lost,

more loss of profits for the OHV industry.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGarvie follows:]

Statement of James McGarvie, Vice President,

Off-Road Business Association

My name is Jim McGarvie. I am Vice President of the Off-Road Business Association (ORBA), a nonprofit trade association of businesses in the off-highway vehicle

(OHV) recreation industry. This is a huge and rapidly growing industry, estimated

to contribute approximately nine billion dollars annually to the economy of the State

of California alone. The future of this industry is directly related to the amount of

OHV recreation opportunity available. As land open to OHV recreation shrinks, for

whatever reason, industry profits shrink as well. The primary mission of ORBA is

to prevent further loss of access to public lands. I am testifying today not only representing the Off-Road Business Association but representing OHV recreation in

general.

At first glance, border security would seem to have little to do with OHV recreation. Certainly there are impacts from illegal immigration with far greater import

than those impacting OHV recreation. But impacts to OHV recreation are not insignificant, and are important.

I will break those impacts down into two broad categories: The impact of border

security on OHV recreation and the impact on OHV recreation when border security

fails.

The impact upon OHV recreation of border security:

No one believes more strongly than I in the necessity of a strong border. But there

is always a price for security. Included in the negative impacts of a strong border

are a few which effect OHV recreation. Probably the greatest of those are the closures of public lands to OHV recreation in the name of border security. There are

dirt roads and trails in the Cleveland National Forest and on BLM land east of San

Diego which used to be open to OHV recreation, but have been closed to us in the

name of Homeland Security.

31

There is a portion of the desert managed by the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) between Interstate 8 and the Mexican border known as the Yuha desert. In

the Yuha, all privately-owned motorized vehicles are required to remain on designated roads—and OHV’s are restricted to only three of those—presumably to protect species that exist there. If we violate those restrictions we are subject to fines,

vehicle confiscation and possible jail time. However, the Border Patrol frequently

traverses the area in pursuit of illegal immigrants. We understand and sympathize

with the mission of the Border Patrol, but in effect illegal immigrants are causing

the area to be heavily utilized by vehicles in chase, while we cannot access the area

with vehicles for recreation.

The impact on OHV recreation when border security fails:

The border fencing in the San Diego area has proven quite successful in preventing illegal border crossings in that area, but has pushed the problem further

east into public lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service.

A prime example is in the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) in Imperial County near the Arizona and Mexico borders. This is one of the most popular

OHV areas in the country, seeing as many as 200,000 off-roaders on a busy holiday

weekend. The Mexican border is ill-defined where it crosses the dunes, and it is relatively easy to violate the border without realizing it.

Because of the proximity to the border, the ISDRA—particularly that portion

known as Buttercup Valley between Interstate 8 and the border—has been the

scene of armed robberies and shootings attributed to thieves entering the country

illegally and then fleeing back across the border. There has also been drug smuggling reported in that area. Many off-roaders now stay away from the Buttercup

area due to the risks involved. One BLM employee told me under the condition of

anonymity that he would not take his family camping there.

Another example of lost OHV opportunity due to a less than secure border is the

‘‘Horse Fire,’’ a wildfire which occurred in the mountains east of San Diego just last

month. This fire consumed over 16,000 acres, most of which are in the Cleveland

National Forest, including portions of two wilderness areas. In addition to the terrific impact upon our natural resources as a consequence of fire suppression efforts

and the fire itself, the OHV area closest to San Diego—and the largest of only two

legal OHV areas this side of the desert—was largely consumed and will be closed

for the foreseeable future. What was the cause of this fire? According to a Cleveland

National Forest press release, ‘‘Based on the fire investigation, the cause of the fire

was an abandoned campfire in a side drainage of Horsethief Canyon. Evidence collected at the scene suggests that the campfire was left by undocumented immigrants.’’ More OHV opportunity lost; more loss of profits for the OHV industry.

Solutions:

I don’t have the answers to this problem. If I did I would probably be working

in Washington, DC. From a layman’s standpoint the fence seems to work well where

it exists. Perhaps it would work even better if it continued further east. It seems

to me that where there is a fence along the border, the work of the Border Patrol

is made significantly easier. It is likely that, were the border fenced through the

back country and desert east of San Diego, most if not all of the closures of areas

of OHV opportunity could be reopened. Many of the risks to off-roading families

would be eliminated. The number of illegal immigrants dying in their attempt to

find work in the United States would be drastically reduced, as would the number

of illegal campfires.

Thank you.

[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. McGarvie’s statement have been retained in the

Committee’s official files.]

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Nassif, thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR THOMAS A. NASSIF,

PRESIDENT, WESTERN GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. NASSIF. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Congressmen Radanovich

and Bilbray, first let me say how much respect and admiration we

have for our Border Patrol, the job they do without the necessary

tools to do it correctly, one of which is comprehensive immigration

reform.

32

I am President and CEO of Western Growers and I appreciate

the opportunity to testify before you today not only on behalf of

Western Growers but on behalf of the Agricultural Coalition for

Immigration Reform and the National Coalition of Agricultural

Employers.

Western Growers is an agricultural trade association whose

3,000 members grow, pack and ship approximately 90 percent of

the vegetable and 70 percent of the fruits and tree nuts in California and Arizona. That is about 50 percent of all the produce in

the United States.

We grow the best medicine in the world. Our farms and ranches

are the open space. We are the green space. Because we derive our

living from the land, we are the best stewards of the land. Our

members are committed to preserving those resources for future

generations of Americans.

In summary, my testimony today will focus on the impact of immigration policy on the environment. In addition, we are deeply

troubled by the fact that our current enforcement only approached

immigration policy has forced determined migrants into the oftendeadly deserts of the southwestern United States.

Hundreds of miles of illegal trails and roads have been created

from undocumented aliens crossing through refuge lands. This proliferation of trails and roads damages and destroys cactus and

other sensitive vegetation, disrupts revegetation efforts, disturbs

wildlife and their habitat, and causes soil compaction and erosion.

Western Growers believes it is necessary to preserve the environmentally fragile desert lands along the southern border by opening

legal channels to migration while securing our borders. At the

same time, we recognize that as the border becomes more secure

the human traffickers are forced to direct illegal aliens to areas of

the border that have not been used previously for this traffic. This

illegal traffic is increasingly moving toward and into very environmentally sensitive Federal and nonFederal lands and creating environmental havoc.

Illegal trails and roads carved by immigrants can destroy vegetation, wildlife habitat, and effect erosion patterns. Conservationists

and biologists estimate that it could take over a century for fragile

desert soils and plants to recover from this damage. Further insult

to this precious land is caused by the trash and garbage strewn

about by these traffickers.

It has been estimated that the average desert walking immigrant

leaves behind eight pounds of trash during a journey that under

the best-case scenario lasts one to three days. Assuming that half

a million people cross the border illegally into Arizona annually,

that translates to 2,000 tons of trash that immigrants dump each

year.

According to a report released by Defenders of the Wildlife, one

of the nation’s most progressive advocates for wildlife and its habitat, establishing a simple and feasible guest worker program is the

single most important reform that Congress can enact to protect

our precious desert lands.

There is a sensible solution to this problem which will not only

protect environmentally sensitive Federal lands in the southwest,

but will also bolster the national security, benefit the U.S.

33

economy, and provide humanitarian relief. That is a simple, feasible guest worker program.

It is axiomatic that a program that allows workers to enter the

United States legally directs those workers to enter and establish

points of entry rather than the unforgiving southwest desert. The

bottom line is that the U.S. economy needs additional workers to

do many of the jobs that Americans will not do.

[Audience reacts.]

Mr. NASSIF. It is beyond dispute that no one in this audience

raises their children to become farmworkers. The simple fact is our

crops are going to be harvested by foreign workers. The only issue

is whether or not the harvesting occurs in the United States where

for every farmworker job we create 3.5 jobs Americans will do or

whether some foreign economy will benefit from that labor.

Our members are reporting labor shortages in increasing numbers throughout California and Arizona. If our farmers cannot obtain an adequate labor supply, they will be forced to sell their

farms to developers eliminating the open space, or alternatively

they will move their production, as is happening today, to Mexico

or other countries where those willing to do agricultural work are

plentiful.

If our farmers cannot provide the supermarkets and food service

companies with locally grown product when they need it, they will

find it offshore in Mexico or China.

Mr. Chairman, it is hoped that this testimony will provide a

pathway that secures our borders, preserves our delicate environmental resources both public and private, and benefits our economy

for future generations. Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nassif follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Thomas A. Nassif,

President and CEO, Western Growers

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

testify today on behalf of Western Growers. It is very much appreciated that you

are holding this important hearing here in California.

Western Growers is an agricultural trade association whose 3,000 members grow,

pack and ship 90 percent of the fresh vegetables and nearly 70 percent of the fresh

fruit and nuts grown in Arizona and California, about one-half of the nation’s fresh

produce. I like to say that we grow the best medicine in the world—fresh fruits,

vegetables, and nuts. Western Growers is a member of the Agricultural Coalition

for Immigration Reform (ACIR) and the National Coalition of Agricultural Employers (NCAE). Both are large national coalitions of agricultural employers who support comprehensive immigration reform. Western Growers, ACIR and NCAE strongly support reform of the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program, which currently is inaccessible to most farmers in California and Arizona. We also support

an earned adjustment of status for experienced agricultural workers currently employed in agriculture. These experienced farm workers are necessary to maintain

current levels of agricultural production.

My name is Tom Nassif. I am President and CEO of Western Growers. I first represented the agriculture industry as an associate, and then as a partner, in the law

firm of Gray Cary Ames & Frye specializing in agricultural labor law. I represented

the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association and numerous growers and shippers in the Imperial Valley, Central Valley and Arizona on all kinds of agricultural

labor law matters. I left the practice of law in 1981 to join the Reagan Administration, first as Deputy and Chief of Protocol for the White House, and then as Deputy

Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs in the Office of

Protocol in 1983 and in 1985. I was then named by President Reagan as his Ambassador to the Kingdom of Morocco.

34

Since joining Western Growers in 2002, our trade association has constantly dealt

with a multitude of environmental and land issues on behalf of members. These

issues include environmental regulation, such as pesticide regulation; water use and

storage; and food safety and security, among other things. I have not received federal grants of any kind. Western Growers has received limited grants through market development programs (MDP) such as the Market Access Program (MAP) and

other MDP’s administered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Foreign

Agricultural Service (FAS) program.

To help our members stay competitive in an increasingly fierce global marketplace, Western Growers provides a host of services on which our members rely, including representation in government affairs; communications and media relations;

and international trade and transportation services, to name a few. Western Growers Assurance Trust (WGAT) is the largest insurer of benefits for the agriculture

industry, offering a variety of health care, dental, vision service and life insurance

plans, to farmers, their employees, and others affiliated with the agriculture industry. Today, more than 100,000 farm employees and their dependents receive employer sponsored benefits through WGAT. In addition, for over 30 years WGAT has

contracted directly with doctors, dentists, pharmacies and hospitals in Mexico to

provide seasonal farmworkers with access to healthcare in Mexico.

In summary, my testimony today will focus on immigration policy, and specifically, the impact of immigration policy on the environment. Our farmers and ranchers are the open space, we are the green space. Because we derive our living from

the land, we’re the best stewards of the land. Our members are committed to preserving those resources for future generations of Americans.

In addition, we are deeply troubled by the fact that our current enforcement-only

approach to immigration policy has forced determined migrants away from official

ports of entry into the forbidding and often deadly desert of the Southwestern

United States. Hundreds of miles of illegal trails and roads have been created from

undocumented aliens crossing through refuge lands. This proliferation of trails and

roads damages and destroys cactus and other sensitive vegetation, disrupts re-vegetation efforts, disturbs wildlife and their habitat, and causes soil compaction and

erosion. Moreover, hundreds of tons of debris, such as water bottles, diapers, and

abandoned vehicles are jettisoned on federally protected lands by undocumented

aliens. History clearly demonstrates that when legal channels to immigration are

made available, illegal immigration plummets. The evidence is clear that a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, one that recognizes the economic realities of the needs of employers and foreign workers is crucial to reducing illegal immigration. The creation of a feasible and reliable guest worker program will drastically reduce illegal immigration, thereby preserving precious environmental resources.

Western Growers is Dedicated to Preserving the Environment

To put this issue into context, it is important to fully understand California’s reliance on agriculture, and the country’s reliance on California agriculture. California

is the nation’s leading agricultural exporter. Between 16-19 percent of California’s

agricultural production is exported to international markets annually, totaling more

than $6.5 billion in revenues.

California is the largest producer of specialty crops in the United States. These

specialty crops provide 60 percent of America’s daily nutritional value. California

produces 99 percent or more of the following specialty crops: almonds, artichokes,

clingstone peaches, dates, figs, kiwifruit, nectarines, olives, persimmons, pistachios,

plums, dried (prunes), raisins and walnuts. The number one export is almonds.

Many Western Growers members are third and fourth generation farmers. It is

not unusual to find fifth and sixth generation farmers among our members. Western

Growers’ Chairman, Will Rousseau’s great-grandparents arrived in Arizona via covered wagon and began farming the land. Many have been farming the same exact

same land that their grandfathers, great-grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers

farmed so many years ago. Their longevity and fixedness is a testament to the environmentally friendly, sustainable farming practices that have been successfully implemented and improved upon for generations. This is the very definition of sustainable agriculture which refers to the ability of a farm to produce perpetually. An ever

increasing number of our members are engaged in organic farming. The movement

toward organic production is consistent with our members’ ever-present desire to be

more environmentally friendly, while also satisfying increasing consumer demand

for organics.

Environmental protection is a priority for the conservation of precious natural resources, the continued health of our planet, and the continued viability of the fresh

produce industry. Western Growers members recognize their responsibility as global

35

citizens and they continually strive to reduce the environmental impact of the work

they do and the commodities they produce. Western Growers takes pride in the

fresh produce industry’s history of innovation and thoughtful food production practices. How our production practices impact the environment is of the utmost importance to us, and environmental considerations are integral to our members’ business

practices. From the time the soil is prepared for planting and throughout the food

production and processing cycle, our members take care to keep their agricultural

activities environmentally sound and our fruit, vegetable and nut products, nutritious and safe to eat.

Recognizing our role as an environmental leader and steward, in 1991 Western

Growers adopted and implemented the Western Growers Environmental Code of

Concern, which guides our members on environmental practices.

Increasingly, Western Growers and state and national agricultural groups are

working more closely together because of a mutual recognition that California and

Arizona agricultural fields, orchards and vineyards constitute the present and future green space and open space of these productive states. Consider these statistics

about California agriculture: • More than one-quarter of California’s landmass is used for agriculture—about

27.7 million acres, including 5 million acres of federal grazing land. • Roughly 1.5% of the state’s total agricultural land (including a similar percentage of its cropland) was converted to urban uses between 1988 and 1998.

• Every year, 20,000 acres of California farmland is turned into housing developments.

Clearly, agriculture is one of the greatest industries of this great state. Our bountiful harvest supplies the nation and the world with the best fruits, vegetables and

nuts in the world. However, if our growers can’t find a dependable and legal workforce, they will have no choice but to shut down their operations or move production

to Mexico and other foreign soils. This will necessarily expedite the paving over of

precious farmland. And once a farm is paved over, it can never be converted back

to green space.

Western Growers Believes it is Necessary to Preserve the Environmentally

Fragile Desert Lands Along our Southern Border by Opening Legal

Channels to Migration

Western Growers and its members support border enforcement in a clear recognition of the need to secure our nation. At the same time, it recognizes that as the

border becomes more secure, it is forcing ‘‘coyotes’’ or human traffickers to direct

illegal aliens to areas of the border that have not been used previously for this traffic. This illegal traffic is increasingly moving toward and into very environmentally

sensitive federal and nonfederal desert land. This increased illegal traffic in fragile

desert lands is causing environmental havoc.

The environmental destruction of such treasures as the Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument, a 330,000-acre park in the Sonoran Desert on the ArizonaMexico border, is caused primarily by two distinct but diametrically opposed groups.

First, the professional illegal human smugglers are traveling along these highly sensitive areas in increasing numbers. This coyote traffic consists of both foot and vehicular traffic, both of which trample the fragile desert flora. Illegal trails and roads

carved by immigrants can destroy sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitat, and affect erosion patterns. Conservationists and biologists estimate that it could take

over a century before fragile desert soils and plants recover from the damage.

Further insult to this precious land is caused by the trash and garbage strewn

about by these traffickers. It has been estimated that the average desert-walking

immigrant leaves behind 8 pounds of trash during a journey that, under the best

case scenario, lasts one to three days. Assuming a half million people cross the border illegally into Arizona annually that translates to 2,000 tons of trash that migrants dump each year.

Migrant trash is especially vexing because it is scattered along remote areas

where it is dangerous to grazing cattle and wildlife and difficult and expensive for

waste management crews to reach and pick up.

According to a report released by Defenders of Wildlife, one of the nation’s most

progressive advocates for wildlife and its habitat, immigrant traffic and border

patrol activities have left the following examples of damage:

• Vehicles abandoned by illegal immigrants are expensive to remove and towing

them causes additional damage.

• Trash and human waste left behind by illegal immigrants affects soil and water

quality.

• Low level helicopter flights by the Border Patrol disturb wildlife and habitat

areas.

36

• Off-road vehicle patrols damage fragile regions vital to local wildlife. U.S. road,

light, and fence-building projects disturb wildlife, destroy habitat and shift animal migratory patterns.

Thus, it is not just the coyotes and the human cargo that cause substantial damage to the habitats of the southwest. Federal, state, and local law enforcement

groups and their volunteer counterparts travel over these same desert lands in an

effort to apprehend those sneaking across the border. Law enforcement agencies

along the border, as laudable as their mission is, use large motor vehicles that cause

further damage to the desert environment. Moreover, the flow of migrants into the

desert compels the necessary humanitarian efforts by U.S. citizens to journey into

the dangerous desert to help save the lives of vulnerable migrants who become

stranded in the desert. Again while noble of intention, the sensitive desert habitats

become further harmed.

Western Growers Supports a Solution that Enforces our Borders, Enhances

the Environment and Preserves Agriculture in California and Arizona

There is a sensible solution to this problem, which will not only protect the environmentally fragile federal lands of the Southwest, but will also bolster national

security, benefit the U.S. economy, and provide humanitarian relief. The bottom line

is the U.S. economy needs additional workers to do many of the jobs that U.S. workers will not do. It is beyond dispute that Americans do not raise their children to

perform stoop labor or otherwise toil in the fields, vineyards, and orchards of our

country’s farms. The simple fact is: our crops are going to be harvested by foreign

workers. The only issue is whether or not the harvesting occurs in the United States

where our economy will benefit from the 3.5 jobs created upstream and downstream

for every farmworker job, or whether another country will reap those economic

benefits.

A reliable, legal guest worker program must be established so that workers can

come legally to our country and become legally employed in jobs where there are

insufficient domestic workers to do the job. In the past, there was a program that

accomplished this and discouraged aliens from illegally entering the US. While the

bracero program was much maligned because of a lack of labor law protections and

perceived exploitation of foreign workers, today, there are ample laws in place to

protect guest workers from unscrupulous employers.

I would direct the Committee’s attention to several excellent and well-researched

studies on topic. The first is by Douglas S. Massey, a professor at Princeton University, on behalf of the Cato Institute which concludes that the enforcement-only approach to immigration policy has not only failed, but has had the opposite of its intended effect. The study demonstrates how the last twenty years of enforcement

only policy has driven migration flows into the desert. (The executive summary of

the report, titled Backfire at the Border: Why Enforcement without Legalization

Cannot Stop Illegal Immigration, is attached as Exhibit 1)

In addition, two studies by Stuart Anderson for the National Foundation for

American Policy are also very illuminating. One is titled The Impact of Agricultural

Guest Worker Programs on Illegal Immigration, and the other is Making the Transition from Illegal to Legal Migration (executive summaries attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively). The first report focuses on agricultural guest workers and

concludes, among other things:

• ‘‘By providing a legal path to entry for Mexican farm workers the bracero program significantly reduced illegal immigration. The end of the bracero program

in 1964 (and its curtailment in 1960) saw the beginning of the increases in

illegal immigration that we see up to the present day.

• It is recognized that the number of INS apprehensions are an important indicator of the illegal flow and that, in general, apprehension numbers drop when

the flow of illegal immigration decreases.

• In the 1950s and 1960s, senior law enforcement officials in the U.S. Border

Patrol and elsewhere in the INS understood and promoted the use of market

forces to reduce illegal immigration and control the Southwest border. A February 1958 Border Patrol document from the El Centro (California) district

states, ‘‘Should Public Law 78 be repealed or a restriction placed on the number

of braceros allowed to enter the United States, we can look forward to an increase in the number off illegal alien entrants into the United States.’’

It is axiomatic that a program that allows workers to enter the U.S. legally directs those workers to enter at established points of entry. Workers who are given

the opportunity to enter the United States legally, do not have to, and do not want

to, journey through the unforgiving Southwest desert. Establishing a simple and

feasible guest worker program is the single most important reform that Congress

can enact to protect our precious desert lands. Employers would embrace such a proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:45 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\29470.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
37

gram since they presently want to hire legal workers, but currently have no way

to do so or verify they are doing so.

Currently, if a prospective employee presents identity and work authorization documents that appear valid on their face, the employer must accept those documents

without further investigation or risk being sued for discrimination and bias. Establishing a feasible guest worker program, where guest workers would be provided a

counterfeit-proof ID card, is key to protecting threatened federal lands, as well as

preserving precious farmland.

Our members are reporting labor shortages in increasing numbers, throughout

California and Arizona, due in part to the ever tightening enforcement of the Southwest border. If our farmers cannot obtain an adequate labor supply, they will be

forced to go out of business and sell their farms to developers, or alternatively, they

will move their production to Mexico or other countries where those willing to do

agricultural work are plentiful. The marketplace has dictated that production must

be moved out of the United States where there is not sufficient harvest labor. Consumers and, therefore, supermarkets demand a ready supply of the highest quality

fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables. It is unacceptable for the producer to fail to deliver

these products to market due to a shortage of harvest labor. If the supermarket

can’t get locally grown product when it needs it, it will rely on Mexico, China and

other countries for its supply. As we import more produce, the United States will

become increasingly dependent on foreign nations for its food. We will then be dependent on foreign countries for food as we are now dependent on other countries

for oil. Thus, maintaining a safe, healthy and abundant domestic supply of fresh

fruits, nuts and vegetables is a national security imperative.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, it is hoped that this testimony will help to provide a pathway that

secures our borders, preserves our delicate environmental resources, both public and

private, and benefits our economy for future generations. If our farm land is lost

due to the lack of labor, the land will be developed, and that green space will be

lost forever. The solution, a viable guest worker program, unites environmentalists,

farmers, economists, and humanitarians, for the common good. Providing legal

channels for immigration, channels that direct immigrants away from sensitive and

lethal desert lands, to official ports of entry, is critical for the environment, the

economy, and the future of this nation.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share our views. I will be pleased

to answer any questions you may have.

[NOTE: Attachments to Ambassador Nassif’s statement have been retained in the

Committee’s official files.]

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Nassif. I appreciate your patience

in view of the intolerance and lack of respect of some members of

the audience.

Before we go to questions from the Committee, I would like to

ask unanimous consent that the statement of Muriel Watson be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by Muriel Watson,

Bonita, California, on behalf of LIGHT UP THE BORDER

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this hearing. It is a good use of

our responsibilities as citizens. I have had my first experience back in El Paso.

Texas before the ’Rodino; committee in 1971.

At that time, I was petitioning for the continued use of the fleet of planes that

was part of the U.S. Immigration deportation agenda. The planes were flown by

bilingual, trained U. S, Border Patrol Agents who were highly skilled multi-engine

pilots.

These flights went to Europe and Asia as well as all over our Country. The planes

and Border Patrol crews were used by the Bureau of Prisons to move federal inmates from institution to institution to relieve gang tensions and maintain a level

of calm within the prison walls. These same planes took Border Patrol Agents (who

were also federal marshals) to Montgomery Alabama during the School integration

events. These planes flew civil rights attorneys from State to State for the Justice

Dept. in their Court appearances on behalf of the civil rights cases. These planes

38

flew the Attorney General of the United States when needed. These planes were stationed at Baltimore Airport for Congressional use as well as being stationed in El

Paso, for deportation cases ordered by AG Robert Kennedy for New Orleans resident

Carlos Marcelos. These planes moved illegal aliens back to their homelands quickly.

On the trips to Europe these planes and crew rescued the Hungarian refugees after

their revolution. This took several trips where the refugees were taken to an Army

camp in New Jersey for processing and sent on their way.

I went to Washington to lobby the case for these planes that were being grounded.

I had White House contacts and from Senator John Towers Office was informed that

not only would the planes stay in use but that we would get some badly needed

’new ones.’’ These planes went down and I was called ‘‘A dangerous woman’’ by John

Rooney of New York who hinted that I was lying. Richard White of El Paso backed

me up but somewhere in the jungle of the Immigration service they wanted the

planes down and go to ‘bus service’ for sending people home.

I also talked about more manpower and equipment for on the line at the border

but according to press reports Mr. Rooney, chair of appropriations said that Ins Director didn’t ask for more funds because they were not needed...We had 1600 U.S.

Border Patrol Agents for the entire Country at that time and INS was at the DESIRED LEVEL OF CONTROL.

HERE IT IS 2006 and we are at the crossroads of a level of uncontrolled that is

ravishing the security of the Country.

EVEN THE 1979 Event in Tehran, and when the hostages were taken the INS

was the Agency that could not come up with an accurate figure for the number and

place of the Iranian Students in the Country or where the other holders of ’student

visas’ were located. The Universities for the most part according to press reports

didn’t want that information revealed as a privacy issue. When it was stated by the

Immigration service in March of 1980 that while our citizens were being held in

Tehran almost 11,000 Iranian Students entered the Country despite the Presidents

order to halt the reentry of people from Iran-Today, we are concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on our community especially after 9/11. Even the Congressional

Hearings on 9/11 listed as a prime objective the ’security of our borders and the validity of our visa documents

In my observations over the last three decades there has been a concerted effort

to destroy the mission of the Border Patrol. This small agency was formed in 1924

by the Labor Dept. to protect our work force and the open borders outside the

PORTS Of ENTRY. It has been shortchanged and manipulated to suit policy that

declared that the DESIRED LEVEL OF CONTROL was being maintained.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Radanovich, sorry about the plane trouble. Glad

you could make it here. Why don’t you lead us off with the questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to

be here this morning. Sorry about that. Got stuck in Los Angeles

on the way down for a little bit. It is good to be with my colleague

Brian Bilbray here.

Is it your district, Brian?

Mr. BILBRAY. Close. It is Chairman Hunter’s district.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. We like Duncan, too. I am sorry I didn’t

get to hear the testimony from all the panel members but I do have

some questions regarding this issue, Mr. Manjarrez especially. I

wanted to ask you some questions regarding the Bracero program

which was in operation during the 1940s. I think it was from the

1940s to right around the 1960s.

That was a legal means for providing Mexican farm workers to

come to the United States and harvest crops and leave. It was

more of a migrant worker program. It had some warts but it was

deemed to be fairly effective, I think, during that time. Does Border

Protection have any opinion on the effectiveness of the program at

the time or anything.

As I understand it, at the time this was in operation that illegal

immigration in the United States was reduced to extremely low

39

levels and that after the program was appealed in the 1960s that

illegal immigration along, I believe, the Mexican border was up

about 1,000 percent. Do you have any comments on that program

and how it may have contributed to preventing illegal immigration?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Congressman, certainly the dynamics have

changed considerably since then. The world, in fact, has changed

considerably on that. As you have heard, the proposal from the

President calls for a comprehensive issue, or immigration issue to

be able to address all this.

Obviously we are concerned with border security, immediate border security, but we know that is not the only facet or the aspect

of immigration or the dynamic that we live along the southwest

border. You would have to have interior enforcement and you have

to have a method to relieve that pressure in the immediate border

area so that we are not dealing with the numbers we are dealing

with. We have reduced the number of clutter and really look at our

primary mission, terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. RADANOVICH. The way I see the immigration issue, too, is

kind of in my view blocked in thirds. The first one, and the most

important one, is border protection and sealing the border. I think

that has got to be our first priority. There are other issues as well

and that is the impact especially from the area of the state that

I come from in the Central Valley, the impact of the loss of types

of workers who will harvest crops and what it does to the economy

of the area.

The third one is, I think, probably the most controversial and

that is what did we do with the undocumented that are in this

country already and those are just three very contentious issues.

I guess my question for you was if we had border protection today,

if the Congress finally got their act together and passed it, how

long would it take for you to seal the border? How long would it

take for you to implement a plan assuming it was just an order to

seal up the border?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Well, the question is often asked how many Border Patrol agents do you need? It is not simply a case of a number

of agents. We speak of the proper mix of resources from agents,

technology, to tactical infrastructure. Those dynamics really change

from environment to environment.

For example, in San Diego, an area that would classify as an

urban environment, you will see more of the primary fence, the secondary fence, a large infusion of Border Patrol agents and technology. When you start getting to the rural areas, remote areas the

dynamics——

Mr. RADANOVICH. So five years, 10 years, 20 years? What will it

take? If you had all the resources that you needed, how long would

it take?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Well, the Secure Border Initiative is a multiyear plan. It is as fast as resources come in. The number of Border

Patrol agents will be by the end of calendar year ’08. It is as fast

as we can get technology, sir.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Say that again?

Mr. MANJARREZ. It is as fast as we can get technology and implement the tactical infrastructure. That can vary in time in terms of

the tactical infrastructure in the field.

40

Mr. RADANOVICH. If the Congress passed a legal guest worker

program today and all the resources that you want, how long would

it take to implement something like that?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Under the Secure Border Initiative it is a multiyear plan. I believe the plans have ranged anywhere from four to

five years to have the resources on the ground that have a definite

impact. As quickly as we hire the agents and put them on board.

That one piece, sir.

Tactical infrastructure is a second piece and technology. I think

technology is probably going to be more longer term taking a little

bit more time to develop and put out there because there are things

out there that we simply don’t know about but they are the whiz

bang type of things that will also do the job efficiently.

Mr. RADANOVICH. So in either case, on border security or guest

worker, each one of those you are saying multiple

years.

Mr. MANJARREZ. Multi-year, sir.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Multiple years. In the undocumented issue, if

you had all the resources in the world, how long would it take to

round up 12 million illegal immigrants and get them out of this

country?

Mr. MANJARREZ. I certainly would not like to be the Immigration

Enforcement, the ICE people, at that point. Again, that would be

part of the Interior and Enforcement which is part of the plan

under the Secure Border Initiative. It is going to be the application

of those resources. It is not just one on the border. At the same

time it is hiring additional personnel to do those things for interior.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All of them will take many years.

Mr. MANJARREZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, just one more quick question,

if I may.

You had mentioned that the issue is the pressure on the border

in order to get border protection. Do you believe a guest worker

program, a migrant worker program, a Bracero program would aid

in helping us seal off the border?

Mr. MANJARREZ. I think any program that reduces the pressure

on the border will assist in border security.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I thank you and I look forward to the next

round of questions, Mr. Chair.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Victor, I am going to get you in real trouble today. If there was

a number one reason why we have illegal immigration, what would

be that reason?

Mr. MANJARREZ. The difference in economy, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. So there is a lack of capital and job opportunities

south and there is a lack of labor and an overabundance of capital

and investment in the north.

Mr. MANJARREZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. In a word, is it fair to say that the number one

source of illegal immigration is illegal employment? People willing

to hire people who are here illegally?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Yes, sir.

41

Mr. BILBRAY. It is not that we lack fencing. It is not that we lack

Border Patrol agents. It is that people are hiring people illegally

in this country.

Mr. MANJARREZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. Now, Steve said that the Administration’s position

is that we need robust interior enforcement. Is it fair to say that

we have robust interior enforcement today?

Mr. MANJARREZ. No, sir. It is not fair to say that.

Mr. BILBRAY. Would it be fair for me to say that the greatest deficiency we have in immigration enforcement is not at the border,

is not with fences, is not with Border Patrol agents at the border,

but it is the lack of interior enforcement?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. With 40 percent of the people illegally in the country if we control every access between our port of entries, stop all

illegal entries, will we ever be able to control illegal immigration

without interior enforcement?

Mr. MANJARREZ. No. That is an important piece, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. The Administration says its policy is for robust interior enforcement. What is stopping the Administration from doing

that enforcement today?

Mr. MANJARREZ. I was waiting for the question that would get

me in trouble and that is the one, isn’t it, sir? Sir, the only way

I can really answer is the immediate border area in terms of outlining our requirements on the immediate border area. There is an

understanding not only with ourselves but, ask any Border Patrol

agent that goes in the field, there is a magnet that here in the interior. If that magnet is either reduced or turned off or rechanneled

or reprogrammed somehow, we will have at some point people

making those attempts.

Mr. BILBRAY. I just have to tell you because some people say why

have you been so outspoken on this, especially the areas with high

populations of immigrants that I have represented over the last 30

years. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am one of the few people that

serve in Congress who have rescued illegals when they are drowning. I have recovered their bodies when they haven’t made it. I

have seen them slaughtered on the freeway. I didn’t read about

them slaughtered on the freeway during the Bonsai charges. I saw

it.

It is funny how people can be outraged at the users of drugs and

relate that they are responsible for the deaths. I just want to tell

you, Victor, the Border Patrol agents are not responsible for the

deaths that have happened along the border for the last 30 years.

Everybody who is hiring an illegal is personally responsible for

those deaths. Here is what I am asking, is that my constituency,

my citizens when they leave my district and they drive north up

by 5, don’t they have to go through a checkpoint with your agents

in it?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. When my constituency goes up by 15, don’t they

have to go through the Border Patrol?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. They go out 8, God forbid, to go to New Mexico,

they have to go through your agents?

42

Mr. MANJARREZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. My citizens want to know if we are surrounded by

agents, why aren’t they at the Home Depot? Is there a reason why

you cannot have your agents in the morning—when I drove down

Alga Road this week, I almost rear-ended a car that was pulled

alongside while people were standing there and everyone knows

they are there.

Are you allowed to have your agents leave the checkpoint or

leave the border for two or three hours and just come over and do

the common decency of checking that these people are legally applying for jobs? Are you allowed to do that, Victor?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Congressman, I really can’t speak on behalf of

San Diego sector but it was a common practice to look at those

areas and enforce those areas. I don’t know what the current practice is on that.

Mr. BILBRAY. I will tell you what the current practice is. The fact

is as soon as you did that, the general citizen, the general person

out there, the average citizen did not call up and protest, did not

call up and say, ‘‘I don’t want these agents in my neighborhood

because I want to hire these people.’’ The average citizen didn’t do

it and the political pressure has been to look the other way.

Have you ever heard of the concept by the Border Patrol agents

that they call the ‘‘hundred yard dash freebie?’’ If you get 100 yards

north of the border, you are free. I am sorry to pick on you because

when it comes down to it interior enforcement is where it is going.

I would like to go down to the other end, though, and ask the

Ambassador if we create new Bracero program and we do a carveout recognizing that you have truly a need for guest workers to

come here, work, and then go home, if we create that and we do

not have an interior enforcement to make sure those people don’t

walk away from your program and go start hanging drywall, don’t

you think you are going to have problems with the guest worker

program if we don’t have a viable interior enforcement program,

that that is an essential part of making a guest worker program

truly guest worker and not a back-door immigration policy?

Mr. NASSIF. We have always supported an aggressive interior enforcement at the job site. We have always supported a fraud proof

identification card so that when we get a Social Security card or

driver’s license we don’t have to be immigration cops to determine

whether or not those are fraudulent or not. We would that people

go through the border illegally through the port of entry using false

documents and at the port of entry they can’t even determine

whether they are false or legal.

Many of those illegals come right through the port of entry. For

agriculture we need to have people who come into this country to

work in agriculture. That is why we support the Ag Jobs Bill

because it provides that if these guest workers come over, they

have to work in agriculture for a given period of time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much. I have no more questions

until the next round.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Manjarrez, I am not very tolerant of the burst of emotion

from the audience but this is typical of what is happening because

43

people feel like the Federal Government basically hasn’t done its

job.

[Applause.]

Mr. PEARCE. Please, please. We are trying to work our way

through an argument here, working our way through a discussion.

How did we get to where we are today with regard to border enforcement? It has taken us 30 years to get to this point. Why?

Mr. MANJARREZ. You are absolutely right, sir. It has taken us

decades on that. It is not going to turn on a dime without a real

commitment. We haven’t seen that commitment. We have seen

the——

Mr. PEARCE. Where is the commitment lacking from?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Well, I think the commitment is coming, Chairman.

Mr. PEARCE. Where was it lacking from?

Mr. MANJARREZ. I think it was a will. Border Patrol agents have

wanted to do the job and it is just to receive the appropriate funding to do so and the resources to do so. As you well know, we have

through Congress been receiving additional and significant funds

the greatest in our history. We have made some tangible gains. We

are not done. We are not close to being done. We fully realize that,

but I think we are on the right track.

I think the opportunity to continue on this right track, the support for the Secure Border Initiative which is an all-encompassing.

Not just immigration but terrorism and everything that we deal

with are methods and programs that are leading us down the right

path to get to the point where——

Mr. PEARCE. Do you actually need legislation? We are all talking

nationwide and we are all hyperventilating about what kind of legislation. Do you even need legislation to secure the border?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Absolutely, sir.

Mr. PEARCE. What legislation do you need? In other words, that

is your mandate right now.

Mr. MANJARREZ. It is the legislation in terms of—well, it is the

funding mechanisms.

Mr. PEARCE. Those funding mechanisms have been done. What

we are still debating in Congress, in other words, we have 10,000

people headed your way. They are in the pipeline. They are training. They are going to be on the border. I think 5,000 or 6,000 in

the first year and the next year will be another 5,000 or 6,000.

I am asking do you really need more justification to secure the

border? That to me has been the problem in the past that the agency was not focused on the problem. With all due respect to your

great service and the people in the field, somewhere it has gone

wrong and I don’t personally think we need legislation. I will let

you think about that.

Ms. Keeler, you know the Johnson Ranch which is about 20 miles

from you, I suspect. Thank you for your graciousness in not calling

us every day but Mr. Johnson called us almost every day to update

us on the new failures at the border. I appreciate him doing it

because it kept us really in tune and wired pretty hard. We were

having very difficult behind-the-scenes discussions with Border

Patrol.

44

In my mind just either a lack of commitment in the agency or

whatever. In the last three weeks we have seen different calls coming from Mr. Johnson. Tell me what you are seeing on your ranch

in the last three weeks. Are you seeing a decrease or what?

Ms. KEELER. I had talked to Joe before I came here and he is

seeing a decrease in the illegal immigrants coming across but we

are not still where we are, although we have had a lot of activity

recently by the Border Patrol which indicates that they are catching a lot more people in our area. We are not one of those that will

complain.

We kind of complain to the locals, not to our sector chiefs or even

to you because I hate to be a pain in the neck. It is decreasing. We

can’t figure out whether it is because possibly the catch and release

policy that up until then they catch them and take them over to

Columbus.

They release them into Palomas and then they come back the

next day. We have changed that so that they are not just getting

released back into Mexico. Possibly the National Guard presence

there is helping a lot. Although the decrease according to Joe, he

started seeing a decrease prior to the National Guard showing up.

I would like to say that we do have a presence and we have for

almost a year now from the state highway or the state policy department that we really appreciate Governor Richardson sending

them down to kind of patrol the area. They do get on track. We

have a friend that works for the police department, the state police,

and they do track the illegals going across. I like the cooperative

manner.

I would like to see our Federal Government, our Federal agencies, our Border Patrol work closer with our local law enforcement

agencies. There are a lot of things that we could do. I hate to put

the burden completely on the Border Patrol because there are a lot

of state and local law enforcement agencies that could help including the ranchers. If we were treated with respect and if we were

given some means of communicating with these guys other than

the phone because there is no phone service down there unless you

are at the house.

Mr. PEARCE. Thanks. I appreciate it.

Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Pearce.

I wanted to kind of go into the employer issue and those that

knowingly or unknowingly hires illegal immigrants to do their

work for them because I think there are differences in employers

and what they do. I want to start off by saying that 10 years ago

I thought this was a great idea when I was in Congress. Then Governor Pete Wilson sent a bill to the President of the United States

for $3.5 billion which was the cost of the impact of illegal immigration on the State of California for one year.

It was a great concept because it outlined the cost of this problem that we have. I supported that. I voted for Prop 187. I am in

strong support of the minutemen on the border because they have

really finding got this issue to the Congress right now. The constituents that I have, the 660,000 people that I represent in the

Central Valley, big agriculture, will tell you beyond a doubt that

45

our first job is to seal the borders, protect the borders and stop

illegal immigration.

I will tell you that there is a difference in the kind of employers

that in some ways depend on the illegal immigrants because there

is no legal way to get workers to harvest crops and they are different than, say, what might be large employers. I hate to say box

doors but I am not going to accuse anybody of hire illegals in large

companies who do it because they can get them cheaper.

If they didn’t, they would have to raise rates but they would

probably find people to do those jobs. The difference between that

and agriculture which is mainly seasonable which is during a very

short time of the year you need a lot of workers and it is not pleasant work and the American people won’t do that. If you raise your

rates too high, you are competing on an international basis and it

puts the price of your crops so high that you basically go out of

business and need to go to a country where there is better labor.

These folks don’t hire illegal immigrants because they are presented with documentation that looks like they are legal. There is

a rule out there that if you question the legality of that document,

you can’t proceed to find out whether that person is an illegal or

not. They are in between a rock and a hard spot because they need

labor quick and they need labor that is willing to do the job.

They are willing to pay a fair rate but Americans will not do

those jobs. Those are the people that I represent. Those are the

folks that I need to find a way as we are trying to sort out this

problem on illegal immigration to try to preserve so that our nation’s food supply that Mr. Nassif talked about, 50 percent of the

fresh produce in this country doesn’t go to another country and become a strategic liability the way oil is.

That is where I am coming from. Now, there is a legal guest

worker program in existence in the United States right now. It is

called H2A. Mr. Nassif, a lot of my growers in my district are members of Western Growers and I am very pleased that you are here

today. I do want to ask you if you would go into the H2A program

and give me an idea of whether you think it works or not. Does

it work for seasonable agriculture the way we have in the Central

Valley and does it provide an adequate means to get workers?

Mr. NASSIF. No. The H2A program does need reform and that is

part of the package that passed out of the Senate in the Ag Jobs

Bill. The fact is if we want to bring in a foreign worker, the H2A

program says you first have to go in the United States and advertise that job so we do that. We go to the Department of Employment, newspapers, and we ask for people willing to do the work.

When we don’t get any workers, or if we get one or two workers,

that obviously isn’t going to fill our need. We then say to the Federal Government, ‘‘Here is what we have done. Tell us whether it

is adequate or not and, if it is, can we now go to a foreign source?’’

They will determine whether that is true. Then if we hire someone

from a foreign country, we have to pay for their transportation to

the United States.

We have to pay for all of their food. We have to provide them

housing. We cannot give them a housing allowance. We have to

provide them with housing. Let’s say California uses 400,000 farm

workers. How are you going to find housing for 400,000 farm

46

workers in California? What city or county is going to allow us to

build housing for 400,000 workers and how much will that cost

with the increasing price of land today? So it is a very unworkable

program that needs changing.

Mr. RADANOVICH. But you are in favor of housing allowance that

allows them—gives them money to find lodging. Right?

Mr. NASSIF. Yes, we are.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. With

all due respect to my colleagues, we are going to try to get back

on to the discussion of Federal lands and the impact of immigration. Otherwise, the speaker is going to ask us to do the same hearing again next week and I am not sure I can make it out next Saturday. I will go ahead and go to questions next.

Mr. Borchard, you have heard Ms. Powers discussing the impact

to their recreational association or even her own attempts at recreational horseback riding through the closing of roads due to supposedly illegal immigration problems. Tell us a little bit about that

because it sounds familiar to the same closing of roads up in the

national forest and the BLM area back away from the border and

we have a different reason there. Tell me a little bit about what

your justifications are and what you are doing to get those areas

that are not wilderness or should be accessible to our citizens back

open.

Mr. BORCHARD. The BLM goes through a decisionmaking process

when determining what routes to allow to remain open or to close.

Some of the factors that are considered during that decisionmaking

process include recreation both equestrian, hiking——

Mr. PEARCE. I understand. I don’t need to hear about the process.

I understand you have a process but you heard her testimony that

actually trails are being shut down and so your process is coming

up with an agreement that shuts it off.

Isn’t that right, Ms. Powers? Isn’t that basically what you said?

There are areas that the trails have been closed down to just three

trails? Was that your testimony or was it Mr. Ingram?

Ms. POWERS. It wasn’t mine but I found that to be true at times.

I have found that my working very carefully——

Mr. PEARCE. Turn your mike on if you would.

Ms. POWERS. Over the years I have worked very closely with the

Border Patrol, for instance, with their infrastructure planning and

I found a lot of good positive give-and-take considering our equestrian trails. With BLM that is not necessarily the truth.

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Mr. McGarvie, you maybe were involved in a

little bit of this discussion that talked a little bit about the lack of

access to normal citizens and the reason give is Homeland

Security?

Mr. MCGARVIE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I may not have been clear

when I mentioned only three trails in the Yuha Desert which are

open to off-highway vehicles. That is due to environmental concerns, not security. However, there are roads and trails within the

Cleveland National Forest. Two that come to mind that are posted

on their website is closed due to Homeland Security, Thing Valley

Road and Kitchen Creek Road. I think there are others and I think

there are also some on BLM land.

47

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Mr. Manjarrez, when we have a problem in a

national park, who has jurisdiction? Is there even a question of jurisdiction? Who stops the problem of illegal immigration through

the parks? I know it is a significant thing like I saw in Sequoia

National Park, again Oregon Pipes. Who has jurisdiction and is

that a big problem?

Mr. MANJARREZ. That is a good question. In the past, that was

a big problem—the jurisdiction. That really is not an issue at this

point anymore. Typically when we have activity of illegal immigration we are the first responder jurisdiction on that but that is

always done in close coordination with our public land managers.

Mr. PEARCE. OK. So it is no problem today who pays the bill?

Mr. MANJARREZ. In terms of the enforcement, we pay the bill.

Mr. PEARCE. So you go on the national parks and you are responsible on national parks and you are responsible on national park

boundaries and your agency is comfortable paying the bill because

we had a hearing about a year ago where there was great disagreement between the park service and border patrol who actually paid

the bill. The jurisdiction was actually clear but then there was the

friction over whose budget it came out of. You are saying no

problem now. Border Patrol recognizes it is your budget and your

problem.

Mr. MANJARREZ. Well, again, it is the enforcement, sir. I am not

sure if I am understanding your question. What additional costs

are you talking about? When we enforce on a public land——

Mr. PEARCE. When you enforce on a national park, you don’t

have any problem paying the bill?

Mr. MANJARREZ. I think we have, sir. I think we have continued

to pay that bill.

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Thank you. My time is about to elapse. Do you

have more questions, Mr. Radanovich? I will come back to you if

you do.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Not at this moment.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Borchard, you mentioned in your testimony that

the border enforcement provision in Mr. Bilbray’s Otay Wilderness

bill. Should there be a similar provision included in all appropriate

wilderness study areas along the border? Is that something that

you would recommend? You mentioned the Bilbray provision or the

enforcement provision in Mr. Bilbray’s Otay Wilderness bill. Is that

enforcement something that you would expect Congress to give the

agency in all wilderness areas or WSAs?

Mr. BORCHARD. Yes, sir. I would consider wilderness areas where

border——

Mr. PEARCE. If you could turn your mike on. These mikes need

to either come on or go off. By the way, thanks to the West Hills

High School for providing these services to us. The place is excellent. The auditorium is great. We just hope that the wolves that

they represent are not on the endangered species list but thank

you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Borchard.

Mr. BORCHARD. Yes, sir. I would consider where border security

issues are a concern in wilderness areas that Congress consider

and take up and study the necessary actions that they feel and

that public land managers advise them along with in cooperation

48

with Border Patrol advice that they would consider necessary to assist the Border Patrol in carrying out their mission of increasing

the security as well as considered the mission of the public land

agency in protecting those resources.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Bilbray, would you like to ask questions?

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steve, I might just

note it is sort of interesting on this side of the border how we

always refer to Mexico as the Republic of Mexico. I don’t know if

it is a cultural thing from prior to the revolution. The last time I

looked at the map it is the United States of Mexico but that is just

an editorial note I always love to throw in.

Victor, back to where we were talking about interior enforcement. Is there a policy that—where are you based at again?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Tucson sector, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. Are you guys allowed to go to areas in the neighborhood of—the vicinity of the border region and check for documentation or are you only allowed to work your checkpoints and

your border? Are you allowed to do any interior enforcement in the

area within 60 miles of the border?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Typically we don’t do interior enforcement, sir.

We will look at some of the urban areas like San Diego and places

like Douglas, Nogales, and Naco, immediate town areas. Typically

right on the border. We are doing border enforcement. If the question is do we go into businesses and check employment

verifications? The answer is no. We simply don’t do that type of enforcement.

Mr. BILBRAY. In Tijuana Valley sector we use extensive off-road

vehicles for enforcement. The trails that are used by your agents

are through habitat areas traditionally as has been pointed out a

lot by the off-road vehicle people. What would be the impact of your

enforcement capability if the Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife, basically told you that you could not access those areas

anymore?

Mr. MANJARREZ. It would be devastating. Access is a key. The

closer we are to the border, the greater chance or problem we have

to make that interdiction before they make the entry into the

United States.

Mr. BILBRAY. So just as with the wilderness areas we have had

to sort of change the rules and allow impact on an area that we

normally would not allow with roads or off-road activity, with the

area outside of the wilderness areas, it is your opinion that as long

as we have as much illegal immigration as we do, we are going to

have to maintain that impact and just accept it as part of the cost

of protecting the rest of the area.

Mr. MANJARREZ. I don’t think it is ever acceptable, sir. I think

we always strive to be able to compress those areas that we are

working. Even if there wasn’t a single entry or any connectivity, we

would still need an enforcement zone in the immediate border area.

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Mr. Ingram, we are talking about you working

on the Smugglers Gulch, Goat Canyon area?

Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. One of the things I was very interested in is

I saw the maps of the alternatives that were being proposed by

people who claimed to be representing the environmental commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:45 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\DOCS\29470.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
49

nity. Instead of doing a straight cut and fill, they were talking

about doing a switchback.

Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILBRAY. Am I wrong as a layman to look at their plan and

see that their footprint of disturbing habitat was probably about

three or four times larger than the footprint you are proposing with

your cut and fill?

Mr. INGRAM. I think, if I remember correctly, Congressman, it

was as large, if not larger. The main concern within Smuggler’s

Gulch in particular was that the surface area of the manufactured

slopes were going to be greater in switchback alternative than in

the embankment fill.

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. And the Goat Canyon area, how are we going

to approach the trash problem? Do you have any way of engineering our problem with the siltation or problems that are already

coming across the border and impacting the—this is the estuarine

area. I mean, this is one of the largest Federal estuarine preserves

in the country. It has been impacted severely. Are you able to design in there the siltation from Mexico that has obviously been a

problem in the past in that region?

Mr. INGRAM. The designs that are currently on the border infrastructure system are designed to control the sedimentation runoff

of the project footprint. They are not going to control sedimentation

or trash coming north from Mexico. It will capture some of it but

it will not——

Mr. BILBRAY. You know the photo of the Flucacho Channel, Ms.

Powers? Do you have a comment on that question? Go ahead.

Ms. POWERS. Yes. I would just like to say that this really maybe

isn’t touching on today’s subject but the sedimentation gets worse

every year through Goat Canyon as well as Smuggler’s Gulch

because of the development on the Mexican side. Isn’t there some

way to put some kind of pressure on Mexico to do something to control the sedimentation there?

Mr. BILBRAY. Hopefully with our cooperative effort and border regional infrastructure things like international bank loans and everything else we can do that. I think there are so many related

problems, so much of the trash we see down there people are thinking it is just coming from Tijuana and that may be a degree of it

but massive amounts of that trash is directly related to the immigration issue.

As the lady from New Mexico pointed out, this one is going right

into an estuarine sanctuary that 50 percent of my hometown was

condemned because the Federal Government thought this property

was so precious and so important to the Nation that it must be preserved. Almost to the day that the Federal Government condemned

it, it has been polluted and trashed from a foreign country and it

just seems like if it was that important to take half of my hometown, it should be important enough to make sure we have the resources to protect it.

Ms. POWERS. I know that the estuary fills up to almost in some

years three feet of sedimentation in the estuary. It doesn’t take

long at all.

Mr. BILBRAY. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Radanovich.

50

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McGarvie, welcome to the Subcommittee. Thank you for

being here. I have a question for you. What has been the financial

impact of the ORV community from the closures related to illegal

immigration? And can you add into that not necessarily off-roaders

but those who were affected including part stores, food shops, and

the like?

Mr. MCGARVIE. Congressman, I am sorry. It is difficult to quantify that cost. I think it is intuitive that there is a cost. If you carry

it to extreme, the reduction in public lands open to motorized vehicles, it is obvious that eventually that market will go away and

those businesses dedicated to that market would die.

How much does it cost the industry for every acre closed? I can’t

answer that question. It cost not only in terms of lost sales to our

members, it also cost in terms of cramming more and more recreation into smaller and smaller areas with the obvious difficulties

resulting from that situation.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. Ingram, can you give me an idea of what are the environmental benefits to enforcing the border in your opinion?

Mr. INGRAM. As several folks have talked about, there is just a

tremendous amount of discarded trash. There are illegal trails that

have been created through the wilderness areas, not only here in

East San Diego County but Arizona and New Mexico that has synergistic effects of increased erosion, sedimentation in streams and

estuaries. The wildfires that have been caused, or inadvertently

caused by my illegal alien campfires have destroyed just thousands

of acres.

In addition, they have inadvertently destroyed some sensitive

plant and animal species. Congressman Bilbray mentioned earlier

that down at Imperial Beach at Monument Mesa, Butter Field

State Park, before the primary fence was built there were thousands of illegal aliens coming across there. Least tern nests and

snowy plover nests were destroyed. After the fence was constructed

and enforcement had tightened up the terns and the plovers are

coming back and nesting there.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Ingram.

Mr. Nassif, are you familiar with a program that many years ago

Senator Diane Feinstein had worked with some of the ag community groups in Central Valley on a pilot program called Welfare to

Work. It was a program that tried to take people off of welfare and

do some of the farm labor programs. Are you aware of that program that was done?

Mr. NASSIF. I am not very familiar with it, no.

Mr. RADANOVICH. It was begun in an effort to convince Senator

Feinstein who thought that the Valley’s unemployment rate could

offset the need for workers in harvest programs. I believe there

were about three people that showed up for work one day and probably lasted about two weeks. Can you tell me are we experiencing

a worker shortage in agriculture right now?

Mr. NASSIF. Yes. I would say we just recently tried to do some

studies to find out what the shortage is as of right now. It looks

like there have been probably crop losses of over $4 to $5 million

just in what is being harvested right now. We have another 10,000

51

acres that are moving out of California and moving into Mexico

because the supermarkets do require 12 months every day stable

supply of the same quality produce and you can’t do that in any

area.

No area can produce for 12 months so you have to go to different

areas and sometimes fill the gap. I am getting calls for the first

time from people who are saying, ‘‘No one is applying for jobs. No

one is asking if I’m hiring. I’m unable to harvest crops because I

don’t have sufficient labor.’’ When we don’t harvest crops, it is

because the market is so bad it isn’t economically worth it. When

we don’t harvest a crops when it is a good market because we don’t

have a labor supply, that is economic capital punishment.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much.

Ms. Powers, you in your testimony talk about a long, long understanding of kind of the border areas and your riding out there and

how the complexity has changed. Even the feeling of the people you

interact with on the borders that are coming illegally. It is the

same thing I hear from New Mexico that people have lived on the

border for decades have said it used to be you didn’t feel uncomfortable and now you do.

You have these gangs standing there wanting you to ask permission in our country to pass. How many riders just have given up

on this? How many just don’t go out there because of their fear?

Can you give us some idea of how it has affected the recreational

pattern of the equestrian community?

Ms. POWERS. I would say that out of the percentage of riders that

are down there, a lot more of them are now riding in arenas, in

event type oriented things rather than going out on the trail. They

don’t even know what the trails look like. In terms of loss of people

using those trails, maybe as much as 20 percent in the daytime

hours. We used to have beautiful moonlight rides. People weren’t

afraid to take their children out and about in the far reaches of it.

I would say there is a lot of fear there now.

I am a little stupid. I don’t get afraid of things like that so I still

tend to go out by myself a fair amount. I know my horse can outrun them so it doesn’t seem to bother me.

Mr. PEARCE. Right.

Ms. POWERS. I think the fear is reality based that there is a lot

of danger out there.

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, there is. That is well documented.

Ms. POWERS. There are rapes and there are knife-point

muggings.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Manjarrez, the testimony that I am hearing in

the Second District of New Mexico as I travel around about the

very potent, 90 percent potent methamphetamine is a huge problem. Do you as we look at the Federal lands, do you find the production of illegal drugs to be occurring or the growing of illegal

drugs occurring in your jurisdiction or are you finding it anywhere

out here or is it something that eases on up? Do you have a Sequoia set in your jurisdiction?

Mr. MANJARREZ. No, sir. We do have about 178 miles of the 262

in Tucson that are public lands.

52

Mr. PEARCE. So what are you finding as far as either the trafficking or the growing or the production or whatever?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Within Tucson sector we haven’t really seen

anything in terms of production. We do see in the eastern part of

the state along the New Mexico state line the traffic going up to

Highway 80 to get to the portal area and things of that nature

where it is produced in Mexico being brought up in these remote

areas. Quite frankly it gets into the interior of the United States

but we rarely run into anything where there is production being

made.

Mr. PEARCE. How about methamphetamine in general as a problem for the Border Patrol? Are they on the rise? Are they desperately high or just modestly high? What is the status?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Meth has always been rather small, sir. It is

typically an issue that are at the ports of entry that we have seen.

Marijuana is one of the largest narcotic. That has been on the rise.

It is about 20 percent higher compared to last year in the same

time frame. Cocaine is about 3 percent higher than last year. We

are talking about 8,000 pounds for the year.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Borchard, any comments from you on the crossing of the public lands, the BLM lands?

Mr. BORCHARD. Yes, sir. Some drug smugglers as well as human

smugglers do transport marijuana across the border on public

lands.

Mr. PEARCE. Be sure and pull your mike up. We have people in

the back of the room trying to hear.

Mr. BORCHARD. Yes, sir. Public lands are used by smugglers for

both people and drugs. We have been successful in some of our

interdiction efforts along the border in capturing drugs smugglers.

Mr. PEARCE. Does the BLM have its own enforcement division?

How do you work that?

Mr. BORCHARD. Yes, sir. We have our own program with law enforcement officers here in the California desert district. We have

about 45 officers on our staff.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. I have no questions at this time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I am done with my questions.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much. Which one of you would be

most knowledgeable about the Endangered Species Act? I am sorry,

the Historic Preservation Act?

Mr. Ingram, you are reaching for your microphone. Tell me a little bit about it because this is a problem we run into in New Mexico is trash that is being left there. There is trash right now. At

what point does it become protected by American law?

Mr. INGRAM. I can’t answer that.

Mr. PEARCE. I will answer it for you. In 50 years. In 50 years

trash becomes protected so that in New Mexico a tin can that is

more than 50 years old can’t be moved and we can’t do projects.

I would just tell you, Ms. Keeler, that this trash that is being left

there, Mr. Manjarrez, you in not sealing the border are putting her

ranch at risk because 50 years from now she will not be able to

graze over these areas.

53

In New Mexico we have had projects shut down in the last three

weeks because a tin can is found that some vagrant left over 50

years ago. It seems ludicrous on the face of it but when you are

dealing with it shutting down the industry of a community it is not

quite so fun. What do you do, Mr. Manjarrez when you find trash

and you find the people who are there with their backpacks? Do

you have them leave it there? Do you have them clean up? We have

our backpackers trained in this country if you pack it in, pack it

out. What is your policy as an agency on the trash that you find?

Mr. MANJARREZ. The policy is very much like you described, sir.

If we find a backpack, they brought it in, they take it with them.

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Ms. Keeler, do they get it off of your land?

Ms. KEELER. No. Unfortunately our experience has been the opposite. When they pick up a group of illegals they usually have

them just leave everything that they have carried.

Mr. PEARCE. So, Mr. Manjarrez, does the agency have different

rules in different sectors? Why would they be leaving that junk on

her land that 50 years from now is going to impede her ability to

sell that ranch, God forbid, or inherent the ranch or, at least, work

the ranch?

Mr. MANJARREZ. We don’t have different rules or policies.

Mr. PEARCE. So why would——

Mr. MANJARREZ. I would encourage any of the residents in any

of the places to call. They need to bend the ear of that sector chief

or that deputy chief.

Mr. PEARCE. I am sorry. Would you say that again? You encourage who?

Mr. MANJARREZ. Any of the residents.

Mr. PEARCE. Encourage the residents to take care of a problem

that is brought on by the Federal Government because they can’t

secure the border and you expect them to get the dump trucks full

and carry the stuff out of there? You encourage that? Sir, with all

due respect, that is the reason these people are openly emotional

about this issue, because the Federal Government keeps pushing

the responsibility down to these people like this.

Mr. Borchard, what do you all do with the trash that you find

on public lands?

[Participant reaction.]

Mr. PEARCE. Please. I am just asking. We are trying to get to

some hard issues here.

Mr. BORCHARD. We pick it up when we have the capability. We

also partnership with local communities and volunteers who will

assist us in gathering trash on public lands.

Mr. PEARCE. When we have the capability. How much trash is

on the land in your jurisdiction now? Is it significant or is it not

visible to the human eye? How would that be?

Mr. BORCHARD. There is a significant amount of trash on public

lands.

Mr. PEARCE. So what you are saying is we don’t do much about

it as a Federal Government. Is that more or less true? You said

when we can get it and when we can we do it in a significant

amount. I am assuming that we are not doing much about that.

Mr. BORCHARD. No, sir. We have picked up trash in the past and

we will continue to address that problem in the future.

54

Mr. PEARCE. It is still going to build up because as I tour around

I will find that the Oregon Pipes tomorrow will be about 30 percent

shut down and I am going to find trash out there. I would

guarantee it.

Mr. Ingram, you had talked about the fence and what you called

the B——

Mr. INGRAM. The Border Infrastructure System.

Mr. PEARCE. So we have a Border Infrastructure System that is

the government term for fence, I think. If it is a good solution, do

you have problems with people tunneling under the fence? Do you

have trouble with people going over the fence? Tell me a little bit

about that because when I am in New Mexico, I hear stories about

in San Diego that people are taking GPS units and they are starting a tunnel underneath a house in Mexico and they can tunnel to

an exact house over here on the American side. How do we protect

against that and is that just a rumor that is circulates around in

the paranoid Second District of New Mexico or is that an actual

happening?

Mr. INGRAM. According to the news reports that I read, there are

definitely tunnels underneath the completed part of the Border Infrastructure System here in San Diego. As well as there are other

tunnels throughout the southwest border whether there are fences

there or not.

Mr. PEARCE. Staff tells me that we are joined today by the

Grossmont Union High School District representatives Dr. Terry

Rhine, the Superintendent.

Dr. Rhine, are you still with us? Ah, back there. Way in the back.

Yes, sir. Thanks for having us in today. Evelyn Wills is the school

board member who keeps him on while he does these sorts of programs on Saturdays. Thank you both for coming out today.

Ms. Keeler, let’s just hope people in the audience are able to get

a feel for both you and Ms. Powers because both of you seem very

comfortable with the relationship between different races. I know

in New Mexico you have 400 years of cultures working together.

You have this very deep tension that is pulling at you. You see

really a group of people that you have gotten along with your whole

life and then you have this different pressure of the illegal things

happening.

Then I sense from both Ms. Powers and Ms. Keeler that you just

can’t not respond. You gather funds for an organization that sets

water out. There is the human condition of people coming through

terrible circumstances and, yes, doing something illegal but, at the

same time, they are human beings and how do you wrestle with

that? So, I don’t know. Do you have any closing observations? We

are about to pull this to a close. Both Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Radanovich need to go so we will spend a couple minutes here and then

we will start wrapping this thing up.

Ms. KEELER. Personally it goes back to in my eyes we have to

hold Mexico accountable for her people. We can’t take care of everybody from there. It is an economic difference but I don’t think we

are going to change it by shipping all the money from the United

States down to Mexico. In my opinion it is a moral obligation Mexico has to her people and she needs to be accountable for it and

we need to hold them accountable for it.

55

Mr. PEARCE. I agree 100 percent. The Ambassador of Mexico has

decided, I think, because I am a rural district that borders on Mexico that they would establish a relationship with me. We have continually pressed him. We accept that we are friends as neighboring

nations but you as good friends need to be acting a little bit better

as a good friend than what you are right now. They give us assurances but sometimes it is hard to see those assurances. The last

time the President went to Mexico I was happy to see him publicly

for the first time say to Mr. Fox that Mexico needs to do more and

we will assume with the new president in Mexico that those conversations will continue.

How has the illegal immigration impacted your ranch finances,

Ms. Keeler? If you could make a guess, a decrease in percentage

of revenues or whatever, what kind of financial impact do you get?

Ms. KEELER. I think we have been very lucky so far. We haven’t

seen a lot of economic impacts negatively to the ranch. We are out

there daily. We are constantly watching the waters and taking care

of the livestock. We know when a float is broken we are right

there. We fix it immediately. I can’t really say that economically we

have been impacted. We could if we weren’t as diligent and if we

didn’t constantly out there watching and taking care of it.

Mr. PEARCE. You believe Mr. Johnson when he tells me and he

shows me pictures of the dead cattle who are afraid to come up to

the water tanks that are on the vast open ranges, whether it is

public land or private land, that the cattle are afraid to come up

and drink the water because so many people are traveling through

there. Is that accurate?

Ms. KEELER. Yes, it is definitely accurate. I would say that Mr.

Johnson does have a lot more land to take care of than we do. Our

ranch is just a 40-section ranch which people——

Mr. PEARCE. Just 40 sections?. That is from here to Los Angeles

and there are just two people that live on it. You have to drive nine

hours to get across it.

Ms. KEELER. Some of the people from California were asking me,

‘‘How large is your ranch?’’ I said, ‘‘We talk in sections. They said,

‘‘How many acres are in a section?’’ That is a relatively mediumsize ranch. It is not a large ranch and we have a lot of roads going

to it much to the chagrin of the BLM sometimes, but we are able

to travel it quite well.

Now, our ranch in Animas is a much rougher ranch and not

nearly as accessible. You do have to go by horse if you want to see

most of it. There because of the roughness we have a lot of drug

activity. The people that are bringing in the drugs like to stay up

in the mountains where it is rough and where they can’t be tracked

by the Border Patrol.

Mr. PEARCE. The drug problem, I want to take just a second for

both the panel and the people in the audience. The

methamphetamines that are coming across, you get one shot. You

use it and you are probably going to be hooked. This is 90 percent

pure stuff that is coming across. Mr. Manjarrez, I am dealing with

your agency right now. I am thinking about your agency and our

inability to really secure our borders.

The reason people get so frustrated is 11 percent of the kids in

the high schools in New Mexico, that is almost three times the naVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:45 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\DOCS\29470.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
56

tional average, are going to be hooked. They are going to try meth

one time this year and they are going to be hooked. The meth is

destroying their lives. It is an extraordinarily violent drug. If you

are hooked on heroin and you want to get off heroin, you have a

40 percent chance if you raise your hand and say, ‘‘I would like to

get off heroin.’’

If you are hooked on meth and you want to get off, you have a

10 percent chance and of that 10 percent 75 percent will be back

on it so we are developing an epidemic in this country. The very,

very highly refined meth that we used to cook in basements around

in homes in America now is coming across, I suspect, both borders.

I don’t live on the northern border so I don’t know but it is definitely coming across the southern border somewhere, somehow.

I appreciate the dedication of your people but the answers need

to be given of how to secure this border. It is going to affect the

lives of every single individual in this country. The stories that we

are hearing about the meth addiction tell us that we have a suburb

problem. Now, in El Paso sector they tell us that almost 80 percent

of their crime-related cases at the border are actually meth related.

That is a completely different picture than you paint. We have

been too long overdue in curing the problems. Our Federal lands

are being impacted at a dramatic rate. People are afraid to go hiking, walking, riding the off-road vehicles. It is unfortunate that we

have allowed the problem to develop this far. We are sending help

from the Congress.

We have 10,000 agents that are coming to the border but I will

tell you that an agency—the field agents tell me when I go there,

and they have told me this in front of their superiors, that they

spend about 20 percent of their time out on the border and 80 percent of their time is spent doing paperwork.

An agency that can’t figure out how to keep the most highly paid

professionals on the border and contract out the paperwork or find

somebody to do it at a cheaper rate is an agency that I think is

asleep at the wheel. I think the American people are frustrated.

They are expressing that frustration over and over again.

I think that we have an obligation in Congress to offer the oversight but you all have the obligation to look at your internal procedures that have simply said for decades, ‘‘Well, it’s OK. It’s not broken too badly.’’ It is broken very badly, as your testimony said. I

appreciate that honest straightforward evaluation. We look forward

to working with you. We look forward to cooperating with you.

Mr. Borchard, as a manager of public lands in this particular

part of California, I hope that you are hearing the frustration out

here that people have with our inability to focus, to clean up, to

secure the public lands that we have.

Mr. Ingram, I appreciate your testimony today.

Ms. Powers, Ms. Keeler, thanks for the personal insights that

you bring to the issue.

Mr. McGarvie, always we tend to push the people in the recreation field off on the side and say, ‘‘Well, they don’t really count.’’

I will tell you that Americans are insistent that they have some

ability to get away and get out onto open lands. It is one of the

best and the most enjoyable kinds of recreation. If we do not do our

57

job here, then the people who are your constituents will not be able

to have access.

Mr. Nassif, we appreciate your testimony today and understand

long-term we need to deal with who is going to pick the crops.

Those are issues that Mr. Radanovich keeps in front of us

frequently. I as an employer and previous employer understand

when you say you can’t tell the people who steal Social Security

cards. They are look like every one. We had just recently 25,000

Social Security cards stolen blank.

Somebody can fill them in and you as an employer can’t know

what is legitimate and what is not legitimate. Definitely we have

tremendous problems to begin to unravel even if we secure the border. I think, gentlemen, that we must secure the border before we

go into any of the other issues. I appreciate the participation of the

panelists. Mr. Bilbray, thank you for coming over. Mr. Radanovich,

thank you. We appreciate Mr. Hunter graciously allowing us to

come into his district.

Thank you as an audience for caring. I have attempted to express several times during the Committee meeting that it was not

proper for the outburst of emotion but I do understand it and I do

believe that we as a nation are beginning to have strong opinions

about our border. Thank you all very much for coming out today

and helping us in this process.

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

* * * * *

(59)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON BORDER SECURITY

ON FEDERAL LANDS: THE IMPORTANCE OF

SECURING THE NORTHERN BORDER

Monday, August 28, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Resources

Hamilton, Montana

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., at the

Bedford Building (City Hall), 223 South Second Street, Hamilton,

Montana, Hon. Tom Tancredo [member of the Committee]

presiding.

Present: Representatives Tancredo and Rehberg.

Mr. TANCREDO. Would everyone please take a seat. This hearing

will come to order. By way of introduction, I am Congressman Tom

Tancredo. Congressman Rehberg is joining me here. I want to express our appreciation for all the folks who put this together here,

especially Mayor Randazzo who was responsible for helping us get

the facility. It’s an excellent one.

I’m now going to recognize Congressman Rehberg for some introductions.

Mr. REHBERG. If we might, and then I’ll make opening comments

after Chairman Tancredo makes his opening comments. But I just

wanted to thank those of you who are in attendance now. And we’ll

begin by having the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1976 of Hamilton, Montana, Present the Colors, David Rygmyr, who is the

Scout Master. If you will all stand and, please, remain standing.

[The Colors were presented and the Pledge of Allegiance recited.]

Mr. REHBERG. And we’ll have the invocation led by Rick Laible,

State Senator.

Mr. LAIBLE. Before I begin, let me tell you a story about an old

Cherokee and his grandson. He said, my son, the battle is between

two wolves, and they all are inside of us. One is evil. It is anger,

envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority and ego.

The other is a good wolf. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.

The grandson thought about it for a minute and asked his grandfather: Granddad, which wolf wins? The old Cherokee simply

replied: The one you feed.

[The invocation was given.]

60

Mr. REHBERG. Again, thank you, Rick, and the Boy Scout troop,

and I’ll turn it back over to Tom Tancredo now.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM G. TANCREDO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

COLORADO

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg. I want to remind everyone that this is a Congressional hearing so, please, I must ask you

to refrain from outbursts either in support of or in opposition to

whatever you are hearing at the time.

I’d like to start this hearing by setting out the context for this

Resources Committee review of the immigration issue. First of all,

one thing about which everyone seems to agree today, or just about

everyone—and it’s hard to imagine that we can get agreement on

a subject as difficult as this and it’s challenging—but there is one

thing that seems to be able to garner a majority of support or even

a consensus, and that is, that we have a problem with regard to

immigration; that the system is broken; that in some way or

another it needs to be fixed. At that point there’s a great deal of

divergence as to exactly how to accomplish the task, and there are

a number of different proposals out there for doing just that.

This committee’s role, however, was best summed up by former

Interior Secretary Gale Norton who said that while primary

responsibility for border security rests with the Department of

Homeland Security, the Department of Interior agencies have an

obligation to protect employees, visitors, natural resources and

agency facilities.

As a Congressional committee that has oversight of the Department of Interior we, too, have an obligation to insure that

America’s Federal lands are secure from the effects of illegal immigration. As an aside, I might add that it’s incredible the amount

of Federal land that does actually adjoin the borders and for which

we have ultimate responsibility, especially, the parks system and

wilderness areas and the like.

It’s also amazing to me having observed both on the northern

and southern borders the amount of environmental degradation

that has gone on. It is amazing that we have not had a much

louder outcry from the folks, who are rightly so, interested and

motivated by that particular issue.

The current northern border strategy focuses on preventing terrorist activity and reducing instances of drug smuggling. Both of

these crimes are often carried out by immigrants crossing into

the—I should say, by the way, illegal immigrants—crossing into

the United States from Canada via the vast and very unprotected

Federal lands along the western part of the border.

Given the potential dangers from these activities, the importance

of securing the northern border cannot be understated. Recall, that

Ahmed Rassem was planning to blow up Los Angeles International

Airport when he was arrested as he crossed through Olympic

National Park in Washington State.

I’d also point out that the 9/11 Commission noted in their report

that the northern border received little attention despite examples

of terrorists entering from Canada. It’s also important, I think, for

us all to note and understand that as we place more and more

61

emphasis let’s say on the southern border, it gets a lot of attention

just simply because of the numbers. The numbers of people crossing on the southern border, of course, are much greater than along

the northern border and, hence, a lot of the attention and focus of

the Nation is on that particular area.

Nonetheless, when it comes to the issue of national security, we

are only as strong as our weakest link. If we concentrate on the

southern, the northern border becomes even more conducive to

those who want to exploit our porous borders and to come into this

country without our notice and under the radar, so to speak.

That brings me to the point of the hearing. Today’s hearing is

about solutions. It’s important for the Committee to hear what border security measures will be put in place as well as their benefits

to all who live near and work and depend on these lands in various

ways.

Obviously, the key to implementing these solutions is legislation

that ultimately passes Congress and is signed into law. The fact is

that Congress has to a certain extent been hesitant to move on this

issue because, of course, it is highly volatile. It is very, very controversial. And what you’re seeing in a lot of states is they are taking up this mantle, and they are doing things about it themselves.

Today, as a matter of fact, over 30 states have passed some form

of legislation dealing with immigration, most of it being not terribly

relevant. I shouldn’t say relevant, but not terribly significant. But,

nonetheless, they are dealing with it. Georgia, on the other hand,

has passed major legislation dealing with immigration and the

effects of illegal immigration.

So it is happening and it is a natural response if the Federal

Government does not do something when the people of this country

are really very much interested in having something accomplished.

It is that point where Congress is confronted with these two opposing points of view, but that’s where we are today.

The House bill is, I think, correctly focused on security and enforcement. The Senate bill, I believe, unnecessarily ties these

issues to a host of provisions that have little to do with border

security.

To demonstrate how bad the Senate bill is, from my point of

view, these add-ons have pushed the cost of the bill to over $126

billion over the next decade according to the most recent CBO estimates, including $50 billion in Federal benefits such as earned income tax and child tax credits, Medicaid and Social Security for

those people that we would then make legal here or provide some

sort of amnesty for. It’s obvious that the Senate’s idea of a solution

may, in fact, bring more problems which will further erode our

national security.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tancredo follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Tom Tancredo, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Colorado

I’d like to start this hearing by setting out the context for the Resources Committee review of immigration issues. The Committee’s role was best summed up by

former Interior Secretary Gale Norton who said that while the primary responsibility for border security rests with the Department of Homeland Security, the

Department of Interior agencies have an obligation to protect employees, visitors,

natural resources and agency facilities. As the Congressional committee that has

62

oversight of the Department of Interior, we too have an obligation to ensure America’s federal lands are secure from the effects of illegal immigration.

The current Northern border strategy focuses on preventing terrorist activity and

reducing instances of drug smuggling. Both of these crimes are often carried out by

immigrants crossing into the United States from Canada via the vast—and very unprotected—federal lands along the western part of the border. Given the potential

dangers from these activities, the importance of securing the Northern border cannot be understated. Recall that Ahmed Rassem, who was planning to blow up Los

Angeles International Airport, was arrested as he crossed through Olympic National

Park in Washington State. I would also point out that the 9/11 Commission noted

in their Report that the Northern border received little attention ‘‘[d]espite examples

of terrorists entering from Canada.’’

This brings me to the point of this hearing. Today’s hearing is about solutions.

It’s important for the Committee to hear what border security measures will be put

in place as well as their benefits to all live near, work and depend on those lands.

Obviously, the key to implementing these solutions is legislation that ultimately

passes Congress and is signed into law. It is at this point where the House and Senate depart ways. While the House bill is correctly focused on security and enforcement, the Senate bill unnecessarily ties theses issues to a host of provisions that

have little to do with border security. To demonstrate how bad the Senate bill is,

these ‘‘add-ons’’ have pushed the cost of the bill to $126 billion over the next decade,

including $50 billion in federal benefits such as the earned income and child tax

credits, Medicaid, and Social Security. It’s obvious that the Senate’s idea of a ‘‘solution’’ may in fact bring more problems which will further erode our national

security.

I want to now again recognize our host, Congressman Rehberg for any additional

remarks he may have. As the ‘‘person on the ground’’ here in Montana, Congressman Rehberg has been a leader in educating all of us on the problems facing the

Northern border.

Mr. TANCREDO. Now, I want to, again, recognize our host, Congressman Rehberg, for any additional comments he may have. He’s

the person on the ground here in Montana. Congressman Rehberg

has been a leader in educating all of us on the problems facing the

northern border, and I’m proud and happy to have Congressman

Rehberg here today with us.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS R. REHBERG, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MONTANA

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Tom. I want to thank Representative

Tancredo for his leadership on the immigration issue in the U.S.

Congress. It has been a very important issue for him personally

and legislatively over the years. He’s kept the issue out in front of

us, and he has led the effort in the U.S. House to continue to get

out and hear from the American public.

A number of months ago Speaker Hastert approached the Chairmen of various committees that have jurisdiction over the immigration issue, and asked that hearings occur over the course of the

summer on areas within their jurisdiction. We’re here today to talk

specifically about the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee,

something that doesn’t get talked a lot about, but I felt it was necessary and lobbied to have a hearing in Montana as one of the 19

hearings that are occurring around the country in other areas in

12 different states.

The majority of the hearings are occurring probably along the

southern border. There are other hearings in places like Indiana,

but I felt it necessary to try and have a hearing in Montana, and

he offered the Resources Committee. I used to be a member of the

Resources Committee before I was taken off the Committee because

63

I was assigned to the Appropriations Committee. But I still attend

quite a few hearings because of the resource issues.

And, again, today, we are talking specifically about the impacts

of illegal aliens crossing the border and its impact on Federal properties and states that have Federal properties. Certainly, there are

other issues in the bill that both the House and the Senate are debating, and I’ll have an opportunity to vote yes or no, for or

against, some of them. Those issues are amnesty, guest worker program, the impacts on schools and hospitals, whether a fence is

going to be constructed along the southern border and, ultimately,

the cost to the Federal taxpayer for issues such as Social Security,

Medicare and Medicaid.

But Resources has the sole jurisdiction over management of Federal lands, and we are the ones within the Resources Committee

responsible for the policy and legislative solutions.

Interestingly enough, there’s about 4,000 miles of northern border. It touches 13 states, not including Alaska. There are parks.

There are forests, and there are four Indian reservations. The

greatest concentrations of those properties are in Washington,

Idaho and in Montana.

It’s ironic that one of the first criticisms or questions was, why

Hamilton, Montana? My response is: Why not? Hamilton, Montana,

is near Federal property. It’s within the State of Montana. Montana was lucky to get the site for the Resources Committee hearing

and is every bit as appropriate here. We probably would have been

criticized if we would have had it in Malta, Havre or Scobey. But

we’re talking specifically about Federal properties and the impacts,

specifically, to drug trafficking, terrorism and alien smuggling.

You’ll hear today, perhaps—I’ve heard it in the past from the

U.S. Marshal, from the Border Patrol, from Customs, from the

Sheriffs and such—that we not only have a problem, we have a

growing problem in drug smuggling, whether it’s marijuana or

meth. We’re seeing the effects of the successful closing down of certain portions of the southern border. It’s not affecting the northern

border because they’re finding a way to get across our remote and

sparsely populated north.

We also heard from the U.S. District Court judges and our 9th

Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Sid Thomas, about the problems of

prostitution. Asians, Koreans in specific, coming across the Canadian border using our Federal sparsely populated forest properties

to get across the border.

And so I thought it important to have the hearing for the location that has Federal properties, has a great deal of interest, and

that’s why Hamilton, Montana. So, again, I want to thank the Boy

Scouts of America for being here today. I want to thank Sheriff

Hoffman even though I didn’t get a chance to introduce him before

he gave the Pledge of Allegiance. And I want to thank all of you

panel members for taking the time out of your busy schedules to

travel to Hamilton to be with us today.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Denny. Now I’ll introduce our panel.

First up is Abigail Kimbell. She’s the Regional Forester for Region

1 of the U.S. Forest Service. Next is Jeff Copp, Special Agent in

Charge from the Denver Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Following Mr. Copp is Chief Robert L. Harris, Customs

64

and Border Patrol. Chief Harris joins us from Spokane,

Washington.

Glacier County Sheriff Wayne Dusterhoff will talk about the

effects of immigration on local law enforcement. And Detective

Sergeant Jeremy House, who heads up the Yellowstone County

Drug Task Force, will discuss the drug trafficking that’s crossing

the northern border through the Federal lands.

It is the policy of the Resources Committee to swear in witnesses.

So if you will stand and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TANCREDO. Please, sit down. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Also, I would like to point out

that there are lights in front of the table to control the time. Each

witness has five minutes. When the light turns yellow, you have

one minute. When it turns red, please wrap up.

Your full testimony will appear in the record. Keeping statements at five minutes will allow for more time for questions.

Mr. TANCREDO. So thank you all and let’s go ahead and start

with Abigail Kimbell, Regional Forester.

STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, REGIONAL FORESTER,

REGION I, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY

JONATHAN HERRICK, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, AND

STEVE KRATVILLE, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS STAFF

Ms. KIMBALL. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rehberg.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the impacts of illegal border activity on national forests, specifically, within the Forest Services’ northern region in Idaho, Montana and North Dakota.

I’m accompanied today by Jonathan Herrick, Special Agent in

Charge, and Steve Kratville from my Legislative Affairs staff.

Let me start off by saying that the Administration believes that

in order to most effectively secure our border we must reform our

immigration system. We need comprehensive immigration reform

that provides for increasing border security, establishes a robust

enforcement program, creates a temporary worker program and addresses the issue of the estimated 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

Mr. Chairman, understandably, the Committee has recently focused much attention on the impacts on Federal lands from border

activity on the Mexican border. There are significant differences between the impacts on national forests along the southern and

northern borders, and my testimony will focus on the Canadian

border.

There are 22.3 million acres of national forest within 50 miles of

the Canadian border, which includes those lands in Alaska. The

national forests share 996 miles of national forest border with Canada, more than any other Federal land management agency.

In the northern region alone, Northern Idaho, Montana and

North Dakota, we share 100 miles of boundary with Canada. The

illegal border issues in Alaska are significantly different than those

based in the lower 48 given the great remoteness and difficult

accessability. Individuals or contraband that enter the U.S. in Alaska can move to the lower 48 without customs or border protection.

65

The Forest Service has had a presence here in Montana and

Idaho for over 100 years. Still, these bordered areas are sparsely

populated. The terrain ranges from river basin to high elevation

mountain ranges and includes wilderness areas and other remote

unroaded areas.

The issue that we and the Forest Service have been most involved in regarding the border, aside from fire suppression—the

cause for much of the smoke in the air today—is drug smuggling

operations. Though the resource impacts are few, the potential for

conflict between employees and forest visitors contacting an armed

or desperate smuggler are increasing. This does concern me.

In the Northern Region I, we expect our 43 officers and special

agents to aggressively pursue issues of resource use and damage,

our public safety across our 25 million acres, and it is not possible

to assign officers solely to support border operations.

Mr. Chairman, while the Forest Service is a land management

agency, not a border security or drug enforcement agency, we know

that illegal drugs, other forms of contraband, and undocumented

aliens have been smuggled across the Canadian border, sometimes

through public lands.

It is not acceptable or productive to perceive national forests as

vulnerable by those who wish to enter or leave the country in violation of our laws. Likewise, our legal responsibility to manage the

national forests is not an impediment to interagency cooperation

and effective counter-terrorism or anti-smuggling operations along

the boarder.

The events of September 11, 2001, significantly changed our

Forest Service involvement in border security. Our law enforcement

officers and special agents work with border security agencies to

better secure our border to prevent terrorism and drug smuggling

in a manner that also protects the national forests.

Our chief, Dale Bosworth, meets regularly with his counterpart

with the U.S. Border Patrol. Additionally, we work cooperatively

with other Federal agencies who have border security and drug enforcement responsibilities such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Department of Interior

Land Management the agencies in the Department of Homeland

Security Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol, Immigration and Custom Enforcement and the Coast Guard. We assist

other agencies when requested as active participants in multiagency efforts.

The Departments of Agriculture and Interior recently signed a

Memorandum of Understanding with the Border Patrol with the

overall goal of making the United States borders more secure. This

Memorandum of Understanding outlines roles and responsibilities

to be more effective and efficient in the way we address safety, security, emergency access and environmental protection necessitated

by illegal border crossing or affecting public lands.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, in considering effective strategies for securing our borders and protecting the public lands along the border, the committees could evaluate the tools provided to the public

land management agencies. It is my view that the Forest Services

has been provided with sufficient legal authorities. That concludes

66

my testimony. I’d be pleased to answer any questions you may

have.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimbell follows:]

Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Regional Forester,

Northern Region, USDA Forest Service

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the impacts

of illegal border activity on National Forest System lands within the Forest Service’s

Northern Region (R1) in Idaho and Montana. I am accompanied today by Jonathan

Herrick, Northern Region Special Agent in Charge.

Let me start off by saying that the Administration believes that in order to most

effectively secure our border, we must reform our immigration system. We need

comprehensive immigration reform that provides for increased 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.

Mr. Chairman, understandably, the committee has recently focused much attention on the impacts on Federal lands from illegal border activity along the United

States border with Mexico. There are significant differences between the impacts on

National Forest System lands along the northern and southern borders and my testimony will focus on the northern United States—Canada border.

There are more than 23.8 million acres of National Forest System lands within

50 miles of the international borders with Mexico and Canada. Of this, 22.3 million

acres are adjacent to the northern border, including Alaska. There are 996 miles of

National Forest System lands along the international border with 944 of those miles

between Canada and the United States, more than any other Federal land management agency. National Forest System lands in Alaska have an additional 13,261

miles of coastline with the Gulf of Alaska and the Pacific Ocean. On the Ottawa,

Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee National Forests there are approximately 100 miles

of common international border on the Great Lakes of Superior and Huron.

A significant portion of National Forest System lands potentially impacted by

illegal border activities are in the Forest Service’s Alaska Region (R10). The Forest

Service is the primary land management agency adjacent to the Canadian border.

Illegal border issues in Alaska are greatly different than those faced along the Canadian border with the lower 48 States and vastly different than the issues along

the Southwestern border.

A unique issue with the international border in Alaska is that very little of it is

accessible by automobile. Boat and aircraft are the primary modes of transportation

in Southeast Alaska, which consists of numerous waterways and islands. Most of

the border area is accessible by helicopter, ski or float plane. The border area, on

both sides, is dotted with numerous remote landing strips which are maintained for

continuous access and some are mere gravel strips along river drainages used on

a regular basis. Individuals or contraband that enter the U.S. through Alaska, can

then move to the lower 48 States without Customs and Border Protection or other

agency intervention.

The Forest Service has had a presence on the United States northern border for

almost a hundred years. These border areas, to a great extent, are sparsely populated and the ability to cross over the border on foot undetected is much easier than

on the southern border. Additionally, there are several areas where it is possible to

cross by motorized vehicles, including snowmobiles, off-highway vehicles and even

full-sized vehicles. Terrain on these forests ranges from flat river basins, to mountain tops reaching over 10,000 feet above sea level, to flat rolling countryside. They

include wilderness areas, roadless areas and other unpopulated backcountry.

The issue Forest Service law enforcement personnel have traditionally been most

concerned with along the United States—Canada border is drug smuggling. The nature of smuggling operations along the border, however, generally results in few

visible impacts on the resources.

The Forest Service manages almost 193 million acres of National Forests and

Grasslands in the United States and Puerto Rico. National Forest System lands provide opportunities for over 211 million people who visit and use these lands each

year. Law enforcement is integral to the Forest Service mission of protecting the

public, our employees, the natural resources and agency facilities and property.

67

The Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigation (LEI) program operates in

national forests in 44 States through cooperation with Federal, State, Tribal and

local law enforcement agencies and other Forest Service programs. The LEI staff:

• Provides high visibility uniformed patrol presence and prompt response to

public and employee safety incidents and violations of law and regulation;

• Conducts criminal and civil investigations;

• Maintains strong relationships with cooperating law enforcement agencies, the

Offices of the United States Attorney, and the Federal Court system;

• Works to reduce the cultivation, production and smuggling of cannabis and

other controlled substances on NFS lands; and

• Coordinates and conducts anti-terrorist activities to provide a secure environment for the public and our employees and to protect public resources and

facilities.

The demands on LEI are increasing. From Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year

2005, violations against people and property increased 15 percent across the

National Forest System. In addition to handling minor infractions, petty offenses

and misdemeanors, Forest Service law enforcement offices are asked to respond to:

• Events including environmental protests, threats and assaults on employees,

and government property, domestic terrorist activity, large group gatherings,

gang activity and fire-related emergencies;

• Crimes such as rape, homicide, domestic disputes, assault, robbery and other

felonies;

• Calls to assist in traffic control, search and rescue, medical/emergency assistance, hazardous materials spills and other first responder incidents; and

• Deployment to assist in other national emergencies, such as the response of

nearly half of our law enforcement workforce last year to Hurricane Katrina.

LEI has approximately 695 full-time positions, with 110 being classified as special

agents assigned primarily to completing investigative work and 467 law enforcement officers primarily providing patrol work on national forests and who are usually the first points of contact for the public.

I know from personal experience that Forest Service line officers expect LEI personnel to aggressively pursue theft of forest products, protect wilderness and endangered species habitat, respond to potential criminal or public safety issues at Forest

Service facilities, such as camp grounds, along with potential civil claims and a myriad of resource issues.

Forest Service law enforcement personnel numbers are limited and with only 43

officers and special agents in the Northern Region spread across 25,000,000 acres,

it is not possible to assign agents and officers solely to support border operations.

Border operations and activities take personnel away from other critical land management enforcement and investigation responsibilities.

Mr. Chairman, while the Forest Service is a land management agency not a border security or drug enforcement agency, experience shows that illegal drugs, other

forms of contraband, and undocumented aliens have been smuggled across the border from Canada, sometimes through public lands.

It would be unacceptable and counterproductive for National Forest System lands

to be perceived as vulnerable by those who wish to enter or leave the country undetected or in violation of our laws. Likewise, our legal responsibilities to manage the

public lands should not be perceived by our line officers or our law enforcement

partners as an impediment to interagency cooperation and effective counter terrorism or anti-smuggling operations in border areas.

The events of September 11, 2001, significantly changed Forest Service involvement in border security and have substantially increased the workload of our LEI

personnel and line officers in working with law enforcement and border security

agencies to better secure our border and prevent terrorists and drug smuggling in

a manner that also protects the natural resources. That thinking goes to the top

of this agency. Our Chief, Dale Bosworth, and our Director of Law Enforcement and

Investigation, John Twiss, meet on a recurring basis with their counterparts in the

U.S. Border Patrol.

Additionally, Forest Service LEI works cooperatively with other Federal agencies

that have border security and concurrent drug enforcement responsibilities affecting

the National Forest System on the Canadian border and coast environments, such

as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, Department

of the Interior land management agencies, and agencies in the Department of

Homeland Security, the Custom and Border Protection’s Border Patrol, Immigration

and Custom Enforcement (ICE), and Coast Guard.

Forest Service law enforcement officers and agents respond to reported National

Forest border issues and assist other law enforcement agencies when requested as

68

active participants in multi-agency efforts. The most significant such effort on the

northern border is Project North Star.

When Project North Star was created in 1989 as part of then-President Bush’s

National Drug Control Strategy, its singular focus was narcotics interdiction. In

1999, the U.S. Border Patrol assumed management of Project North Star. Currently,

this project serves as a forum to provide support for law enforcement agencies from

the United States and Canada who were involved in multi-agency operations to

avoid unwarranted duplication and accidental interference between independent operations. Project North Star’s scope was to provide managers a way to improve border-wide and regional strategies, intelligence, training, planning and to more effectively employ assets.

After September 11, 2001, all Federal agencies, including the Forest Service have

begun to re-evaluate operational needs along the borders of the United States. Since

9/11, the focus and direction of Project North Star has changed from a singular item

of narcotics interdiction to now include anti-terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, alien/contraband smuggling, money laundering, firearms trafficking, intelligence, and all other multi-national law enforcement issues that impact cross-border effectiveness on the United States—Canada border.

While the Department of Homeland Security has responsibility for patrolling the

border and taking appropriate actions with cross-border violators, the Forest Service

works in conjunction with other Federal land management agencies to respond to

the effects of illegal activities on the public lands.

The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Border Patrol with the overall goal of making

the United States borders more secure. The MOU outlines roles and responsibilities

in order for all agencies to become more effective and efficient in the ways they address safety, security, emergencies, access and environmental protection necessitated by illegal border-crossing on or affecting public lands.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, in considering effective strategies for securing our borders

and protecting the public lands along the border, the committee could evaluate

whether the tools provided to the public land management agencies are sufficient

to the task. It is my view that the Forest Service has been provided sufficient legal

authorities.

That concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to answer any questions you

may have.

Mr. Tancredo. We will proceed with questions. The first I have

for you is, you mentioned, Ms. Kimbell, that the Administration

supports a ‘‘comprehensive immigration plan that includes guest

worker provisions.’’ Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that

suggests guest worker provisions would alleviate the problems that

you’re seeing on the border.

Ms. KIMBELL. The problems that we’re seeing are—I believe addressed this—a lot of what’s been reported in the news media and

a lot of what Congress has been discussing in session and in sessions like these across the country, but in this part of the country

is more the human access across those public lands is the greatest

concern to us in the national forest.

Mr. TANCREDO. I agree. I am just wondering how, in fact, any

sort of guest worker plan would alleviate that problem. If you’re

telling me—and, certainly, I agree, by the way, with what your emphasis is on what’s coming across the border, the kind of smuggling

activity that exists, the danger that exist to people in the parks

that are recreating there. I must admit to you that I do not understand even a reference to the comprehensive plan as being anything that would alleviate any problems that you’re seeing.

It was about three, maybe four years ago now—I can’t remember

for sure—the Forest Service along with the Border Patrol operated—and actually along with the Marines, 100 Marines—a detachment was sent to a little place north of—a place called Bonners

Ferry, Idaho. And I had the great privilege of being able to go up

69

there and spend a weekend and listen to the folks talk about their

concerns and to see whether or not the plan that they had constructed, which was to have 100 Marines on the border using three

unmanned aerial vehicles—and these were, by the way, 1991 vintage UAVs. Sounded like a lawn mower was flying around up

there. They’re propeller driven, very loud, wasn’t anything you

could sneak up on anybody with. We are, of course, ten generations

past that in terms of the technology that has developed.

But I had the opportunity to be there, as I say. And the 100 Marines, these three UAVs and two radar stations were put on the

border to try to determine—actually, control 100 miles of that border. This was, I believe, if I remember correctly, an initiative of the

Forest Service. There was a gentleman who had been involved with

it for a long time, had been pushing it, and they finally agreed to

a two-week exercise.

At the conclusion of that two-week period of time, I will tell you

that I believe that nothing came across that border that we did not

see. It didn’t matter if it was deer in the middle of night or whatever. It was a very effective way of controlling the border.

What the Marines did, by the way, was to simply be the eyes and

ears. They interdicted no one. They watched and what they saw

was then reported to the Border Patrol who was stationed strategically behind various spots. They got in the helicopter. They flew

over. They landed. When these people came through with drugs—

usually it was on TV, carrying a bunch of drugs on their backs—

as soon as they would come across, why, there was the Border

Patrol to meet them. It was, ‘‘Hi, welcome to America, spread ’em.’’

It worked out, from my point of view, just perfect.

Now, at the conclusion of that two-week exercise, I happened to

ask—I was with the commander of that particular Marine detachment. He told me it was the best exercise they had ever had. He

said No. 1, it was real time. No. 2, it was trying to stop people from

coming into our country who weren’t supposed to be coming into

our country. No. 3, it was in the toughest, roughest terrain in the

world, so it worked perfectly.

My question for you is: If that happened, which I know; I was

there. I know; I observed. I know that the Forest Service was the

primary mover in this thing. Do you know if there was ever any

conclusions drawn by the Forest Service? Do you know if there’s

been a repeat of that particular exercise? Do you know whether or

not there’s the consideration of doing something like that in the future? And do you agree with the estimate that was raised of the—

of the whole thing that was given to me by the commander of that

detachment? You may, if you have somebody else that has the information to provide it, we can actually have them step forward or

they can give it to you.

Ms. KIMBELL. I interpret the eyebrow movement to be that

neither of us have any specific information about that exercise.

Mr. TANCREDO. He was shaking his head yes while I was speaking.

Ms. KIMBELL. This is Jonathan Herrick. Jon.

Mr. TANCREDO. Jonathan, do I have to swear you in?

Mr. REHBERG. The swear-in period is over.

70

Mr. HERRICK. The Regional Forester is correct in that I was not

here during that time frame to be familiar with the operations that

occurred. You are correct. There are highly successful operations.

The problem is they are short-term duration, emphasis-type operations that we cannot support—we the Forest Service can support

on a regular recurring basis.

We have 15 officers within 15 miles of the border, the entire 100

miles, and they have numerous other duties they’re responsible for

to the national forest effort. Putting them with 100 Marines fulltime in that application is just not feasible.

Mr. TANCREDO. I understand that there’s a resource allocation

problem. In the Memorandum of Understanding that was referenced—you can return, Ms. Kimbell, thank you—in the MOU

that was referenced with Interior and Homeland Security, is it

working, and can you give us some examples of that, and could you

consider what I’ve just described to be another part of that particular program? Or Mr. Harris.

Mr. HARRIS. I’m not familiar with that particular operation

either, but I can tell you that we continue to work very closely with

the military. As a matter of fact, from July 1st through—we just

concluded a similar operation to the one that you just described. It

was in the Pasayteni wilderness area.

Mr. TANCREDO. Was it with the Marines?

Mr. HARRIS. It was not with the Marines. It was with active duty

military. It had some National Guard members, but it was a radar

acquisition for 30 days that turned out to be very successful. To

add on to what was said, they’re short-term in nature, but they

were not continuing to work very closely with the military.

Mr. TANCREDO. We’ll bring this up again after your testimony.

Ms. KIMBELL. In fact, we are working with cooperating agencies,

partner agencies to explore the further feasibility of using UAVs,

and we’re in the process of procuring some of this technology. We’ll

continue working in that very cooperative partnership with the

other agencies who do have the significant responsibility for border

security.

Mr. TANCREDO. We really are going to try to get into more about

the use of the technology and who is really in charge and who

knows how. For the time being, that’s the end of my questions for

you Ms. Kimbell. Mr. Rehberg.

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. Maybe my question is more specifically for Doug, but I’ll start with you. As I understand it, you have

43 people that are involved within the acreage that you’re responsible for.

Ms. KIMBELL. I have 43 law enforcement officers and special

agents who work in the Northern Region on the 25 million acres

of national forest system service lands we’re responsible for.

Mr. REHBERG. Now, these 43 are they responsible for beyond—

you had mentioned 15 miles within the border. The only reason I

ask that question is having visited many of the ports along the

north with the Border Patrol, one of the questions I asked: Why

aren’t you getting on Amtrak anymore? I know that a Pakistani

was on there and got caught. Their point to me was, as long as

they’re not on the border, they’re not catching people under their

71

responsibility on the border. Is your responsibility for those 43

throughout the entire millions of acres or is it border security only?

Ms. KIMBELL. No. The 43 officers that I spoke of have responsibility for those national forest system that are north of the Salmon

River include the whole State of Montana, those lands on the Wyoming border and the Idaho border and clear over onto the Minnesota border to the Cheyenne National Grasslands.

Mr. REHBERG. So they don’t specifically stay close to the border?

Or, do you have people that are specifically assigned to the border.

Ms. KIMBELL. I think Jonathan mentioned that we have 15 uniformed officers who are within—whose area of responsibility is

within 50 miles of the Canadian border.

Mr. REHBERG. I’m not referring specifically to Idaho in that one

event. You’re talking about the whole Washington, Idaho——

Ms. KIMBELL. I’m referring to Idaho and Montana and up to

North Dakota that I have 15 officers who are within 50 miles of

that Canadian border through our area of responsibility. There is

another 100 miles of common border between national forests and

the Canadian border in the State of Washington. Across Idaho and

Northern Montana there’s also 100 miles.

Mr. REHBERG. You don’t have any responsibility, then, within

Glacier National Park or the reservations or you do?

Ms. KIMBELL. I do not. I do on the Flathead National Forests just

adjacent to Glacier National Park.

Mr. REHBERG. Could you real quickly—and then we’ll move on—

work through what happens if you catch somebody or suspect

somebody? In your Memorandum of Understanding do you immediately make contact with the Department of Homeland Security or

Customs? What’s the scenario as far as your law enforcement responsibilities?

Ms. KIMBELL. I’m going to need to ask Jonathan to talk about

the exact protocol.

Mr. HERRICK. We have no immigration authority or jurisdiction,

so the protocol is we work closely with our counterparts. If we were

to stumble upon some people who came across the border, we

would ascertain that they would be illegal and call the Border

Patrol to get some other from of support there.

Mr. REHBERG. The last question is, I’m not asking you to criticize

anyone other than the Congress. Is there any area of responsibility

that you have not been given that you would like to see either expanded that you can’t because of legislation? I think most, specifically, about getting the U.S. Attorney to prosecute those guys, and

by God, when they pass a law make them do it, or something along

that line. Is there some area that you can suggest that—other than

the Memorandum of Understanding—that it’s not their fault. It’s

not your fault. It’s the system fault—to change it legislatively?

Mr. HERRICK. I think that the authority and the jurisdiction that

we’re given for our responsibility, what our primary mission out

there is, I think we have sufficient authority and jurisdiction. It’s

working well with the cooperation of other agencies.

Just to comment, you asked specifically about Glacier National

Park, we do have Memorandums of Understanding pending with

many of our agencies that currently are not signed. We can’t assist

them. They can assist us across those lines.

72

Mr. REHBERG. Could I ask you, can everybody in the audience

hear? Some are straining. Is it just you’re trying to look at us? Can

you hear us?

VOICE. No.

Ms. KIMBELL. Mr. Rehberg, there’s one other piece that’s in that,

in the current legislation being considered, that’s addressed to the

Department of Interior but that’s not addressed to the Department

of Agriculture. So when you ask is there something that might be

helpful, certainly, to include the Department of Agriculture.

Again, I’ve got miles of national forest and acres of national

forest along the Canadian border. We think it’s very important that

the Department of Agriculture be considered in talking about border security.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. We’ll all try and speak up a little bit

until we can address this issue.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Copp, why don’t you go ahead.

STATEMENT OF JEFF COPP, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE,

DENVER OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT

Mr. COPP. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rehberg, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the unique challenges the

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of

Homeland Security faces on the northern border.

Among the Department of Homeland Security, DHS law enforcement agencies, ICE has the most expansive investigative authority

and the largest force of investigators. Working overseas, along the

nation’s borders and through the nation’s interior, ICE agents and

officers are demonstrating that the merged customs and immigration authorities constitute an effective mechanism to identify and

disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations that violate the nation’s borders and the nation’s customs and immigration laws.

Using this combined authority ICE has built a robust enforcement program along the borders and within the nation’s interior.

It remains DHS’s view, however, that effective dealing with the

illegal immigration requires a comprehensive approach that combines border security measures, stronger interior enforcement, a

new temporary worker program, a resolution of the status of illegal

immigrants already in the county, and assimilation measures that

honor the great tradition of this country as a melting pot.

The northern border of the United States is notably different

than our border with Mexico. It has rugged terrain, sparse population and a more open border. To bolster northern border enforcement efforts, the U.S. and Canadian governments developed an integrated border enforcement team in 1996. IBET is a multiple

agency law enforcement team that harmonizes U.S. and Canadian

efforts to target cross-border criminal activity.

The IBET concept originally began when law enforcement agencies from British Columbia and the State of Washington worked together on cross-border criminal activity. Between 1996 and 1999

IBET grew from 2 to more than 20 individuals from four different

agencies.

Formalized in April of 2001 IBET currently works in 15 regions

with IBET officers in 23 locations across the northern U.S. border.

73

A good example of cross border cooperation between IBET and the

IBET structure is the Operation FROZEN TIMBER, the joint ICE,

U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service and IBET investigation

that targets the Canadian drug smuggling organization based in

the lower mainland of British Columbia.

The smugglers have utilized helicopters to transport drugs, bulk

cash and firearms into the national forests and national park lands

of Washington State. Operation FROZEN TIMBER aims to disrupt

and dismantle these Canadian smuggling organizations through

seizures, arrest and prosecutions that thwart the efforts of others

using helicopters to smuggle contraband into the United States.

ICE is accomplishing this through extensive intelligence collection, analysis and exploitation, technical and physical surveillance,

undercover and enforcement operations and prosecution of violators.

The national forest and national parklands that these organizations use provide multiple landing sites for helicopters, where discovery is difficult because of the remote, mountainous and forested

nature of the terrain.

Since Operation FROZEN TIMBER began in November of 2004,

46 individuals have been arrested. The U.S. and Canadian law enforcement agencies have seized approximately 8,000 pounds of

marijuana, 800 pounds of cocaine, three aircraft and $1.5 million

in U.S. currency.

Although ICE is a relatively new agency, we aggressively apply

our unified immigration and customs authorities to identify and addresses vulnerabilities affecting the borders and the nation’s homeland and national security. At the same time, we bring to these efforts the best of our former agencies’ expertise, cultures, and techniques as we continue to improve the efficiency of this new Federal

law enforcement agency.

In case after case, ICE agents, officers, analysts and other personnel are putting into practice on behalf of the American people

the powerful advantages that flow from our unified authorities. The

result is a strong and growing contribution to the nation’s border,

homeland and national security. Thank you. I’m glad to answer

any question you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Copp follows:]

Statement of Jeffrey Copp, Special Agent in Charge, Denver, Colorado, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland

Security

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, thank you for

the opportunity to speak with you today about the unique challenges that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security

faces on the Northern border. My name is Jeffrey Copp and I am the Special Agent

in Charge of the ICE office in Denver. In addition to Colorado, the Denver office

covers a significant area of the northern border and has sub-offices in Montana,

Idaho, and Wyoming.

Among the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) law enforcement agencies,

ICE has the most expansive investigative authority and the largest force of investigators. Our mission is to protect the American people by combating terrorists and

other criminals who cross the Nation’s borders and threaten us here at home. The

men and women of ICE accomplish this by investigating and enforcing the Nation’s

immigration and customs laws. Working overseas, along the Nation’s borders, and

throughout the Nation’s interior, ICE agents and officers are demonstrating that the

merged customs and immigration authorities constitute an effective mechanism to

identify, disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations that violate the Nation’s

74

borders and the Nation’s customs and immigration laws. Using these combined authorities, ICE has built a robust enforcement program along the borders and within

the Nation’s interior. It remains DHS’s view, however, that effectively dealing with

illegal immigration requires a comprehensive approach that combines border security measures, stronger interior enforcement, a new temporary worker program, a

resolution of the status of illegal immigrants already in the country, and assimilation measures that honor the great tradition of this country as a melting pot.

By leveraging the full enforcement potential provided by our unique blend of customs and immigration authorities, ICE agents and officers—together with our DHS

and other federal counterparts and with the assistance of state, local, and tribal law

enforcement entities—are making it more difficult for potential terrorists and

transnational criminal groups to move themselves, their supporters, or their weapons across the Nation’s borders through traditional human, drug, contraband, or financial smuggling networks, routes, and methods.

The Northern border of the United States is notably different from our border

with Mexico. It has rugged terrain, sparse population, and a more open border. To

bolster Northern border enforcement efforts, the U.S. and Canadian Governments

developed the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET) in 1996. IBET is a

multi-agency law enforcement team that harmonizes U.S. and Canadian efforts to

target cross-border criminal activity. The IBET concept originally began when law

enforcement agencies from British Columbia and the State of Washington worked

together on cross-border criminal activity. Between 1996 and 1999, IBET grew from

two to more than 20 individuals from four different agencies. Formalized in April

2001, IBET currently works in 15 regions, with IBET officers in 23 locations across

the Northern U.S. border. Partnerships are vital to the IBET framework. Personnel

from participating agencies use an integrated approach to their activities, which ensures joint coordination of law enforcement and intelligence sharing.

A good example of cross-border cooperation within the IBET structure is Operation FROZEN TIMBER, a joint ICE, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service,

and IBET investigative operation that targets a Canadian drug smuggling organization based in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The smugglers have utilized

helicopters to transport drugs, bulk cash, and firearms into and out of National

Forest and National Park lands in Washington State.

Operation FROZEN TIMBER aims to disrupt and dismantle these Canadian

smuggling organizations through seizures, arrests, and prosecutions, and to thwart

the efforts of others using helicopters to smuggle contraband into the United States.

ICE is accomplishing this through extensive intelligence collection, analysis, and exploitation; technical and physical surveillance; undercover and enforcement operations; and prosecution of violators.

The National Forest and National Park lands that these organizations use provide

multiple landing sites for helicopters, where discovery is difficult because of the remote, mountainous, and forested nature of the terrain.

The targets of this investigation, most of whom are Canadian citizens with aircraft registered in Canada, are involved in a conspiracy that falls within both the

Eastern and Western judicial districts of the State of Washington. Furthermore, the

investigation has revealed 13 helicopters suspected of being used for smuggling. The

ultimate distribution point for the smuggled narcotics is the Western District of

Washington and the Interstate 5 Corridor in Oregon and California.

During the initial phase of Operation FROZEN TIMBER, U.S. and Canadian law

enforcement agencies intercepted more than 17 drug loads, including one shipment

in February 2005 consisting of five suitcases packed with more than 337 pounds of

cocaine. This shipment constituted the largest single cocaine seizure in Washington

State last year. Another significant seizure came in September 2005, when agents

followed two couriers to a residence and recovered more than 1,100 pounds of marijuana.

More recently, in May 2006, ICE agents tracked a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter from

Canada to a landing site in a remote wildlife area in Washington State. After witnessing the cargo being transferred to a waiting pick up truck, our agents, along

with officers from the U.S. Forest Service and a local drug task force, stopped the

vehicle, arrested two men inside, and recovered 329 pounds of marijuana. When the

helicopter arrived back in Canada, the RCMP arrested the two Canadian pilots.

Since Operation FROZEN TIMBER began in November 2004, 46 individuals have

been arrested. U.S. and Canadian law enforcement agencies have seized approximately 8,000 pounds of marijuana, 800 pounds of cocaine, three aircraft, and $1.5

million in U.S. currency.

While the vast majority of smuggling activity we combat today involves an array

of traditional criminal threats, illegal businesses are evolving in dangerous ways.

The violators are better armed and more willing to use force. The stakes are getting

75

higher as we continue to strengthen the barriers against such activity. Because terrorists could potentially exploit this criminal activity and use border vulnerabilities

to enter or attack the United States, the need to combat these threats through enforcement efforts like Operation FROZEN TIMBER is greater than ever.

Although ICE is a new agency, we aggressively apply our unified immigration and

customs authorities to identify and address vulnerabilities affecting the borders and

the Nation’s homeland and national security. At the same time, we bring to this effort the best of our former agencies’ expertise, cultures, and techniques as we continue to improve the efficiency of this new federal law enforcement agency. In case

after case, ICE agents, officers, analysts, and other personnel are putting into practice, on behalf of the American people, the powerful advantages that flow from our

unified authorities. The result is a strong and growing contribution to the Nation’s

border, homeland and national security.

We know the threats and we know the risks. Only through vigorous enforcement

efforts against those who seek to use the Nation’s borders against U.S. citizens can

we ensure the security of the Homeland.

The men and women of ICE are grateful for the chance to serve the American

people and, on their behalf, I thank you and your colleagues for your continued support of our operations. 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.

Mr. TANCREDO. Just let me explain to staff, although I thought

maybe it was apparent. What we’re going to do is go—each individual will give their testimony, then we will question and then go

to the next one. At the end we might have questions for everybody.

We’re going to trade off in the beginning. Mr. Rehberg.

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on

FROZEN TIMBER. I’m particularly interested in that, but I can’t

miss the opportunity to at least make the point or ask the question:

What does the guest worker program—because but you talked

about it in your testimony—have to do with the FROZEN TIMBER

or solving the issue that the Resources Committee is talking today

about, specifically, about smuggling and drug trafficking?

Mr. COPP. That depends on what form it comes out of Congress.

To us we look at the guest worker program as it would be easier

for us to identify the people who are here if there’s a way to identify them, so that will remove a population that we have to——

Mr. REHBERG. I guess I don’t understand how you had any problem recognizing the helicopters coming across the border finding a

landing site. Using your success story as an example, was that not

apparent? Would a guest worker program have helped you better

identify people coming across the border in a helicopter?

Mr. COPP. I think those are apples and oranges.

Mr. REHBERG. So do I, and that’s why it was in your testimony—

other than Mr. Tancredo and I recognized the President is doing

a little lobbying publicly with you Ms. Kimbell and you Mr. Copp

and you Mr. Harris. So we’ll probably hear it in your testimony as

well. That’s not the purpose of the hearing today. We’ll fight that

battle probably in the Education and Labor Committee. But we’re

here specifically to talk about the Resource Committee, its jurisdiction. Again, I don’t want to miss the opportunity to make the point

that the guest worker program probably doesn’t have a lot to do

with drug trafficking as far as the Federal properties. A little admonishment perhaps.

Being a helicopter pilot myself, I guess I question or wonder

about the necessity of even having to land on Federal properties.

Why do they? When I fly a helicopter, I take the doors off. And if

76

I wanted to I’d just drop something out the door from a thousand

feet. There is nothing that’s going to blow up when I drop a bundle

of marijuana or cocaine out my door. Why are they dumb enough

to land and unload and get caught?

Mr. COPP. We’ve seen air drops from helicopters. We’ve seen

them have cargo nets on the bottom. They actually hover over the

trees and drop them into the forest. The area is so remote that you

can land out there without someone watching you.

The reason we’ve been able to find these guys is through the excruciating work that’s done and the intelligence that we have and

tracking them through the landing sites that they are no longer

using.

Mr. REHBERG. Is it mostly the technology that is available

through the Border Patrol that’s giving you that opportunity? Or,

does the Homeland Security have the unique sensors and human

assets different from—I guess, I want to ask the same question we

asked Ms. Kimbell about the MOU and a level of cooperation. Because one of the things that drove us crazy about September 11th

was the lack of communication, and so I guess I’d like to have you

dwell a little bit on the joint or combined technology, shared resources and kind of give me a sense of how it’s done.

Mr. COPP. We aren’t getting too far on our leads and technique

and stuff we use. A lot of it is just paper driven, tracking them

through the paper, where they’re living, renting certain platforms.

We can identify the subjects, and then through surveillance we’re

tracking the subjects as they go to the national borders.

Mr. REHBERG. One last question, the same question I asked Ms.

Kimbell. You being the new entity, is there something that you

could suggest Congress has not provided to you that we ought to

be looking at, specifically—other than the guest worker program of

course—within the bill that we’ll be passing specific to Federal

lands and law enforcement?

Mr. COPP. One thing that we’ve seen from our combined authorities is that we’re able to build a lot more complex investigations.

That is tasking the U.S. Attorney’s office. They don’t have the personnel to prosecute the number of cases that we’re taking to them.

One thing I would suggest, maybe, to add either special United

States Attorneys that are assigned to us to prosecute our cases for

us or give them more personnel to prosecute cases.

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg. I must admit to you

that I would love to see more people assigned to the U.S. Prosecutors’ Office, and I would love to see the intention of the U.S. Attorney in this region to actually devote time and attention and resources to this thing.

I also have to tell you that, although when we have formal hearings and representatives of the various organizations are giving

testimony, we have heard over and over again that there is, as

you’ve said, a great deal of cooperation. This cooperation among

agencies is working well.

But I have to also be candid with you that the minute you move

out of this room and begin talking to people who are in the field

and they are doing so—and people who are asking that their names

not be used and that they not have to say any of this in public

77

because they are frightened of losing their jobs, they will tell you

the exact opposite. I’m sure you’ve heard these kinds of things, generating up from the ranks, and that is that this cooperation doesn’t

really exist yet. And Legacy, Customs and other parts of the group,

the 22 agencies that we tried to put together really have not found

a way to overcome the problems that we hoped they would be able

to overcome early on.

So I guess more than anything—I’m just telling you more than

asking you—I’m just telling you what happens every time I walk

away from one of these hearings. The e-mails start, calls from folks

saying, I know they told you they’re getting all this cooperation,

but it’s not—down here it’s not happening.

Some of that’s natural. They’re not seeing it at the same level

naturally, and maybe where they are, they just don’t see the big

picture or whatever. But I’m just telling you, there’s an awful lot

of frustration, an enormous amount of frustration in the various

agencies that comes through indirect paths to certainly my office,

and you must be aware of it. Again, it’s a comment more than a

question.

I wonder, could you tell me in terms of the actual amount of contraband whether we’re talking drugs or when I—my Canadian

counterparts they are always complaining about the amount of

arms that are flowing into Canada from the United States, that’s

their big thing.

I read in some of the briefing papers here that cocaine is actually—more of that is moving south to north than north to south.

Do you find that part of the problem here, at least in this area, the

actual movement of arms, shipment of arms from the United States

into Canada, clandestinely?

Mr. COPP. I haven’t seen a large number of arms going into the

United States, and we don’t have any going into Canada. We did

not received any intelligence from the outfits that we’re working

with concerning that. We did find some arms that they were taking

back and forth with FROZEN TIMBER, but most of that was a personal-use arm. It wasn’t large quantities of military weapons.

Mr. TANCREDO. I think that is perhaps more happening over on

the eastern side around Detroit, Michigan, at least that’s where we

hear about it a lot, this movement of arms. I just wondered if any

of that has gotten out here.

A question really to both you and Ms. Kimbell: The other thing

that I have heard about recently is the tremendous amount of

marijuana that’s being grown in our forests. I don’t know if the

conditions are appropriate or right up here for much of it to grow

in the national forests. But the fact is that there are not only ten

national forests that have been identified where marijuana growth

is occurring in huge amounts. I mean, huge, I’m talking about

thousands of tons of it being harvested every year.

And not just is the harvesting going on, not just the growth inside our national parks going on and national forests but that

people are stationed there to protect the crop, and they are often

there with arms that are sophisticated with remote control, with

radio communications that are, again, very sophisticated. And it’s

a very dangerous environment especially for some of the people in

the Forest Services and Border Patrol. Can you comment on that?

78

Ms. KIMBELL. This has been a tremendous issue for a number of

years in California and Oregon and, in fact, has moved north. We

are blessed with a fabulous growing season here in Idaho and Montana and with plentiful water in very many places. Yes, we’ve seen

an increase in the cultivation of. We’ve not yet experienced the

same kind of drug cartel involvement that we see in California. We

believe it to be right behind it.

Mr. COPP. Most of the stuff that we’re seeing is actually B.C.

Bud, which is grown in Canada and transported across.

Mr. TANCREDO. Again, a little aside, the two-week exercise I was

telling you about, one evening a member of the Royal Canadian

Mounted Patrol was chasing someone with a load of B.C. Bud into

the United States and purposely called ahead. They called the Border Patrol station where I happened to be and said, look, we’re

chasing this guy.

The understanding was, by the way, that they would let him go

to get into the United States because they knew if they caught him

on the Canadian side, they stopped him on the Canadian side,

there would be no prosecution. So they just let us know they were

going to chase him down into the United States so we could catch

him.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Harris, please.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. HARRIS, CHIEF,

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON

Mr. HARRIS. Congressman Tancredo, Congressman Rehberg and

other distinguished members of the Committee on Resources, on

behalf of the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection I want to extend our appreciation to

the Members of Congress for your supported in working with us to

secure our national borders. My name is Robert L. Harris. I am the

Chief Patrol Agent of the Border Patrol, Spokane Sector.

The Spokane Sector’s area of responsibility includes the 308

miles of international border with Canada from the Cascade Mountains in Eastern Washington all of Idaho and Western Montana to

the continental divide in Glacier National Park, that area of responsibility depicted on the upper map (indicating).

Approximately 236 miles of our area of responsibility includes

Federal lands along the international boundary, which is depicted

in the map sitting on the floor. Our priority mission is to prevent

the entry of terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the

United States between official ports of entry. In addition, we continue to carry out our traditional mission of arresting illegal aliens,

smugglers, narcotics and other illicit contraband being smuggled

across the remote areas of our border.

Over the past five years, the agents of the Spokane Sector have

arrested 3,704 illegal aliens from 39 different countries and seized

over 18,000 pounds of illicit narcotics. Due to the large expanses

of border, the remote areas, rugged terrain and different operational challenges from the U.S./Mexico border, we greatly depend

on a relationship with border residents, the U.S. Attorney’s offices

and other state, Federal, local and tribal law enforcement agencies,

both on the U.S. and Canadian side to carry out our border

security mission.

79

The following are some of the initiatives we have implemented

in the Spokane Sector over this past year to enhance our relationships with border residents and expand our working relationships

with area law enforcement. We have graduated over 100 border

residents from seven citizen academies to educate the public about

the Border Patrol mission and how to report suspicious activity

near the border.

We have established an awards program to formally recognize

citizens and law enforcement officers who report suspicious activity

that results in an arrest or seizure. We have implemented a 1-800

outreach and border signage program to encourage reporting of

suspicious activity near the border.

We have expanded our canine operations from one team to fifteen teams sector wide. All of our canine teams have dual detection, both narcotics and human capability as well as tracking capabilities.

We have expanded our horse patrol operations sectorwide to all

seven stations to allow access to remote areas while being sensitive

to the environment on Federal lands. And we have established a

Border Patrol Youth Explorer Program to get community involvement and interest in border security.

In addition to these specific initiatives, the Border Patrol also is

a primary participant in the U.S./Canada integrated border enforcement, or IBET teams, that now span 15 locations across the

U.S./Canada border. The IBET teams consist of both U.S. and Canada law enforcement with a specific focus on border security.

Also, the Spokane Sector, like all Border Patrol sectors, has established a public lands liaison agent. The liaison agent is a Border

Patrol agent position that is specifically assigned to enhance interaction and working relationships between the Border Patrol and

land management agencies.

The responsibility of the liaison agent focuses on implementation

of specific portions of a recently signed MOU between the Department of Homeland Security, Interior and Agriculture on national

security and counter-terrorism initiatives on Federal lands along

the international border.

To secure our borders, whether on Federal lands or otherwise, we

need to deploy the proper balance of personnel, equipment, technology and border infrastructure to meet the different operational

challenges of the border environment. Whether it is a smuggler on

foot, in a car, on a horse, a snowmobile or low-flying aircraft we

must establish the capability to detect, respond and interdict illegal, cross-border incursions before they reach the interior of the

United States.

Nationally, the Border Patrol is attached with a very complex

sensitive and difficult job, which historically has presented mixed

challenges. Homeland security has become a top priority. The Border Patrol is proud to be the front line of defense for the very important mission.

The challenge is huge but one which we face every day with vigilance, dedication to service and integrity. I want to thank you both

and the Committee for the opportunity to present this testimony

today. I will be please to respond to any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]

80

Statement of Robert Harris, Chief Patrol Agent, Spokane Sector, U.S.

Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security

Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, and other distinguished Members of

the Committee, it is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss

our latest efforts along the border, which include the critical role border security on

Federal lands has in assisting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and especially U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in our mission of securing our

Nation’s borders.

The Spokane Sector’s area of responsibility includes 308 miles of international

border with Canada, from the Cascade Mountains in Eastern Washington, all of

Idaho, and Western Montana to the Continental Divide. Approximately 236 miles

of our area of responsibility includes Federal Lands along the international boundary.

Our priority mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and terrorist weapons

from entering the United States between official ports of entry. In addition, we continue to carry out our traditional mission of arresting illegal aliens, smugglers, narcotics, and other illicit contraband being smuggled across the remote areas of our

border. Over the past 5 years the agents of the Spokane Sector have arrested 3,704

illegal aliens from 39 different countries, and seized over 18,055 pounds of illicit

narcotics.

Due to the large expanses of border, the remote areas, rugged terrain, and different operational challenges from the U.S./Mexico border, we greatly depend on our

relationships with border residents, and other state, federal, local, and tribal law

enforcement agencies, both U.S. and Canada, to carry out our border security

mission.

Also, the Spokane Sector, like all Border Patrol Sectors, has established a Public

Lands Liaison Agent (PLLA). The PLLA is a Border Patrol Agent position that is

specifically assigned to enhance interaction and working relationships between the

Border Patrol and land management agencies. The responsibility of the Liaison

Agent focuses on implementation of specific portions of a recently signed MOU between the Departments of Homeland Security, Interior, and Agriculture on national

security and counter-terrorism initiatives on federal lands along the international

borders.

In addition to this specific initiative, the Border Patrol is also a primary participant in the U.S./Canada Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBET) that now

spans 15 locations across the border. The IBET teams consist of both U.S. and Canada law enforcement with a specific focus on border security.

Our immigration system is broken. Every day, thousands of people try to enter

our country illegally. Most of these people are coming to America to work and provide a better life for their families. After all, in their home countries, they make

only a fraction of what they could make in the United States. Our strong economy

creates the demand for these workers, places tremendous pressure at the border,

and makes our job of securing the border very difficult.

To most effectively secure our border, we must reform our immigration system to

relieve this pressure. We need comprehensive immigration reform that provides additional resources for 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.

We are taking significant steps to secure the border—more than any other time

in our history. Since 2001, funding for border security has increased by 66 percent.

DHS, working in conjunction with its Federal partners, has apprehended and sent

home more than 6 million illegal aliens. On May 15, President Bush announced his

plan to increase the number of CBP Border Patrol agents by 6,000 by the end of

2008. This will bring the total number of Border Patrol agents to over 18,000, doubling the number of agents since the President took office in 2001. These additional

agents will serve as a tremendous resource and will go a long way in helping us

secure the border.

As an interim measure, until CBP can hire and train these additional Border

Patrol agents, the President ordered the Secretary of Defense to work with our Nation’s Governors to deploy up to 6,000 National Guard soldiers to the Southwest

Border. Since the President’s Oval Office address, DHS and CBP have worked closely with the Department of Defense and National Guard Bureau to get these soldiers

integrated in our efforts to secure the border. We are calling this mission Operation

Jump Start.

These troops are making a difference. Over the last several weeks, the National

Guard, working in their support capacity, has assisted in reducing illegal activity

across the Southwest border. Even if this infusion were not occurring, there would

81

be hundreds of National Guard troops assisting DHS in our counter-narcotics mission. The Guard troops have also allowed us to move over 360 Border Patrol agents

from the back offices, where they were performing essential support functions and

logistics jobs, to the front lines. These agents are now working every day on the border to detect and apprehend illegal aliens, and seize narcotics and other contraband.

The National Guard soldiers currently are, or will be, supporting the Border

Patrol with logistical and administrative support, operating detection systems, providing mobile communications, augmenting border-related intelligence analysis efforts, building and installing border security infrastructure, and providing training.

However, law enforcement along the border between the ports of entry will remain

the responsibility of Border Patrol agents. The National Guard will play no direct

law enforcement role in the apprehension, custodial care, or security of those who

are detained. With the National Guard providing surveillance and logistical support,

Border Patrol agents are free to concentrate on law enforcement functions of border

enforcement. The National Guard engineering and technology support of tactical infrastructure has been a tremendous force-multiplier, expanding the enforcement capacity of the Border Patrol while freeing up additional agents who were performing

some of these support tasks.

The Border Patrol has a history of nearly two decades working with National

Guard and Reserve units to leverage their unique expertise, workforce, technology,

and assets, in support of our mission and as a force-multiplier. We’re proud to work

shoulder-to-shoulder with our National Guard colleagues. They have given us a tremendous jumpstart on our overarching plan to secure the border—the Secure Border Initiative (SBI).

As I mentioned earlier, National Guard support will be an immediate, short-term

measure that allows DHS to increase our deterrence and border security capabilities, while DHS trains additional Border Patrol agents and implements SBI which

is a broad, multi-year initiative that looks at all aspects of the problem across the

board—deterrence, detection, apprehension, detention, and removal. SBI, as envisioned by the Secretary and Commissioner, addresses the challenges we face with

integrating the correct mix of increased staffing, greater investment in detection

technology and infrastructure, and enhanced coordination with our partners at the

Federal, state, local, and international levels for every segment of our Nation’s borders. CBP Border Patrol’s component of SBI, named SBInet, will integrate multiple

state-of-the-art systems and traditional security infrastructure into a single comprehensive border security suite for the department. Under SBI, DHS wants to create a common operating picture for agents, via the use of integrated sensors and

other interoperable technologies and systems. The technologies will help agents detect, identify and respond to illegal activities.

There is no stretch of border in the United States that can be considered completely inaccessible or lacking in the potential to provide an entry point for a terrorist or terrorist weapon. Stretches of border that in the past were thought to be

impenetrable, or at least highly unlikely locations for entry into the United States,

have in recent years, become active illegal entry corridors as other routes have been

made less accessible to smugglers. We must consider all available information, including the vulnerability of our Nation’s borders, when determining future infrastructure requirements and asset deployments.

SBI undertakes an integrated approach to the continuum of border security and

future deployments of personnel, infrastructure and technology. The deployment of

the various components will be risk based, considering, for example, current intelligence, operational environment and field commander’s requirements. Under this

approach, one portion of the border may require more technology in relation to personnel, while another portion may require more tactical infrastructure improvements than either personnel or technology. SBI will not be a ‘‘one-size-fits all’’ deployment.

One part of SBI, is the placement of Tactical Infrastructure (TI), such as fencing,

vehicle barriers, high intensity lighting, and road improvements. These infrastructure elements act as a force multiplier, helping agents to secure the border, with

speed and flexibility of personnel redeployment made possible by shortened response

times. TI elements are critical for the U.S. Border Patrol to achieve the proper balance between personnel, technology, and border infrastructure. But, TI alone will

not secure the border.

We recognize the challenges that lie ahead. Our goal is nothing less than to gain,

maintain, and expand operational control of our Nation’s borders through the right

mix of personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure. The assistance of the

National Guard and our Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners,

will greatly enhance our ability to effectively and efficiently protect our Nation’s

borders.

82

The men and women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection face these challenges

every day with vigilance, dedication to service, and integrity, as we work to

strengthen national security and protect America and its citizens. I would like to

thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today. I look forward to responding to any questions that you might have.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Harris. There are quite a few

from me. First of all, you talked about the need to have some sort

of cooperation with the tribal governments in order to fulfill your

mission. How much cooperation is forthcoming?

Mr. HARRIS. I’ll tell you, historically, the Border Patrol has—we

coordinated the first two U.S. Border Security Conferences with

tribal authorities along both the U.S./Mexico border and the Canadian border. We just recently hosted one of those conferences in

Cornwall, Canada that included tribal representative from across

the U.S. and Canada border.

In addition to that, this law enforcement officers reward program

that I just mentioned to you, we just presented awards to 15 members of the Colville Tribe reservation for their support, participation and interdiction of a couple of aircraft and seizure of narcotics

across the U.S./Canada border.

Mr. TANCREDO. Let me put the question another way to you:

What are the biggest problems we have with tribal governments in

getting them to cooperate with our interdiction program?

Mr. HARRIS. I think we have a very good working relationship

with the tribal governments, very—primarily the concern that I

hear from the tribal governments is the difficulty they have in obtaining grants. There’s something about the grant process. I’m not

overly familiar with it, but that is their primary concern.

Mr. TANCREDO. One of the reasons I ask you is because we had

actually requested either participation or testimony from one of the

tribes up here and were not able to obtain it for reasons I think

have—well, I guess I should just end it there. We were not able to

obtain it.

In your statement and testimony you talk about the importance

of the collaboration of Canada and other Federal agencies. In addition to this, what are the most effective tactical infrastructure

means for securing the northern border?

Mr. HARRIS. I’m just going to stay specific to my area, Congressman, if that’s OK.

Mr. TANCREDO. That’s just big enough. How are you going to secure that?

Mr. HARRIS. About 261 miles of our 308 miles of territory is on

Federal lands, some wilderness area. We don’t think we need border barriers or a road network up in these wilderness areas that

would destroy this type of environment for everybody and, also,

possibly serve as a facilitating mechanism for smuggling if we were

to build roads in these areas.

We just need to have access to the border through pack trails or

maybe changing a Kelly hump in a Federal land area, removing a

gate, putting a lock on it, things like that. That’s why we have this

excellent working relationship with the Department of Interior and

Agriculture so that we can work out those issues among ourselves.

But I don’t think—it’s a different operational challenge, as both

of you well know, the U.S./Mexico border. We need a different type

83

of approach, techniques and infrastructure up here on the U.S./

Canada border to address those.

Mr. TANCREDO. It does seem to me to be unique in that respect.

We have problems that we can confront up here that are unique,

and you’ve identified we’ve got the wilderness area, first of all to

which it is very difficult to get our folks on motorized vehicles. But,

of course, because that’s the case, you have this great, wonderful

opportunity for anybody who wants to smuggle something into this

country, both human or goods, and that is in a wilderness area,

because it’s hard for you to get there.

They’re smuggling, believe me—I guarantee on the southern border and thank God not yet up here—but the southern border has

caused enormous damage to the wilderness area, because everybody knows that’s the place we’re not going to be watching. We

can’t get there. The horses——

Do you have to actually—I just heard about the other day on the

southern border—it is the same up here? You have to actually

quarantine your horses for a couple of weekends before you take

them?

Mr. HARRIS. Not necessarily quarantine, it’s special types of feed.

It has not presented an operational challenge for us. But the key

to northern border security is technology, relationships and intelligence to direct our enforcement efforts, just because we don’t have

the volume of illegal border incursions that we have along the U.S./

Mexico border. So we need to rely on technology and intelligence

to direct our enforcement efforts to the right place.

Mr. TANCREDO. I would certainly agree. I will tell you, however,

I think also some sort of barrier that can both be erected without

degrading the land and allow for maybe the movement of species

in certain areas, that’s required. I think it can also be helpful in

that regard and this is a fairly low-tech device.

In terms of the high-tech devices that you’re talking about, what

is the ability of the Border Patrol—because, again, I’ve heard conflicting stories about this—but from your point of view, what is

your ability to actually use the equipment that we have available

to us even today? Some of this stuff is very sophisticated. Some of

it is, of course, used primarily by the military. And one of the reasons why I have always encouraged use of the military on the border is because they could bring with them not just the technologies

but the way to use it most effectively. Are you working with any

part of the military to actually gain that kind of expertise?

Mr. HARRIS. I’ll go back to the operation. It was Operation Outlook that we concluded at the end of July. It was a 30-day operation with forces of the active duty military and with the Nation

Guard. What they did for us was they brought some radar and sensor platforms up to the area that allowed us to, in a small geographic area, allowed us to be able to monitor cross-border air penetration below the 500-foot level for a 30-day period of time, which

is the prior threat that I believe that we have facing our area of

responsibility right now, is this intersmuggling.

Mr. TANCREDO. How about UAVs?

Mr. HARRIS. UAVs, I’m not that familiar with what type of technology is on UAVs, not having worked in a sector that had one of

those. If they will—if the UAV has the type of sensor platforms

84

that would allow us to be able to detect cross-border incursions

below the 500-foot level, yes, we could use that type of technology.

Mr. TANCREDO. I guarantee you they can and do. They’re really

quite incredible. As I say, the stuff that I observed was 1991 vintage technology, and we’re now ten generations past that. I’m hoping that will be in place here very soon. Thank you. Mr. Rehberg.

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by

thanking you. I have the utmost respect for the Border Patrol and

really appreciate the work you do, had a great working relationship

with your organization and respect, especially, the daily activities

along the southern border is incredible. I know you all have to do

your time along the southern border before you get a chance to

come up north to God’s country.

I alluded to it earlier about my perhaps first misunderstanding

or chastising the Border Patrol along the border, suggesting, hey,

why don’t you get on Amtrak. We know there are people that are

riding that train. The answer that I was given was the right answer. That is, when you’re not on the border, then you’re not

watching the border and more people get across the border.

First of all, I’d like to ask the question: How far south are you

able to come or have you come to arrest people that are perceived

to be terrorists?

Mr. HARRIS. Let me answer that in two quick parts: One is, we’re

not precluded from operating at what we call transportation hubs.

If there’s a transportation hub, whether it be an airport, whether

it be an Amtrak station and that transportation hub is being used

as a route of ingress or egress from the border, we can put Border

Patrol agents there.

For example, I did have an agent full-time in the Kalispell airport, but the apprehension statistics did not support dedication of

that type of personnel there because we were not catching any recent entry illegal aliens. So that answered the first part.

The second part is I do not define how far my agents can respond

away from the border.

Mr. REHBERG. How far have they—have they gone down into the

Grand Teton, as far south as—I’m trying to visualize where your

area goes.

Mr. HARRIS. I’m going to say if you take, for example, Whitefish

Station and a law enforcement officer called from Hamilton. He

said, hey, I have a suspected illegal alien here. Can you respond

to that? I’m probably not going to—I’m going to view that as the

responsibility of a different component of Homeland Security.

At any given time across that 308 miles in order to run a 7/24

operation, I’ll have about 15 agents covering about 308 miles. So

does it make sense for me to pull an agent off of the line and bring

him down that far to the interior?

But anywhere in the immediate border community, Whitefish,

Kalispell, any of those towns where our agents live and operate on

a normal daily basis, if another law enforcement officer called for

support, we’re going to back him up. If we’ve got somebody available, we’re going to respond to that call.

Mr. REHBERG. Two weeks ago I was on a trade mission to both

Korea and China, and I’ve now viewed the human trafficking from

both directions. I’m on the appropriations subcommittee that deals

85

with foreign affairs and foreign operations, and the human trafficking is one of our areas of expertise and responsibility. Could

you talk really quickly about how the human trafficking occurs on

Federal properties between the Sweetgrass Hills and your area of

responsibility.

I can see how they get people across the border to the south,

because they—it’s sophisticated in bringing workers across. As far

as the prostitution stuff, I don’t get it.

Mr. HARRIS. If you look at our farthest west station, which is

Oroville and move east from there, the level of activity in Oroville

is higher than it is anywhere else. As you move over toward Whitefish, the level of human activity is lower, not to say there’s not

stuff going on there. But in terms of activity, it’s more busy farthest to the west, and that is because we have increased enforcement capabilities in the area. Consequently, some of that smuggling is now coming up into our area, and the biggest nationality

that we arrest there are Korean, South Koreans. It’s my understanding it’s because they’re going to be used for prostitution, indentured servitude and things of that nature.

Mr. REHBERG. The second part of my question: Is it as a result

of a difference—maybe you can’t answer this, maybe you can—

maybe you can, Mr. Copp—difference in the laws of amnesty and

visas as it relates to China and Korea to Canada versus the United

States and is there a problem with the laws between the two different countries?

Mr. HARRIS. Definitely, I think there’s a nexus, no question about

it, that laws in Canada do somewhat facilitate people coming into

the United States illegally.

Mr. COPP. I would agree with that, Mr. Harris. I think there’s

a nexus there. Once they get into the Canada, it makes it a lot

easier to move south from Canada with the laws on the Canadian

side.

Mr. REHBERG. So there would be something that we should be

doing legislatively in Congress to address the Canadian/United

States Memorandum of Understanding, or is that something that

you might be able to do from an administrative standpoint?

Mr. COPP. We work hand in hand with RCMP up there as far

as identifying groups of people moving south. The problem is not

that. The problem is getting into Canada from Korea and they’re

able to get a foothold here makes it easier to smuggle.

Mr. REHBERG. Once they get into Canada, the ones that you’re

catching in Oroville or even in Montana—because what I heard

from Montana was—the U.S. Marshal and the District Court

Judges we have all of them—they said that was one of their main

problems, within Montana and the District Court system of Montana, the Korean prostitution issue, human trafficking. How are

they getting them across? The ones that you caught, how are you

catching them?

Mr. COPP. They’re being smuggled across.

Mr. REHBERG. Do they use buses and cars?

Mr. COPP. On foot, but they generally won’t stray too far from

a populated area. They’ll stage on the north side of the border and

then walk around near a port of entry and try to load up on the

other side of the border.

86

But the issue of the visas is a political issue. I mean, Canadian

law enforcement, RCMP, they understand the issue very well. It’s

not a law enforcement issue. It impacts law enforcement, but it’s

a political issue.

Mr. REHBERG. A political issue in the Federal system of Canada

not necessarily Alberta, British Columbia?

Mr. COPP. Correct, yes. But all the smuggling that we’ve apprehended is in a car or on foot crossing the border illegally.

Mr. REHBERG. I might point out the first airplane I bought was

a confiscated drug dealer airplane by the U.S. Marshal. He got

caught before he got back to the airplane and snuck out.

Mr. TANCREDO. The Border Patrol took me through Coronado

National Forest and put me on a horse. It was a horse that had

belonged to a smuggler. They didn’t tell me that when a helicopter

approached, sounds of a helicopter, the horse went down. It had

been trained, and I didn’t know about it. It was an interesting and

wild ride.

The issue with regard to the Canadian American border problem

we have and the relationship we have, it is true, I said only half

jokingly, I think it was on Canada television, there was quite an

interesting response when I said Osama Bin Laden could shave off

his beard, fly to Ontario, get out and call himself Omar the Tent

Maker and say that he’s a refugee. If you use that word, say the

word ‘‘refugee,’’ you get bucks. They tell you to walk and you can

come back within six months or something.

We have—it’s hard for us to throw stones, by the way. Our system isn’t that great in terms of who we—how clearly we can identify illegal immigrants. But there is, of course, in trying to work

toward the—by the end of the year having all air and sea ports,

anyway, have the equipment in place, and have us able to use

passports now for everybody coming into the United States through

those areas through Canada and Mexico. And then by 2007 for all

of our land, sea and airports, a passport.

The Canadians are very upset about this. Every time I meet—

as I told you earlier, the Canadian counterparts all we do is argue.

For years all we did was argue about softwood lumber, and now all

we do is argue about whether or not these passports can be implemented, should be implemented. They are against it for the most

part.

There is support in Congress, especially in the Senate, to postpone it, and I hope that some of our testimony that we gather here

today that we can forestall that postponement and do away with

it and get this implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. REHBERG. I’d like to ask Mr. Harris another question, and

that is: Are you aware of the kind of people or organizations that

are doing smuggling and is it a Korea Mafia, organized crime in

America. Who is organizing it?

Mr. TANCREDO. Along with that can you give us any information

as to how many people you are interdicting that are from countries

of interest?

Mr. HARRIS. I can get that information for you on the last part.

I don’t have it here with me. I’ll get that to you. As far as the first

question, if I could, I’ll defer to Mr. Copp, the ICE represent to answer that question.

87

Mr. COPP. We know these aren’t ad hoc smuggling groups that

are coming across. These are organized groups that are—there are

predetermined places these prostitutes go to, so we know it’s an organized group. We know that the smuggling groups they’re smuggling marijuana from Canada are organized groups. We know

which groups are controlling the majority of the smuggling.

Mr. REHBERG. Are they international groups, national groups or

just——

Mr. COPP. They’re international groups, because they’re moving

people from the Orient to Canada to the United States. There’s

connections all the way through.

Mr. REHBERG. You’re also seeing Mexican organized crime in

Canada coming into Montana, cartels?

Mr. COPP. They’re trying to. If I could, I’d like to get back to you

on that question.

Mr. TANCREDO. All right. Thank you. Do you have a station in

Havre?

Mr. HARRIS. There’s sector there. It’s not in my area. There is a

sector called the Havre Sector.

Mr. TANCREDO. About maybe two years ago I was up there. I got

their information. A number of people coming across up there that

they had interdicted who were from ‘‘countries of interest,’’ was significant and it was quite startling. You know, Havre, Montana, a

relatively small station, and yet it was several thousand that had

been through there had been interdicted, and about 600—I’m now

stretching my memory here—but it was amazing how many were

from countries of interest. These are countries, by the way, that are

state sponsors of terrorism or harbor terrorists.

Mr. HARRIS. I think in our area it’s primarily Canadian, illegal

Canadians, South Koreans, Indians, Pakistani are the largest apprehension numbers. We have seen no evidence of Mexican cartels

crossing the border. The Mexican criminal organizations are operating in some of these communities, narcotics trafficking, all types

of other criminal activities. But I haven’t actually seen any in the

border area, up in our area.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, sir.

Mr. TANCREDO. Wayne.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE DUSTERHOFF,

SHERIFF, GLACIER COUNTY

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Rehberg,

thank you for the opportunity to speak here. My reality is all of

what you mentioned here. But in Glacier County, I have Glacier

National Park, the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, and I have 90

miles of border, which I border with Canada. Of this 6,300 square

miles within Glacier County the major problem or the major session that I have is three or four barbed wire fences, which covers

the whole border.

There are three ports of entry into the United States, which

that’s not my problem in the half a mile of that. It’s the other 89.5

miles that’s unprotected that I don’t have anything into.

The rest of the rural setting in Glacier County, to our knowledge,

is very minimally detected or has any sensors or whatever, at least

none that we’re aware of. A large segment of this thinly manned

88

border is within the Glacier National Park, which presents a real

problem in high foot traffic, mountain biking traffic of recent, ATVs

and in the winter time snowmobilers coming into and out of the

United States.

Having flown many times on the border within our area in helicopters, I can tell you, you can drive up to the border and you can

see tracks on one side or the other and the fence is still there. So

they’re coming up and pushing the fence down and driving off.

Most of this does present a significant enforcement problem particularly with the back country area for us. There is little or no

presence to deter these people from entering into the United States

or out of the United States for us. In most cases, these persons

enter the United States into or out of at nighttime, of which we

have a group of people that is extremely attuned to our operations.

Many times when we catch somebody, they can tell you our schedules. And they have better intelligence than we have.

Most of those cases these people have access to mobile radios,

radio scanners, night vision goggles and many other items that

help them do what they want to do. And most of the time they

know our schedules as well as we do. Therefore, their chances of

successful entry into the United States are very good, if they

choose to do that.

My office has twelve officers including myself. Two are administrative. Two are assigned to the Federal narcotics task force, so

that leaves me with eight officers to work that 90 mile stretch and

provide assistance to the Federal agencies. Inside of this I must do

that, provide service to my citizens also. I still have that obligation

to provide that, but also to work closely with our Federal agencies.

In the 6,300 square miles that we provide responsibility to, recently one of the incidents within a Blackfeet Reservation we

caught people coming across the border on four-wheelers. They

were bringing their narcotics over on four-wheelers. We ended up

in a chase with them were they were driving down a road throwing

their dope out the window. Eventually, we caught them, and that

was a 40-pound B.C. Bud seizure for us. Prior to that we had an

80-pound seizure of B.C. Bud that came in this very same method,

only they drove a car across the border—or pickup across the border—and we chased them and caught them.

My communication dispatch center will receive numerous reports

many times after these incidents have occurred, that there’s people

in these areas that shouldn’t be there. And through the locals

that’s, basically, the only way that we get any assistance, with that

knowledge of somebody into or out of the United States.

The fence in our particular area is a local joke. For years my

wife, who is a Native American, didn’t even know there was a border because she would cross back and forth. Well, now it has become the standing joke. Where do you want to go to, to cross.

Some of the solutions that are required today are better communications within our agencies, better decompartmentalization of

this information. I’ve seen memos and had memos that come from

the Federal agencies that say, do not disseminate outside this

agency. What good is that intelligence to me or my officers that are

on the ground trying to find what if it’s compartmentalized?

89

We still don’t have the communication ability to talk. I recently

had a shooting in Glacier County that involved two customs agents.

We had a horrible time communicating with them trying to get to

where the location was, who was injured, who was shot and various

other entities to get assets running to assist them.

Much of what I’ve heard here, I mean, this amount of time I

could spend a day or two days talking about it. I would be happy

to answer any questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Dusterhoff follows:]

Statement of Wayne Dusterhoff, Sheriff,

Glacier County Sheriff’s Office, Cut Bank, Montana

Glacier County has approximately ninety (90) miles of border with Canada. Glacier County constitutes approximately 6300 square miles of this area for law enforcement The border barrier is principally only a 3-4 barbed wire fence. Within

Glacier County there are three (3) Ports of Entry into the United States. Glacier

County is one of the few counties in Montana that has multiple ports of entry into

and out of the United States. My agency also provides services and assistance to

the ports of entry when requested.

One of these ports is only open during the summer tourist months, and that is

the Chief Mountain Port This port is an access route into the United States into

Glacier National Park from Canada.

The second port of entry is the Piegan Port, Babb, Montana, and this is considered the main entry port within Glacier County as it is open year around and the

longest in time opening 0700 am until 2300 or (11:00) pro.

The third port of entry is at Del Bonita, Montana, and this port is normally open

year around from 0900 a.m. until 1800 (6:00) p.m. This port’s hours are extended

throughout the summer months from 0600 a.m. until 2100 (9:00) p.m.

The rest of the border in our rural setting of Glacier County to our knowledge

has very minimal border detection capabilities. A large segment of the thinly

manned border is within Glacier National Park. This area presents a great capability for having undetected high foot traffic to enter the United States on the back

country trails. This along with other types of traffic such as, mountain bikes, snowmobiles, four-wheeler traffic (which is illegal in its own essence) presents a significant enforcement problem. Also with this particular back country traffic area there

is little or no law enforcement presence for deterrence to persons desiring to enter

into the United States. In most cases these persons often enter or cross the border

areas during the night times.

These persons are in most case extremely attuned and knowledgeable as to die

law enforcement operations within the area. In many cases these people have access

to Mobil radios, radio scanners, night vision goggles, and other items to help them

in their entry attempts. Most times they know the officers’ schedules and routes as

well as the officers on duty do. Therefore, their chances of a successful entry are

extremely good if they choose to illegally enter into the United States in this area.

My office has twelve (12) full time officers including me. Two (2) of these officers

are administrative. Two (2) of these officers are assigned to a FBI Federal Narcotics

Task Force. That means that I have eight (8) officers available for patrol duties, and

to maintain our local detention facility. These eight (8) officers must cover the entire

county during their assigned eight (8) hour duty shifts. We also have five (5) sworn

Reserve Officers who are non-paid and come out to assist when they are available.

With this manpower I must provide the citizens of Glacier County with Public

Safety protection 24 hours a day, (7) days a week, 365 days a year. What this means

is that many times there is only one (1) officer on duty during a shift and he must

be available to respond anywhere within the 6300 square miles of Glacier County

we are responsible for providing services in. I do not have the manpower or resources necessary to provide the increased visibility required to deter illegal narcotic

or alien traffic along the border. In most cases the only way we are advised of illegal

entry suspects or activity is by local residents who see persons or vehicles in areas

they are not supposed to be in. We do not get this essential information from any

electronic sensor notification means.

My communications dispatch center receives numerous reports, (many times after

the incident has occurred) that there are or have been people and vehicles spotted

by the local residents within areas that there should not be anyone except the local

residents. Much of the northern border within our area has only a barbed wire fence

to keep someone out. This never has, nor will be any type of a determent to someone

90

wanting to come into the country illegally for whatever reason. This fence is local

joke as to where you need to pull it down and cross the easiest and fastest, and

not get caught.

NOTE: Attachments to Sheriff Dusterhoff’s statement have been retained in the

Committee’s official files.

A SOLUTION WILL REQUIRE THESE THINGS:

1. An improved cooperation and information-sharing process. Especially concerning those events that are ongoing or that may occur in the future within

our local tress. This is especially important to those situations that impact

local law enforcement and response agencies. Information many times is still

extremely compartmentalized within the Federal Agencies with respect to the

local law enforcement, that we are not informed. It Is principal requirement

that we have a more effective intelligence communications relationship so that

everyone is assisting in the ultimate goal of security of every citizen in the

United States.

2. There must be improved Radio Communications of the Federal Radio system

to be compatible with the local agency radios and radio communications centers. This must be improved Radio Interoperability Communications that is designed to integrate into the local area needs, and not that of Washington D.C.,

or the federal agencies only. Within Montana we have twelve (12) border counties, and four (4) Indian Nations who have a Memorandum of Understanding,

and arc currently involved with the communications project known as:

NORTHERN TIER INTEROPERABILITY RADIO PROJECT. I am the Project

Director for this endeavor which to date has been funded primarily through

Homeland Security funds and some State of Montana funds that is approximately $10-12,000.000. This is an essential radio communications project that

must be completed not only for local response operations, but for national border operations as well. Yet, with all this being currently done, other Homeland

Security agencies still cannot communicate effectively with us. A recent example of this is a short time ago in Glacier County I had a fatal shooting incident

that involved Federal Agents. These agents were not able to communicate with

us much of the time because of radio and communication dispatch inabilities.

This created a very definite officer and other emergency responder safety issue

for us to deal with by not having information on what was going on or where

it was going on at.

3. There must be more over flight specifically by aircraft with thermal and infrared capabilities by utilizing the resources from the National Guard or Federal

agencies who have these resources. We understand this is forthcoming from the

ICE perspective with a stationing of aircraft and personnel in Great Falls, MT,

in the near future. There must be increased availability of funding and resources to the local law enforcement so that we can assist in the enormous

task: at hand of helping to secure the border situation. This funding will increase the assets available to local areas to react swiftly to any response requests from the flight operations and other essential requests. By increased

funding to local law enforcement agencies this will help accomplish the mandated homeland security tasks, and will increase officer and public safety overall. This funding will also provide the necessary equipment such as Night Vision Goggles, Infrared heat detectors, and other necessary equipment to officers

to work the border area safely.

4. More public and media awareness of law enforcement on the Northern Border

and how important they are to our Local and National Security. We must be

proactive and not reactive in nature to events that are essential to our citizens’

security needs.

5. More Homeland Security funds for training the Law Enforcement Officers and

Radio Communications Dispatchers on local levels on the importance of the

goals, concerning the importance of properly doing the essential security tasks

effectively and safely.

6. There must be a more concentrated effort to de-compartmentalize information

and intelligence to the local agencies so that they can assist the Federal Agencies and agents, who many times are spread very thin within areas so as to

be overwhelmed and sometimes ineffectively able to cover assignments. Many

times they do not have the time to work effectively with the local law enforcement officers. In some cases they may feel that they do not have to include

the local agencies in the loop of information.

91

A case in point my Undersheriff is a former Immigration officer, and many

times when he was employed with the Immigration Department at the Ports

of Entry in Glacier County he would read information and intelligence bulletins

that stated on the bottom of the paper, ‘‘DO NOT DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE

THE AGENCY’’; What good does this information do to a local officer who may

come upon this situation and be unaware of what is going on? This is a definite

safety issue for the local law enforcement!

7. How can we as the local officer better help the Federal agencies accomplish

their required missions? We are mote than willing to undertake this task as

an equal. There must be better interaction of all agencies in operations. It

must be remembered by Federal Agencies that local agencies must work within

then limited funding sources to also accomplish their required public safety

mission to their local residents. Better cooperation and interfacing with all

agencies will increase the necessary and required resources available to work

to accomplish the essential security missions. More importantly cooperation

will greatly expand the capabilities of all agencies to present a unified action

and solution.

8. There have been many times in the past that Federal agencies have performed

enforcement or intelligence operations within our local county and surrounding

counties without even a consideration call as to the nature of the operation.

This is a definite safety issue to local officers if they come upon an operation

and do not know who or what is going on. There could be drastic consequences

in the outcomes of these encounters. The locals must be kept informed what

is going on in there vicinity; if for nothing else, principal safety concerns. We

have had operations conducted within our area in the past, and in most cases

many of the agents involved were not aware of die local routes, the area, the

people, the assistance, etc. My officers, and other county Sheriff’s Officers are

fully aware of the local area access, people, and many times the hidden routes

that can be traveled. This input would be invaluable if utilized. Again, communications and intelligence information sharing will eliminate this problem!

9. Place a local Federal Magistrate within our area; at present we must transport

all federal prisoners 254 miles round trip to Great Falls, Montana which is the

nearest Federal Magistrate that we must work with to have arrested prisoners

arraigned for Federal Crimes committed within our area. This is especially important to the surrounding local governmental entities, and is also very important to the Federal agencies as they must also travel this great distance to arraign prisoners; which is a drain on manpower, time resources, and effectiveness!

Mr. REHBERG. First of all, thank you Sheriff for being here. We

recognize that you’ve got unique problems in both the national

park, the reservation, the county and private property. I want to

ask the question: Do you find that you get better information from

private property owners about activities going across their fences

as opposed to—I don’t know, the land ownership of the reservation

on the border, whether it’s leased property or deeded property

along the border—where do you get the best information? Can

there be an argument for human eyes, human watchers, people on

the ground? And, usually, that’s private property owners.

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. Very definitely. Our best intelligence comes

from our local ranchers. I recently had one of our ranchers come

up and tell me that two guys came to him. Their vehicle was stuck

in a canal, which is going into Canada. He pulled them out, put

them in his car. While they finished swamping through the acres,

they stole his wallet and entered into Canada.

We don’t get the intelligence from Federal agencies. It’s very,

very hard for us to get intelligence based upon what we need.

Mr. REHBERG. Have you been able to avail yourself of a 1033 program, that’s the excess Federal——

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. Very much. If it wasn’t for the 1033, my department would be very, very sorry. We use that extensively.

92

Mr. REHBERG. Are there other equipment needs that—certainly,

you could get the Cabella’s catalog out and——

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. If I can get permission to buy it.

Mr. REHBERG. Are there programs within Homeland Security—

within Homeland Security appropriations there are no earmarks

that you hear about? Because we take our guidance entirely from

the Administration as far as what equipment they need. Are there

grant programs within the Homeland Security that you could avail

yourself of, equipment that you’re aware of?

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. No. Most of the Homeland Security money that

we get goes into the state. And right now I’m also the project director for the Northern Tier Radio Interoperability Project, which is

border counties and four Indian Nations. Most of our money that

we got was from Homeland Security, which was approximately $7

million and the state kicked in 3.5 and we rounded up 1.2 million

in additional grant fundings for us to work on this Interoperable

radio communications. Because the local sheriffs and the Indian

nations understand we have a problem with communication. We

have a problem with being able to talk one-on-one with our individual officers.

Mr. REHBERG. Are you aware of any equipment opportunities

that the southern border gets in local law enforcement that the

northern is either being ignored or slighted or just hasn’t taken advantage of? Do you belong to the National Association of Reserve?

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. I have no knowledge other than 1033 program,

surplus military program. We don’t have any contact with any of

the Federal agencies to get us that.

Mr. REHBERG. It would probably be hard for you to answer the

question. But legislatively is there anything Congress can do to

make the Federal agencies better communicate with you? Something that Mr. Tancredo was talking about clear back at the beginning about we always here about the level of communication. And

yet when we finally final get on the ground and talk to the locals,

if there is that level of communication—and I’m not aware of it

because it certainly isn’t a two-way street—would it have to be to

Memorandum of Understanding administratively or regulation or

is there something Congress can do?

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. I don’t know how to answer that question,

because I think that the communications from 9/11 to now we’re

still looking at it doesn’t work. Katrina showed we hadn’t made any

progress. And recently my shooting showed that we haven’t made

any progress in communications.

I’m not aware of Mr. Harris. I know their radio operations are

run out of a central point. I think it’s somewhere in Florida. I don’t

have any idea. But when you can’t talk to the local agents, and you

can’t talk to the local Border Patrol agents, you have a real problem in many areas that it’s a safety issue. These guys coming

across, they have a purpose. They aren’t shy about hurting us.

Mr. REHBERG. The farmer that pulled the guy out of the ditch,

how long would it have taken one of your officers to respond if they

had cell service and they called you and said, hey, I got a couple

of suspects sitting in my ditch?

93

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. It’s 47 miles from my dispatch center, so it

would take—considering it’s back country—an hour by the time I

get there, providing I had an officer available.

Mr. REHBERG. On paved roads, right?

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. You’re in the back country.

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you.

Mr. TANCREDO. Sheriff, there’s a group of sheriffs in—your colleagues in Texas—that have formed an organization. I don’t know

if you know Sheriff Ziggy—Sheriff Gonzales is the primary mover

of this organization. And there were 16 border sheriffs. I think

there are now 19 that have combined their—well, really, formed for

the purpose of trying to figure out how to deal with the situation,

which is overwhelming their resources and all of their agencies.

I would really suggest just as it may be of help to you to get in

contact with him and see whether or not a similar type of situation

could even develop here, in terms of the other counties. Because it’s

not unique. Your situation isn’t unique. Other sheriffs have the

same problem. And if nothing else, what it really did is it brought

a lot of pressure on Congress to have an organization of sheriffs

come in, which they did, and say, look, we’re overrun. This is a

war. We’re in an invasion. Where is the help from the Federal Government?

And so I know that that got a lot of attention and also perhaps

is going to get a lot of resources as a result, just a suggestion to

you.

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. I will look up and see if I can contact Mr.

Gonzales.

Mr. TANCREDO. Great guy, Ziggy Gonzales. Thank you. Let’s go

ahead. I had some others.

Mr. TANCREDO. But I think what we’ve got to do is, first of all,

thank you, Jeremy, for your patience and go ahead and take your

testimony.

STATEMENT OF DETECTIVE SERGEANT JEREMY HOUSE,

YELLOWSTONE COUNTY DRUG TASK FORCE

Mr. HOUSE. I had a short statement, but I’m going to forego.

What effects us is what’s going down in Billings. The border is broken and the system is broken. We are overwhelmed, like you said.

We’re invaded by people bringing drugs in from both Mexico and

Canada. We’ve seen a huge increase in the epidemic of methamphetamine and the purity of it, sometimes 99 percent pure.

B.C. Bud is—anywhere in Billings you want to buy B.C. Bud, you

can buy it for $5,000 a pound. Another big thing that has just come

around last year is ecstacy, the pills. They look like baby Aspirin.

They’re pink, bright pink, bright green, blue, imprints of Playboy

or the Devil on it or something.

It’s being marketed to children, junior high, high school, college

age kids. This is not being made in Montana. It’s not being made

in Billings or the United States. It’s being made in European countries and Mexico and brought across to the border to our location.

I know the Border Patrol is doing a great job. Something has to

be done more. I have 18 officers and agents in my office. We average 36 to 40 hours overtime every two weeks to control stuff, and

94

we’re still overwhelmed. That is all I have to say about that,

because right now it’s frustrating, very frustrating.

[The prepared statement of Mr. House follows:]

Statement of Sgt. Jeremy House,

Billings Police Department, Billings, Montana

Sgt. House is a 14 year veteran of the Billings Police Department. He has extensive experience in patrol and investigative operations with an emphasis on proactive

drug investigation and enforcement, having initiated and worked to successful conclusion hundreds of drug related contacts. He currently supervises the joint City of

Billings/County of Yellowstone Special Investigations Unit (CCSIU) comprised of investigators from the Billings Police Department, Yellowstone County Sheriff’s Office,

and Laurel Police Department. As part of that function, he supervises the Big Sky

FBI Safe Streets Task Force which is geared towards the long term investigation

of street gang related criminal activity. In addition, Sgt. House supervises the Eastern Montana HIDTA Task Force (utilizing team members from CCSIU, ATF, DEA,

ICE, and MT Dept. of Corrections) which focuses on criminal activity related to the

trafficking of dangerous drugs with specific emphasis on methamphetamine. Finally,

under House’s direction CCSIU partners with the U.S. Marshal’s Violent Fugitive

Apprehension Task Force. Sgt. House has over one thousand hours of specialized

law enforcement training, with approximately 300 specific to drug investigations.

The experience of CCSIU related investigations has shown that a large number

of violent and drug related criminal participants have contacts and/or sources of

supply that extend well beyond local boundaries. In fact, a significant number of

high level investigations have been shown to cross international boundaries particularly into Canada and Mexico. CCSIU investigators have routinely partnered with

agencies throughout the United States while engaged in multi-jurisdictional investigations that often have originating sources of supply in the countries mentioned.

In numerous instances, those means of supply have been facilitated by the use of

undocumented or illegal alien persons.

During the past several years, members of the Eastern Montana HIDTA have had

and are currently involved in on-going cases where large amounts of methamphetamine and ecstasy have been seized in Montana. During the course of the investigations and subsequent prosecutions of involved participants it has been learned that

sources of supply routinely originate in both Canada and Mexico. It has also been

determined that the methods of transportation often utilized illegal aliens.

Local investigations continue to document cases whereby illegal aliens currently

residing in the eastern Montana area are actively engaged in the trafficking and

distribution of controlled substances. In fact, in many cases those individuals have

established community and family ties which allow the ease of transition for additional group members to infiltrate the community.

The eastern Montana area encompasses the Crow and Northern Cheyenne Indian

Reservations. Drug activity in both reservations is rampant, and is generally tied

directly to participants identified in other investigations as described previously.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. The people that you actually arrest

that are either carrying the stuff or selling the stuff are these

people, to the best of your knowledge, themselves, connected with

drug cartels or are they the guy who has just been smuggled in

here to the United States looking for the ‘‘job’’ that no American

will do.

Mr. HOUSE. It’s both. I have cases—local agents have cases that

go through Colorado, Oklahoma, through Texas straight to the cartel in Mexico. We’ve been hindered by ICE in investigating those

cases.

Mr. TANCREDO. Why?

Mr. HOUSE. I’d rather not go into the public forum to tell you

about that. Mr. Copp and I have had communication on this. We’ve

put presentations on before in meetings where some ICE representative states it’s a good case. Keep on going with it. And it’s shut

95

down in the Denver region for no reason. They have reasons, but

it’s not being communicated back to me.

Mr. TANCREDO. I would imagine that would make your job very

frustrating.

Mr. HOUSE. It’s very frustrating. I have two ICE agents, I should

say, that are in my office. Both are afraid that I’m here right now

testifying because of something coming back down on them. The

last testimony of one of the agents was, out of the blue, he’s going

to Laredo for 90 days. You figure that one out.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Copp, you hear, here now, something somebody is courageous enough to actually say in public in terms of

both this cooperation that is supposed to exist, the coordination of

efforts that’s supposed to exist. I just want to tell you, sir, that,

frankly, I’m not saying that you don’t believe that it happens or

that it exists. All that I’m telling you is what we just heard here,

from Mr. House and the Billings Police Department, is what I hear

almost every day from some other agency, sometimes within ICE.

They are petrified, of course, because they are fearful of losing

their job or being sent to some place else, probably not a choice assignment.

Certainly, I’m sure this is something that you’ve heard before. I

just want to—I’m not asking you to respond to this. I’m not asking

you to simply when you go back to tell your superiors what you

have heard today, what we have been hearing for a long time. And

this idea that you can just keep coming in front of committees and

saying everything is OK. All this integration of agencies is working.

I mean, we still don’t have the ability for sheriff’s departments to

talk to the Border Patrol.

I mean, this has been—I can’t remember how long we have been

arguing about this one point, just the actual technology, the communications technology. Why we have not been table to get over

that hump to this point in time is just amazing to me.

You can see why, I think in listening to Mr. House, you can see

why local communities and states are saying, we’re going to have

to take this on ourselves because it’s just not working. You know,

I feel for them. We’re here from the Federal Government. We’re

supposed to be here to help you, right?

And it feels like we’re not doing what they need. If whether

there’s all of this interagency argument going on and agency

jealousies and turf battles that are going on, they’ve got to be dealt

with or we’re going to have much bigger problems in the future,

and states are going to have to take this on in ways we won’t like.

Mr. REHBERG. To carry forward with that same line of conversation, sheriff, that’s why I brought up the point about local watchers. I think you hear it now in Iraq as far as our intelligence was

decimated over the years because we lost the human element at

the local level. And you see it with the Administration with their

appropriations requests eliminating the drug task force, or the opportunity or ability to have the Burns Grants as we knew them

and liked them and what they accomplish.

I hope for those of you who have an involvement with the Federal Government—I know you didn’t like your agency and you want

to protect your own funding—but we implore and plead with you

to recognize and go back and talk to your leadership about the

96

desire or the necessity to have local input and local communication

as well. Because there are those of us at the Federal level that

haven’t lost sight of that and will do everything that we can to see

that if you don’t accept it, we’ll make you accept it.

Mr. House, if it’s at all possible for you to provide information

to us, however you want to get it to us—or any of the rest of you

either in the audience or local law enforcement as well—please

share that information. We are smart enough to figure out how we

got it, what to do with it, how sensitive it needs to remain. And

we are a separate entity from the executive branch. I think we take

that responsibility very seriously as well, and that’s why we have

Congressional hearings and oversight hearings and legislative

hearings and the opportunity to hear from people recognizing how

sensitive it is to sometimes highlight or identify some of the problems that exist.

One of the things I guess I want to ask the two of you, specifically, because one of the things I try and address as a Congressman in Washington is the most vulnerable within our society is one

of the reasons I asked to be on the Resource Committee. It’s one

of our more vulnerable economic units, our Native American population.

Could you describe a little bit the impact that the border

porousness of the border and the cartels and drugs are having on

the Native American population. You probably need to speak specifically to Montana, because I can’t really ask you to address the

Navaho Reservation or any of the others. There are Congressman

that would deal with that. We also have the responsibility for Native Americans in the Resources Committee. Perhaps, Wayne, you

first and the Jeremy.

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. In the essence of agriculture, if that was to become a tool of terrorism it would decimate my entire county. That’s

essentially all we are is a rural, agricultural economy. There was

something that came in and impacted and right now upon the

English economy we have roughly 60 percent unemployment. The

bulk of our standing is the rancher and the farmer. A lot of our

Native American ranchers and farmers would be essentially wiped

out if there was a——

Mr. REHBERG. Are they seeing within that population the brunt

of the illegal drug trafficking? Is it stopping at the reservation or

is it just passing through?

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. No. We’re a funnel point. Because of the limited resources of law enforcement, we’re a funnel point. We get it

into us, and it goes to Havre to Great Falls to Billings to Helena.

Mr. REHBERG. With some usage along the way? Is it settling into

the Native American population or getting it and asking the Native

American population to help distribute? Do you find some of that?

Mr. DUSTERHOFF. We find a lot of it. The bulk of my drug task

force work—we’re on the Federal Narcotic Task Force—for instance, in the last six months we’ve had 24 major cases of narcotics

within our county. 20 of those have been on the Blackfeet Reservation. 2 have been in the City of Cut Bank and 2 have been in the

adjacent county of Toole County.

Mr. REHBERG. Jeremy, what do you see in Billings? I mean, is

it——

97

Mr. HOUSE. We have the Crow Reservation in Yellowstone County, bordered by the Cheyenne. In fact, last week the FBI started

a new Safe Trails Task Force out of Colstrip for the two reservations. It’s so rampant down there right now. My HIDTA Task Force has just receive another $75,000 grant for

overtime for my officers to go down and support the Federal authorities on that task force on the two reservations. We have the

money. I just don’t have the officers now.

Mr. REHBERG. Are the drugs coming from Canada?

Mr. HOUSE. It’s coming from somewhere.

Mr. REHBERG. You don’t know?

Mr. HOUSE. Not Billings, it’s not being made in Billings. I’ve had

two methamphetamine labs in Yellowstone County in the last year.

It’s not coming from my house. It’s not coming from yours.

Mr. REHBERG. Maybe I could ask Mr. Copp. Do you know, specifically, the distribution points within your region.

Mr. COPP. We know a lot of the methamphetamine is coming

from the Yakima sector over in Washington.

Mr. REHBERG. And then once in Yakima it’s going to the major

metropolitan areas?

Mr. COPP. It’s spreading east across the country. We know there

are large manufacturing groups that are working in that area. We

haven’t seen a whole lot of meth coming across the Canada border.

Most of it is domestic or smuggled from Mexico to different parts

of the United States and is distributed that way.

Mr. REHBERG. Do you find they’re changing from the labs being

in Mexico or Canada to having to do it even though they may get

caught?

Mr. COPP. Just the opposite. Most of it is done in superlabs in

Mexico. They can produce huge amounts of meth and smuggle the

end product into the United States.

Mr. REHBERG. The stuff that’s coming in from Canada then is up

around Vancouver.

Mr. COPP. Right.

Mr. REHBERG. And then it’s coming into Yakima and going——

Mr. COPP. Or it’s coming in from Mexico to Yakima, because

there’s a large population there they can use to smuggle drugs

across into the United States and then to the east.

Mr. HOUSE. I’d just like to make it clear, I’m not bashing the

Federal system or the Federal Government. We are a Federally

funded task force, and I really appreciate it. But it’s got to come

to the point that, like they said, it’s superlabs in Mexico. And the

ecstacy and B.C. Bud is being brought in from Canada. In the last

year it’s gone up 100 percent in all areas. Something is not stopping it.

Mr. REHBERG. We recognize that. You all have a good working

relationship, and we don’t want to get in the middle of that. All we

try to do is nobody ever comes to us in Congress and asks us to

fix something that’s going right. They ask us to work on the things

that aren’t working as well as they should be.

We look for opportunities because you all know these issues better that we do. Again, we don’t want to dwell on what’s going

wrong, but we also are charged with trying to fix things legislatively that we can. We have a major piece of immigration legislaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:45 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\DOCS\29470.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
98

tion moving forward, whether it’s the Senate version or the House

version or some combination thereof. We are just looking for opportunities to hear from you so that we can work out the kinks in the

armor a little better.

Mr. TANCREDO. The staff asked me to make sure that we get one

response from you, Ms. Kimbell, with regard to mechanized intrusion on the Forest Service lands that you mention in your testimony. Would you please, if you could very quickly, give us some

idea about the best way to prevent that particular phenomenon.

Ms. KIMBELL. In fact, the Forest Service is currently going

through some pretty comprehensive travel management planning

across the national forests. We do have areas where we experience

violation of different kinds of mechanized closures. We are dealing

with that as best we can.

Again, I have 43 officers across Idaho, Montana and North Dakota and together with all the regular employees, with the 3,000

Forest Service employees in the northern region, we’re working on

identifying those areas most sensible. Actually, I’m heading to one

today, not on the border, not on the Canadian but on the Idaho border, where there has been intrusion.

So we’re putting a great emphasis on the management of motorized travel on national forests, not just on the border but all national forest system lands.

Mr. TANCREDO. How much of what you have control of can actually be—how much would a barrier, especially a vehicle barrier,

protect?

Ms. KIMBELL. A vehicle barrier, depending on how—if it’s well located, it can protect quite an expansive area, as was discussed earlier in the testimony. With a Memorandum of Understanding we

are working with the other Federal land agencies to change some

of those barriers to gates so that law enforcement does have a different kind of access, may have vehicle access if it’s an area where

that is warranted.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. Well, I thank you all very much for

your testimony. It is the time we need to bring this to a conclusion.

I especially appreciate those of you that I know who have had to

travel long distances for this. I do believe that we have garnered

a lot of good information. I believe there will be more forthcoming.

Each one of you—by the way, we appreciate the testimony that

you provided. Your written testimony will be going in the record,

and we will use it for review. Congressman Rehberg, do you have

any last comments?

Mr. REHBERG. Just a thank you to you again for taking the time

to travel from Colorado to be a part of this hearing, for your interest in the immigration issue, the people of Ravalli County for graciously hosting us in your facility and taking the time out of your

busy schedule to be in the audience.

There is plenty of opportunity between now and when this issue

comes up again before the House of Representative and/or the Senate or conference committee to have input. Always feel free to contact my office. I do have offices in Missoula, Great Falls, Billings

and Helena. I have two staff members here, actually three, one

from Washington and two from Montana, both from the Missoula

Office. Kelly, raise your hand.

99

Kelly is housed in the Missoula office. She has cards that she

will make available to you. If you have comments, I have a web

page, my e-mail address and toll-free number. You can mail it. You

can call or you can access us through e-mail.

Tom Schultz out in the hallway, I saw him walk by. He also

works in my Missoula office. And, Todd, please raise your hand.

Todd is in my Washington D.C., office. I never want to be charged

with not hearing comments, because that is one of the things I take

very seriously. Please feel free to call me. I’ll call you back. Write

me. I’ll write you back.

If you want another hearing, if you want another meeting within

Ravalli County or anywhere in Montana, I do continue to travel to

all 56 counties. I take that charge very seriously. To you for having

travelled so far, I thank you. Sometimes it seems like the questions

are a little combative. It’s not intended to be. It’s just trying to get

to a solution to many of the problems that face our country. We’ve

got some tough times ahead, and we’ll just meet them head on and

hope to solve those issues. So I do appreciate each and every one

of you. Thank you for having responded and being invited. And,

again, thank you, Tom, for being here.

Mr. TANCREDO. It’s a pleasure. I want to thank the staff for all

they’ve done to set this up. My only comment beyond that is to tell

you that I can’t leave today without expressing my great concern

that two officers—two of the Border Patrol officers who are presently facing 5 to 20 years in prison for assault for what I believe

is an act that was required by their duty, was part of their duty.

And for those of you that are not familiar with this, two officers

were recently arrested and tried because they fired on someone

who was bringing drugs into this country, coming across the southern border. That person went back into Mexico. The U.S. Attorney’s

Office received a complaint from another Border Patrol officer

about the incident.

We actually—now, when we talk about the use of resources, and

we can’t get resources to our people here on the line, but we have

the resources in the U.S. Attorney’s Office to go to Mexico, to find

the guy that had come into this country illegally, bring him back

under a promise of immunity for that crime that he committed,

only to find out that he, by the way, had come in, subsequently,

doing the same thing, bringing drugs in. We gave him immunity

for that crime if he would testify against these two Border Patrolmen. They are now facing sentencing, and could get 5 to 20.

I will tell you I am going to do everything I can. I have already

written a letter to the Chairman of Homeland Security. But I just

want you to take this message back to the Border Patrol. If anything is going to destroy the morale in that agency to an extent

greater than has already happened, this kind of thing will do it.

I’m going to ask the Chairman of Homeland Security to have an

oversight investigation into this. I am going to do whatever I can

in terms of fund raising for the families of these people. I think it’s

a travesty of justice, and I cannot leave here without telling you

that I’m absolutely disappointed, heartbroken by what has happened there and what must be happening to those folks and their

families.

100

It is not the way to inspire confidence in the Border Patrol—the

leadership of the Border Patrol. I know the guys on the line.

They’re great people. They work very diligently and very hard. But

to operate under something like this, from the standpoint of this,

your superiors, to make sure—as I said at some point in time, the

morale has got to be lower than a snake’s belly in the agency when

something like this happens. At any rate, I couldn’t leave this without mentioning my deep concern about that particular issue.

Once again, I want to end on a more positive note, and that is

to thank you very much for your testimony and say I hope this

leads to some improvements in the situation on all of your fronts,

everything that can be done I hope will be done. We will do our

best back in Washington. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ