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

94–810 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–536 

SECURING OUR BORDERS UNDER A TEMPORARY

GUEST WORKER PROPOSAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER 

SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 1, 2004

Serial No. J–108–63

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JOE JACQUOT, Majority Chief Counsel 

JAMES FLUG, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ..................... 1

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 3 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 2 

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 57 

WITNESSES 

Bonner, Robert C., Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. .......................................... 5 

Bucella, Donna A., Director, Terrorist Screening Center, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. ................................. 9 

Griswold, Daniel, Associate Director for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 33 

Stock, Margaret D., Assistant Professor of Law, U.S. Military Academy, West 

Point, New York on Behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association ........................................................................................................................ 34 

Verdery, C. Stewart, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation 

Security Policy and Planning, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 6 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bonner, Robert C., Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ....... 43 

Bucella, Donna A., Director, Terrorist Screening Center, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 48 

Griswold, Daniel, Associate Director for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, 

Washington, D.C., prepared statement .............................................................. 59 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Vibiana Andrade, 

Acting President, Washington, D.C., letter ........................................................ 62 

Stock, Margaret D., Assistant Professor of Law, U.S. Military Academy, West 

Point, New York on Behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, prepared statement and attachment ......................................................... 65 

Verdery, C. Stewart, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation 

Security Policy and Planning, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ....................................................................... 96 

Wenski, Thomas G., Coadjutor Bishop of Orlando, Chairman, U.S. Conference 

of Catholic Bishops, Orlando, Florida, prepared statement ............................. 106 

(1)

SECURING OUR BORDERS UNDER A 

TEMPORARY GUEST WORKER PROPOSAL 

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND

CITIZENSHIP, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Saxby Chambliss, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Chambliss, Sessions, Cornyn, Kennedy, Feinstein and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. This hearing will come to order. Senator 

Kennedy is on his way. We will let him make an opening statement 

when he gets here. 

To everybody, let me say welcome. This is the second in our series of guest worker hearings to lay the groundwork for reform. 

President Bush began this process by announcing his temporary 

guest worker principles on January 7 of this year. In the President’s comments, he said the first priority is that America must 

control its borders, which includes improving information-sharing; 

identifying terrorists, criminals and immigration violators; and 

working with the Canadian and Mexican governments to increase 

border security. This is what we are here today to discuss. 

Since 9/11, the administration has taken great strides to 

strengthen our homeland security. The President has created the 

Terrorist Screening Center to improve information-sharing. Over 

1,000 new Border Patrol agents have been added to enhance our 

border security. The entry-exit system, US VISIT, is up and running and now collecting information on aliens traveling to the 

United States on a visa. 

Even with our best efforts, illegal immigration is a huge problem. 

Of the 8 to 10 million, or more, illegal aliens in the United States, 

it is estimated that 60 percent entered the United States without 

inspection, which is a criminal offense. Such a large number of illegal aliens created a financial drain due to non-reimbursed medical 

and educational services, burdens on our judicial system, and allows criminal acts to go unchecked. 

Since a temporary guest worker proposal will increase the flow 

of people into and out of the United States on a visa, we must be 

confident in our border security. News articles have reported that 

2

Al-Qaeda is expanding operations in Latin America and the false 

document trade is increasing there. 

To stop terrorists, I have advocated for a single, consolidated 

watchlist that can be accessed by the various agencies in order to 

connect the dots. I encourage the administration’s efforts for better 

intelligence-sharing, but we are not there yet. 

Under a guest worker system, stopping criminals at the border 

will remain a mighty challenge. The Department of Justice Inspector General recently issued a report calling on the Border Patrol 

and the FBI to improve their information-sharing efforts in order 

to access criminal records of people caught illegally at the border. 

This demonstrates how we must have the necessary policies and 

procedures in place to get the right information out of the right 

people. 

If a guest worker system is to provide a legal way for workers 

to enter the United States, illegal entry must be deterred. We know 

the security concerns and adverse economic impact that illegal 

aliens cause. We have also heard too many tragic stories of human 

trafficking and desert crossing. The US VISIT entry-exit system is 

part of the answer, but any legal system to come and work in the 

United States must, in return, help to strengthen our border security efforts and effectuate disincentives to illegal entry. 

As Congress begins the legislative process toward reform, I believe national security, as well as U.S. economic interests, should 

shape our policies. This starts with controlling our borders. 

I appreciate our witnesses being here today to cover a fairly 

broad range of critical issues. On this first panel, we have Commissioner Robert Bonner, of U.S. Customs and Border Protection—Mr. 

Bonner, we are glad to have you back with us—Director Donna 

Bucella, of the Terrorist Screening Center, and Assistant Secretary 

Stewart Verdery, of the Border and Transportation Security Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security. We look forward 

to your testimony. 

At this time, I will call on my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for 

any opening statement she might have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

must say I agree with your opening statement. I thank you for 

making it. I have served on this Subcommittee now for 12 years, 

even since I have been on the Judiciary Committee, and I agree 

with the concept that security must be of paramount concern. 

There are five different variations of guest worker programs before this Committee. I believe we should go slowly. I do not believe 

our borders are in the shape they should be, and I say that from 

the perspective of somebody who also serves on the Intelligence 

Committee. 

I want to just put into the record of this Subcommittee that total 

non-immigrant admissions to the United States, according to the 

Department of Homeland Security, in 2002 were 27.9 million people. Those are non-immigrant admissions to the United States. Of 

that number, 655,949 were admitted as temporary workers and 

training; in H–1Bs that year, for specialty occupations, 370,490; for 

3

H–2A, for agricultural workers, 15,628; H–2B, for non-ag workers, 

86,987; O–1 visas for workers with extraordinary ability, 25,008; 

P–1 for internationally-recognized athletes or entertainers, 41,453; 

for TN visas for professional workers under NAFTA, 73,699; and 

for L–1 visas for intra-company transferees, 313,699. 

Again, 27.9 million people come in and out in the non-immigrant 

portions of our program, and this doesn’t account for the thousands 

of spouses and children who join these guest workers. 

So I guess the point I want to make is that we already have a 

huge guest worker program going on in this Nation in a host of 

visa categories. I have real concerns about because 40 to 50 percent 

of the newcomers in any program come to my State, California. It 

is a huge problem in terms of being able to have the infrastructure 

that enables you to cope with the new population. I think it is 15 

to 20 percent of our State prison population is illegal immigrants, 

at a cost of $682 million. So this is a huge item, and my view very 

strongly is let’s go slow right now. Security should be our main concern. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cornyn. 

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

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this hearing, another hearing, on what I consider to be one 

of the most important subjects that Congress could possibly deal 

with in certainly a post-9/11 environment. But as Senator Feinstein 

has pointed out, we have had serious, longstanding problems with 

our immigration system and the status quo is simply not acceptable. 

I think if there is one thing that we can all agree upon, it is that 

our current system is broken. In addition to the problems that Senator Feinstein mentioned, we have between 8 and 10 million people 

living in this country illegally now, about 6 million of them part of 

our workforce. We don’t know for sure who they are, we don’t know 

for sure what they are doing, and that is simply unacceptable in 

a post-9/11 world and inconsistent with our demands for homeland 

security. 

I share with my colleagues and my constituents concerns about 

our current failure to enforce our immigration laws. I have said 

many times that I think the failure to enforce the law breeds disrespect for the law generally. We are a country founded on the rule 

of law, and the status quo in the area of immigration obviously 

cannot continue. 

I am convinced that a temporary worker program will help us enforce our immigration laws by separating those who are in the 

country work from those who are coming here to try to harm us. 

As a former State attorney general charged with the responsibility 

of enforcing Texas law, I know that law enforcement is about setting priorities and making the best use of limited resources. In my 

view, a temporary worker program is a tool that would allow immigration authorities to focus their limited resources on those who 

4

are here to harm us—the smugglers, the drug dealers and the terrorists. 

I am confident we can, if we put our minds to it and if we work 

long and hard enough—and it will be hard work—devise a temporary worker program that includes tough anti-fraud measures so 

we are able to confirm that temporary workers are who they say 

they are. It is crucially important that we prevent and deter fraud 

in any new temporary worker program that we devise and I am 

committed to doing that. 

Additionally, I think US VISIT will be an extremely important 

tool to help authorities monitor entry and exit of temporary workers so they can return to their home country when their period of 

work expires. 

Mr. Chairman, while I understand that we are principally concerned with enforcement of our laws at this hearing, I think we always need to keep in mind that we are bound by international 

treaties with, for example, Mexico and Canada, from which this 

country, I believe, benefits enormously in terms of trade and the 

stimulus to our economy. 

At the same time we deal with border security, we need to keep 

in mind that we need to not impair the free flow of legal commerce 

across our borders. So I hope that we will focus not only on security, but also on the proper balance between security and our economy. 

With that, thank you very much. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

I now turn to the ranking member, who has certainly maintained 

a very cooperative spirit in this process, and we have had a good 

relationship on this issue. 

Senator Kennedy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The 

hour has moved along. I will put my statement in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator KENNEDY. I want to welcome this panel. I am particularly interested in how we are implementing our border security 

legislation that we passed some time ago with strong bipartisan 

support. There were certainly provisions in that legislation that we 

thought were very important in terms of ensuring that those agencies that should have information would get that information, so 

that we are going to be able to make sure that we give focus and 

attention to the problem of terrorists rather than just the question 

of immigrants. 

So I will look forward to questioning our witnesses. I thank them 

all very much and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this 

hearing. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

We will start with you, Mr. Bonner. I will tell all of you we have 

your written statements, but we look forward to you summarizing 

those statements. We thank you again for being here. 

Mr. Bonner. 

5

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. BONNER, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, Senator Cornyn and Senator Feinstein. I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify today about our efforts to secure the borders of 

the United States and how the temporary worker program that has 

been proposed by the President earlier this year, I believe, will contribute to that effort. 

Mr. Chairman, this is actually the first time I have had the 

honor to appear before this Subcommittee. I have been honored by 

the full Judiciary Committee of being confirmed three times to various offices, but this is the first time I have had a chance to appear 

before this Committee as the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, and I look forward to working closely with you 

and this Committee. 

Let me just begin my testimony by just a very brief statement 

about U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This is a new agency 

that was created as part of the homeland security reorganization 

and it was just over 1 year ago, on March 1, 2003, that for the first 

time in the history of our country our Nation established a single 

agency responsible for managing and securing our borders and all 

of our ports of entry into the United States. 

I think this was a very important part of the Department of 

Homeland Security reorganization. This new agency, Customs and 

Border Protection, brings together all of the border inspectors from 

the legacy United States Customs Service, the former INS, the agriculture inspectors at our borders, as well as the entire U.S. Border Patrol into one new agency, one single agency for our borders 

that is squarely focused upon the priority mission of the Department of Homeland Security, and that is nothing less than preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering our country. 

I believe that our current immigration system is broken and I believe that the President’s proposal, which I believe is a bold and 

courageous proposal by the President, if enacted, will allow us to 

gain greater control over our borders. This will allow the Department of Homeland Security, and more particularly Customs and 

Border Protection, to be much more effective in carrying out its 

mission of preventing terrorists, terrorist weapons and other criminals and contraband from entering the United States and harming 

the American people. 

Some simple data points illustrate, I believe, why this is true. 

Last year, the Border Patrol, which is now part of for the last year, 

13 months, Customs and Border Protection, made 931,310 apprehensions of aliens illegally entering or attempting to enter the 

United States between our ports of entry. 

The vast majority of these apprehensions took place on our 

southwest border with Mexico, and the vast majority of the individuals arrested presented no terrorist or criminal threat to this country. Most were economic migrants that were coming here to work. 

Over the past decade or more, the U.S. Government has responded to this phenomenon by significantly strengthening the 

U.S. Border Patrol. Indeed, I can tell this Subcommittee that since 

6

September 11 of 2001, the Border Patrol has increased its staffing 

by almost 1,500 Border Patrol agents. 

In the years since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 

1986, and particularly since the mid-1990’s, the Border Patrol has 

literally tripled its staffing. We have also significantly increased 

our technological resources, such as sensors, cameras and aircraft, 

as well as strengthened our infrastructure, such as better fencing, 

lighting, and so forth, along some significant segments of the border, including down near the San Diego and southern California 

border with Mexico. 

But I will tell you that the number of apprehensions, 931,000, 

should give us all pause. With all of the effort of the last decade, 

and even with the very real success that we have had in better controlling major segments of our border, including the southwest border, the Border Patrol is still dealing with a literal flood of people 

on a daily basis, again most of whom are attempting to enter this 

country in order to work. I am concerned, and I think we all should 

be concerned that terrorists or other criminals will seek to enter 

the United States essentially by hiding in this flood. 

I believe we also need to be concerned about how lucrative now 

the alien smuggling business is. Most of the migrants illegally entering our country across the southwest border employ alien smuggling organizations. Those alien smuggling organizations are primarily used by aliens seeking to illegally enter to work in the 

United States, but they clearly could also be used by terrorists 

seeking to enter our country to do us harm. 

If enacted into law, the President’s temporary worker proposal 

would, I believe, go along way toward driving a stake through the 

heart of this black-market smuggling enterprise and reduce, and I 

believe potentially substantially reduce the flood of illegal migrants 

that the Border Patrol must sift through and apprehend in order 

to protect our borders against terrorist penetration. 

So let me just say I believe the temporary worker proposal is perhaps in some ways what we need to create a smarter border, which 

is something that we have been trying to do at our ports of entry 

and elsewhere since 9/11. The temporary worker program is a natural extension, certainly, of a smarter border philosophy, one in 

which we identify those who are simply coming here for purposes 

of work, but where we increase our prospects, which I believe we 

must do, to interdict and be able to apprehend terrorists or criminals or others that are coming into our country to do us harm. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman, and I will 

be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonner appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Mr. Verdery. 

STATEMENT OF HON. C. STEWART VERDERY, JR., ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

POLICY AND PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. VERDERY. Chairman Chambliss, Ranking Member Kennedy 

and members of the Subcommittee, it is a privilege to be here today 

7

on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security to give you our 

perspective on how the temporary worker program will enhance 

border security. 

I won’t repeat Commissioner Bonner’s remarks, but the Border 

and Transportation Security Directorate, where I run the policy office, oversees the activities of customs and border protection, as 

well as our Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau and the 

TSA. So we try to bring a macro perspective to border and transportation security issues. I know that my boss, Under Secretary 

Hutchinson, was here at your prior hearing to testify on these 

same issues. 

It is especially an honor for me, having been a counsel for a Senator Hatch on this Committee several years ago, to return today to 

talk about the administration’s working relationship with the Congress, and with this Committee in particular, on this most important issue. 

The written testimony submitted for this hearing by Commissioner Bonner and I, and for the prior hearing by Under Secretary 

Hutchinson and Director Aguirre, describe in great detail the principles which the President has espoused as crucial elements of a 

temporary worker program. Let me speak briefly to just some of 

the key points related to border security here today. 

As was mentioned, the first principle in the President’s proposal 

is protecting the homeland by controlling our borders. When you 

talk about land borders, there are ports of entry in the areas between the ports. Commissioner Bonner has discussed the Border 

Patrol, obviously a key component of our border security. I would 

like to discuss in a little bit of detail the US VISIT program. 

As US VISIT implements a biometric entry-exit system at our 

land ports of entry over the next 2 years, border security as we 

know it will significantly change. We have never had a reliable exit 

system, and as a result have never known when or how many foreign visitors have overstayed the terms of their visa or have entered the country illegally. But, soon, we will. 

Through the deployment of advanced technology in travel documents and at our ports of entry, we will be developing this capability to enforce our immigration and visa laws, and thus provide 

the integrity that Congress and the American people should rightly 

insist be a part of a new worker program. 

US VISIT has proved extremely effective at air and seaports in 

finding the needles, the criminals or those with immigration violations, in the haystack of travelers. Not quite 3 months old, US 

VISIT has successfully and efficiently recorded the entry of over 2.5 

million passengers and the exit of over 8,000 travelers without 

causing delays at ports of entry or hindering trade. 

The program to date has resulted in 231 watchlist hits, including 

serious criminals, because of the biometric collection from non-immigrant visa-holders. Aliens who have repeatedly entered the U.S. 

with aliases or stolen or altered travel documents are now being 

detected solely by the biometric component of the system. 

The administration’s enhanced information-sharing efforts, including those utilized at the Terrorist Screening Center and the 

National Targeting Center, and between our Department and the 

8

Department of State, are essential to providing the inspectors at 

our ports and in the field with the information that they require. 

The capability of US VISIT will provide a key role in encouraging 

potential workers to utilize the President’s temporary worker program because they will know what the system’s capabilities are. 

On one hand, we will know whether aliens are complying with the 

terms of the worker program or have otherwise violated our immigration laws as they enter and exit through ports of entry. 

On the other hand, these workers will be able to easily travel 

home to see family or friends and generally maintain the ties that 

will make their eventual return home more attractive. This eventual return home is the second immigration enforcement principle 

that the President set out in his proposal. 

Participants in the program would be required to return to their 

home country after their period of work has concluded. As proposed 

by the President, the legal status granted by this program would 

last 3 years, and while it would be renewable, it would not be permanent. This proposal does not provide an automatic path to citizenship. Those who have broken the law and remain illegally in 

our country should not receive an unfair advantage over those who 

have followed the law. 

We do recognize that some temporary workers will want to pursue citizenship, and they will be able to apply for green card status 

through the existing process behind those already in line. We also 

look forward to working with Congress on the numbers of those 

green cards. 

The third immigration enforcement principle in the President’s 

proposal is workplace enforcement of our immigration laws. The 

fiscal year 2005 budget requests an increase of $23 million for this, 

more than doubling our funds. This illustrates the President’s commitment to serious immigration enforcement and the rule of law as 

part of our temporary worker program. 

Temporary workers will be able to establish identities by obtaining legal documents under the program. It is critically important, 

as Senator Cornyn mentioned, to create a system that prevents the 

fraud that was so prevalent under the 1986 Act. It is also important that these documents be as compatible as possible with the 

US VISIT system, and we are working on those issues. 

I believe that passing a temporary worker program that works 

to benefit the American economy, while bringing integrity to our 

immigration system, is a goal consistent with our homeland security responsibilities. I recognize that this issue, like many immigration issues, is extremely complicated, and that members of Congress have a variety of viewpoints on the President’s proposal and 

many proposals of their own. 

However, the complexity of this issue only means that we should 

continue our efforts, working together to build on those principles 

and make the temporary worker program a reality. The administration and our department stand ready to make the effort necessary to move forward in achieving this important goal. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Verdery appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much. 

9

Ms. Bucella. 

STATEMENT OF DONNA A. BUCELLA, DIRECTOR, TERRORIST 

SCREENING CENTER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ms. BUCELLA. Good afternoon, Chairman Chambliss, members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 

missions and objectives of the new Terrorist Screening Center. 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, issued on September 

16, 2003, ordered the creation of the Terrorist Screening Center, directing its operations to begin on December 1, and we met that 

goal. The Terrorist Screening Center was created to ensure that 

Government investigators, screeners, Federal agents and State and 

local law enforcement officers have ready access to the information 

and expertise they need to respond quickly when a known or suspected terrorist is encountered here in the United States, at our 

borders or overseas. 

Today, I will tell you about our daily operations as they relate 

to the United States Customs and Border Protection’s National 

Targeting Center and our role in preventing terrorists and suspected terrorists from crossing our borders. I will provide as much 

information as I can in this open forum. However, I would be 

happy to provide additional, classified details in a closed setting at 

your request. 

We are a multi-agency center, including participants from the 

Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, State and Treasury. 

Our goal is to consolidate the Government’s approach to terrorist 

screening and provide for the appropriate and lawful use of terrorist information in screening processes. 

Being a diverse center, manned by personnel from both law enforcement and homeland security entities, we communicate and coordinate terrorist screening efforts across the full spectrum of Federal, State and local government agencies. Since December 1, we 

have been providing key resources for screeners and law enforcement personnel. 

These include a single coordination point for terrorist screening 

data; a consolidated 24/7 call center for encounter identification assistance; access to a coordinated law enforcement response; a full 

process for tracking encounters; providing feedback to the appropriate entities; and a process to address misidentification issues. 

There are three fundamental types of inquiries: within the 

United States, at our ports of entry and outside our borders. Interior inquiries will normally be made by local law enforcement. Border inquiries are made by United States Customs and Border Protection, or in some instances Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Exterior inquiries are conducted by the State Department. Today, I am just going to highlight the border inquiries. 

We receive a high volume of calls that originate with CBP inspectors stationed at our Nation’s borders. In a typical case, a person attempts to enter into the United States. A CBP inspector queries the name electronically through their Interagency Border Inspection System, IBIS, and receives a response within seconds indicating that that person may be a suspected terrorist or an associate 

of terrorists. 

10

The CBP inspector contacts the National Targeting Center, 

where the record will be analyzed, then passed over to our center. 

We examine the record to determine whether the individual encountered is identical to the person in our database. The TSC then 

appropriately passes any derogatory information to the NTC and 

the CBP makes a determination as to whether the individual will 

be allowed to enter into the United States. 

Simultaneously, we contact our operational component at the 

FBI Counterterrorism Watch, CT Watch. CT Watch provides for 

the local joint terrorism task force response, which often includes 

an ICE agent to go to the border. This consolidation between TSC, 

CBP and ICE has already achieved results. One instance involves 

a foreign national traveling to the United States. He was inspected 

by CBP and found to have dangerous substances in his luggage. He 

was arrested and later removed from the United States and returned to his country of origin. However, less than a month later, 

that same individual applied for a new visa, and because of his previous encounter with my center, CBP and ICE, his application was 

denied. 

Our cooperation with CBP and ICE has also facilitated the sharing of information related to ongoing investigations. In one case, for 

example, the TSC–CBP connection provided the FBI with information about someone traveling with a suspected terrorist and led to 

the initiation of an investigation of the previously unsuspected associate. 

We are a multi-agency organization that is contributing to nationwide efforts to keep terrorists out of the United States and locate those who may already be in our country. We work closely 

with CBP inspectors, ICE agents and the National Targeting Center. 

We look forward to working with the Committee in its efforts to 

secure our Nation’s borders. For this unclassified hearing, I have 

only give you a few of our successes. We have screened over 2,000 

calls in the last 4 months since our inception, and assisted in positively identifying a number of known or suspected terrorists encountered during Government screening processes. I appreciate the 

Committee’s interest in our activities and I will be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bucella appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thanks very much to each of you. 

Mr. Verdery, the day after the President announced his seven 

principles on immigration reform, the byline in the New York 

Times underneath the headline said that the President has proposed a plan that includes amnesty. 

Now, would you tell me what your understanding is of the President’s principles as it relates to any form of amnesty for illegal 

aliens? 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, thank you for the question. The proposal is 

not amnesty. As I understand amnesty, that means a forgiveness 

that would lead to citizenship. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this proposal requires people to seek citizenship through existing processes. There is no credited time that would lead to citiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:09 Jul 21, 2004 Jkt 094810 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94810.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
11

zenship, and I think that is the distinction that the President has 

made in presenting these principles. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. You concur with your boss, then. I just 

want you to know that. 

Mr. VERDERY. I do. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Ms. Bucella, I am curious about this one 

example that you gave us. I want to know how quickly you had a 

turnaround time in determining who this individual was that 

sought reentry into the United States after he had been returned 

to his country. 

Ms. BUCELLA. I will have to get back to you with the exact time, 

but it was probably within less than 20 minutes. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Okay, so it is a pretty immediate time. 

What if that individual uses another name? 

Ms. BUCELLA. Well, if he uses another name that we have been 

able to previously identify as an alias that they have used, then we 

would pick him up. But if not, if he had false identification that 

had never been used before, we might not have gotten him. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. What are we doing in that respect to try 

to make sure that an individual who says he is John Doe is, in fact, 

John Doe? 

Ms. BUCELLA. At the Terrorist Screening Center, we have a terrorist database. Our database has the names and identifiers of the 

individuals which have been previously identified by other Government agencies. In our database at the Terrorist Screening Center, 

we just have the names, the date of birth, the passport number and 

country of origin. But we also have accessibility to the classified 

databases or case management files of many government agencies 

within the United States. 

Each of our members at the call center are able to take a look 

at those databases. So, for example, we do a little bit more than 

just name-match. What we do is we elicit from the person at the 

NTC in communications, please give us some descriptors, not just 

the name, but how tall is the individual, you know, eye color, hair 

color. 

Those are the types of information that, even if they are classified, we are able to take a look in our classified case management 

systems and we are able to assist in the identities match with the 

individual that is currently being encountered at the border. So it 

is not just a name. We need to have a body in front of the CBP 

inspector or the ICE agent. 

Mr. VERDERY. Senator, if I could just jump in on this, it is one 

of the beauties of the VISIT system that CBP is operating that we 

are finding people. They may claim to be one person, but the fingerprint is what is catching them. We had one case of identical 

twins. The pictures looked exactly the same, the story was the 

same. The fingerprints were not the same. This person had traveled repeatedly back and forth unimpeded, and the fingerprint is 

what alerted the inspector and they were returned. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. You anticipated my next question to you. 

In addition to fingerprints, do we have any other biometric devices 

that are either in place or that we are contemplating using? 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, the system is basically fingerprint-based at 

this time. We are also taking photographs at the ports of entry that 

12

enable the inspector to compare the photograph to the photograph 

that is taken at the time of visa issuance for those people who have 

visas. So there is a sense of that. We are working on the facial recognition technology in terms of the visa waiver countries and we 

can get into that issue a little bit. But, essentially, US VISIT now 

is a fingerprint-based system. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Commissioner Bonner, on this same line 

I am sure you are familiar with the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report criticizing the information-sharing between the 

Border Patrol’s IDENT system and the FBI IAFIS database. The 

report demonstrates that the Border Patrol cannot reliably obtain 

a hit when they search for possible criminal offenders who have 

been detained at the border. 

Most responses from the agency seem to focus on the lack of 

technology to integrate the two different systems, one based on two 

fingerprints and one based on ten fingerprints. However, the IG report specifically calls for a memorandum of understanding between 

the agencies to establish policies and procedures for sharing information, regardless of the current systems. 

Do you agree with the IG’s recommendations, and if so, what 

steps are you taking and what are the time lines for implementation? 

Mr. BONNER. Well, first of all, I think that that recommendation 

actually probably does not fully understand where we are at in 

terms of the integration of the IDENT and the IAFIS systems for 

purposes of the Border Patrol because, number one, we have an integrated system that can be used by the Border Patrol to essentially query both the IDENT system, which has a record of people 

that have been illegally deported or denied entry, and so forth, as 

well as the IAFIS system, which is the FBI’s huge fingerprint database of people with criminal records. 

So we have an integrated system. The question is how do we get 

it out to all of the Border Patrol stations. Right now, we have this 

integrated IDENT–IAFIS system at 31 of the Border Patrol stations; it is about 90 units. We need to expand it and get it out to 

all 151 Border Patrol processing stations along our border. 

We have a plan for doing that. We have identified funding for 

doing that. I expect some of that funding, by the way, coming from 

the US VISIT program, about $1.8 million of it, and about $400,000 

that we will fund out of our own budget, unfunded money. But we 

will have the integrated system at all of the Border Patrol processing stations within about 7 or 8 months. 

By the way, this is a tribute to the Department of Homeland Security in the fact that this is something that has been talked about 

for years and years and years when the INS existed. We are doing 

it and we are getting it done. That will give the Border Patrol, 

then, the capability when we have it at all of these stations in 7 

or 8 months to be able to run people both against the IDENT system and the IAFIS system, and to better identify illegal aliens that 

have criminal records and ought to be treated as aggravated criminals and prosecuted through our system. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Verdery, in Secretary Hutchinson’s 

February 12 testimony before the Subcommittee he stated, and I 

quote, ‘‘The President’s plan provides a disincentive to emigrate ilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:09 Jul 21, 2004 Jkt 094810 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94810.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
13

legally to the United States when the potential temporary worker 

aliens know in advance that the legal status granted under this 

type of program is the beginning or a path to return home and not 

a path to permanent residency or citizenship,’’ close quote. That is 

an important point because it really goes to the question of what 

does the foreign worker really want. 

In your deliberations on a guest worker plan, what are the primary incentives for a worker to use the legal system? 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, for individuals who are here currently, there 

are several. Obviously, it would take away the threat of being deported, and we understand that if you are an individual working 

today, it is a nerve-racking experience knowing that at any minute 

you might fall into the hands of law enforcement. That puts a tremendous type of stress on family relationships and on just day-today living. So that is obviously the primary thing. 

But in addition to that, the principles outlined would allow portability of retirement benefits. They would allow the travel that I 

mentioned in my opening statement. As we know, with the increased number of Border Patrol agents and the heightened security, it is harder for people to sneak back and forth, and that is cutting off the ties that would otherwise lead people to be able to return home. If they can come back and forth through our ports of 

entry, subject to US VISIT or other processing, that travel is so important. 

But as you mentioned, the key point is signing up for this program is a first step to an eventual return home. The principles of 

that are things we need to work out, but that is a very key point 

that Under Secretary Hutchinson made, as well you made in your 

comments, that it is a first step to a return home. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Ms. Bucella, in news reports Homeland 

Security officials have questioned the utility of the Terrorist 

Screening Center, questioning the possible duplicity of resources. 

What is the distinct mission of the Terrorist Screening Center in 

comparison to TTIC and with any intelligence functions at the Department of Homeland Security? 

Ms. BUCELLA. Senator, the Terrorist Screening Center is there to 

consolidate the Government’s approach to watchlisting. We do not 

at the Terrorist Screening Center maintain the underlying derogatory information on known or suspected terrorists. That stays with 

each of the individual agencies. 

The TTIC is one of the two feeds of information into the Terrorist 

Screening Center. The TTIC, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, is run by the CIA. All known terrorist information on international terrorists comes through the TTIC. So whether it is the 

intelligence community or the law enforcement community, if there 

is information about known or suspected international terrorists, 

the feed of information comes from the TTIC to us. The FBI maintains all of the information on known or suspected domestic terrorists. It is at our center where the names become merged, the domestic terrorist names and the international terrorist names. So it 

is two different feeds of information. 

More importantly, I have seen firsthand at my center—we have 

about 87 people that work there now. We have right now agents 

from the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs 

14

and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, 

the State Department, the Coast Guard and the Office of Foreign 

Asset Control, and we are just beginning. 

This is a wonderful place for true partnership, where each agency brings in their expertise based on whatever mission they have 

been doing to assist us in helping to identify known or suspected 

terrorists. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. What is the operational status of that system today? 

Ms. BUCELLA. Early on when I started in October, we had to go 

from concept to operation by December 1. With the help of Homeland Security and setting up a number of FBI agents being brought 

in from around the country, we were physically operational by December 1. 

I thought at the time that we would be able to have a database 

just with the names of known and suspected terrorists and the 

other four identities—the name, the date of birth, the passport 

number and the country of origin. I thought we would be able to 

have that set up by this summer. Fortunately, with the assistance 

of my staff, I was able to move that date up to March 12. So we 

now currently have a consolidated database of known and suspected terrorists. 

What we did was we went to a number of different agencies to 

figure out not only from their watchlists, but also to figure out from 

their case management systems who they had that were identified 

by the agencies as known or suspected terrorists. 

Obviously, the State Department had one of the largest consolidated lists through TIPOFF. But there were some other lists 

through the State Department—the Consular Lookout and Support 

System. The Department of Homeland Security had the IBIS system, also the TECS system. TSA had their no-fly selectee list. The 

FBI had the violent gang and terrorist organization file. Interpol 

had their terrorist watchlist. The Air Force had their top ten fugitives list. The Marshals Service had warrant information. 

So what we did was we went to these different agencies and we 

went with information that we needed to gather, just the terrorist 

information. That is what our charter tells us. We are only there 

to assist in the positive identity match or assistance in terrorism. 

So we had to go to the FBI and have the FBI not include in our 

database those individuals that were involved in gangs. Rather, we 

just wanted terrorists. 

We have now consolidated the CLASS system, the TIPOFF, as 

far as the names and identities, and the IBIS, no-fly selectee, 

NAILS, the U.S. Marshals Service’s warrant information if it related to terrorists only, and the violent gang and terrorist organization file as it relates to terrorists only. The Interpol terrorist 

watchlist is something that is still ongoing because there are some 

governments that define a terrorist as someone who committed a 

crime. It might not rise to the level of the U.S. Government’s definition. So we are making sure that those names on our list are 

truly known or suspected terrorists. 

This is not over yet. I mean, this process is very, very complex. 

It is trying to understand what government agencies within the 

United States are actually doing and what information they have. 

15

It might not be in a watchlist version. It may actually just be a 

part of their case management system where they have identified 

individuals who are of suspicion to that agency. 

So this is a tremendous process where, for the very first time, 

both the intel community and law enforcement community are joining, and also talking to government agencies that are not involved 

in law enforcement to figure out what processes or procedures or 

entitlements they give to people, rights or entitlements, that if they 

gave that right or entitlement to a terrorist here in the United 

States it would cause them some very serious concerns. So it is a 

huge education process and a huge outreach process that we have 

only just begun. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. I thank the panel again. What 

you have told is impressive certainly with regard to intelligencegathering and coordination, because that was obviously one of the 

real areas that was a failure in the whole 9/11 situation, the exchange of information to the Central Intelligence Agency and to the 

immigration agencies. 

In the Border Security Act, we also required the integration of 

all the immigration data systems into an interoperable network. 

Can you give me some idea about where that is now? 

In immigration, for example, you have probably six or eight different computers and files in terms of different categories dealing 

with immigration issues. One of the things that we wanted to try 

and do is to make sure that you were going to have interoperable 

information and files on that, as well, which is enormously important in dealing with law enforcement and also in terms of keeping 

track of people, and with regard to ensuring that people that are 

innocent are going to be innocent and those who are violating the 

immigration laws will be able to be considered. We had a requirement in this area. 

We also had the requirement for the establishment of a commission in the legislation. What I will do is submit this and you can 

go back and take a look at it and respond, if you would rather do 

that in writing. 

Mr. BONNER. I would appreciate having a chance to do that. 

Senator KENNEDY. Good, all right. 

Mr. BONNER. I will just say preliminarily that the former INS, 

which doesn’t exist anymore, had more systems than you could 

shake a stick at. 

Senator KENNEDY. That is right. 

Mr. BONNER. It had NAILS and IDENT and everything else. The 

one I can speak to is we have integrated IDENT and IAFIS. I have 

just spoken to that. The IBIS system was an integrated system 

that was run by U.S. Customs, and now Customs and Border Protection, for the lookout list for both terrorist and other purposes. 

Obviously, I should say, Senator, as Ms. Bucella has testified to, 

we now are integrating at least for terrorist purposes, for the very 

important purpose of terrorists or suspected terrorists, a master 

watchlist for the entire Government. 

But let me get to you on it because there are so many systems 

and I will get something back to you in short order. 

16

Mr. VERDERY. Senator, if I can just add on that, that was part 

of the deployment package for US VISIT, is having access to all 

those databases at the port of entry. That is the deployment at the 

port of entry. The VISIT system is the mechanism to make that 

happen. As you know, it is at airports and seaports today. At land 

ports, it will be deployed at the end of this year and then the following year. 

Senator KENNEDY. As you pointed out, Homeland Security divided the immigration functions into three different bureaus of the 

new department. In February of this year, my office was told that 

no formal procedures were yet in place to coordinate immigration 

policy among the three bureaus. 

Is that still the case? Are decisions being made in each of these 

agencies? How are they being coordinated and how are we developing uniformity in terms of the immigration issues? 

Mr. BONNER. Let me ask Mr. Verdery to respond to that and 

then I might add to it. 

Mr. VERDERY. We actually have set up a mechanism to coordinate policy development between the BTS Directorate, which encompasses Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, with Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

CIS is the acronym, the alphabet soup. 

We have a mechanism in place. It is basically a tri-level system 

of decisionmaking and policy development at staff level, at midlevel, and then at a level with Under Secretary Hutchinson and Director Aguirre to tee up issues that need to be resolved, because 

there are quite a number of issues where we both have equities in 

play—asylum, immigration caps, refugee issues, US VISIT issues. 

On almost anything you can think of, we do have to coordinate. 

Of course, before anything becomes an official departmental policy, it goes back up through the formal departmental clearance 

process. I think we have come up with pretty good working relationships at the various levels to make sure that we are on the 

same page. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I would be interested—and I will include this in the questions—about how that structure is set up and 

how it applies locally, because having all of these local entry levels 

and getting a coordinated policy so that they are doing the same 

thing in different parts of the country and have similar kinds of 

rules is important. I would be interested in how it coordinates 

through those agencies and then how it works in terms of the local 

communities so we get the same kind of treatment on this. 

Let me just ask you about the whole area of biometrics. This was 

quite an issue at the time we were looking at the legislation. I understand that the U.S. and other countries will not be able to meet 

the October 2004 biometric deadline. 

Can you explain why the deadline can’t be met and what efforts 

are being made to reach the deadline, and can you provide the 

Committee with any realistic alternative? 

Mr. VERDERY. Yes, sir. As I am sure you have heard, the administration has formally gone to the Congress asking for a 2-year extension of the October 26 deadline that will require that travelers 

from visa waiver countries with passports issued after that date 

17

would have to have a visa or a biometric passport, and also that 

our department deploy the readers to read those passports. 

We have worked very closely with the 27 visa waiver countries 

and the overwhelming majority of them, including all of the big 

ones—the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany—have told us they 

are not going to be able to meet that deadline. It is not their fault. 

The standards that were set for the passport by ICAO, the international standard-setting body, were only set in May and they are 

not even really finalized, and so they are not on schedule to meet 

this deadline. 

We have come to the Congress asking for relief because if we are 

required to issue visas, it is going to be very difficult for us to have 

the resources overseas to issue the visas. Travel will be deterred 

and we are looking at an overwhelming number of visas that cannot be issued. Moreover, then it doesn’t make any sense for us to 

be paying money to deploy readers that have nothing to read. 

So we have gone to Congress and asked for this extension, and 

we believe that within 2 years those countries will be able to meet 

the deadline. The technology will be more mature. It will make 

sense to have it in place at that time. So that is where stand on 

that. 

Again, you asked about the U.S. meeting the deadline. It does 

not technically apply to us, but we are going through the same 

passport development process as the visa waiver countries and we 

are on a similar time frame due to similar reasons. 

Senator KENNEDY. Let me ask about risk management. Many of 

the security experts conclude that the inspection process must be 

exercised in risk management. We have 500 million people moving 

back and forth across the border and 100 million vehicles moving 

across the ports of entry each year. Even if we had all the resources and time required to conduct the inspections, it would effectively bring the economy to a halt. So we have developed systems that assess and look at risks, and we try and identify and 

quickly process low-risk travelers so we can concentrate on the 

higher-risk targets. 

Now, can you describe what kinds of systems exist in DHS that 

you have already put in place with regard to risk management policy? 

Mr. BONNER. We, of course, have been pioneering an approach, 

Senator Kennedy, starting with customs, in terms of risk management for all cargo that is coming into the United States on containers or otherwise. We are also using risk management principles 

with respect to the, as you say, huge number of people that travel 

into the United States annually. It is about 70 million, for example, 

that arrive on international commercial aircraft annually. 

First of all, you have to have information about goods or people 

before they arrive at our borders, and we have done that. Congress 

has enacted some legislation back in November in 2001 that gave 

Customs and Border Protection advance passenger information on 

everybody that is flying into the United States. So we have it 

ahead of time, hours before people arrive at our ports of entry—

JFK, LAX and the like. Similarly, in the cargo area we have done 

this. 

18

So, number one, we get advance information, get it electronically, 

and then use risk management criteria as to what or who to look 

at, whether you are going to ask a few more questions or whether 

you are going to, in the case of cargo, set it aside and do some sort 

of an inspection. 

So we use targeting systems that have been developed, the automated targeting system and, through the Customs and Border Protection National Targeting Center, have developed criteria to take 

a look at both goods, primarily, but also an attempt to risk-manage 

for people who are entering the United States. So that has been in 

place. 

We are trying to do that on a number of bases, and I don’t want 

to go into a lot of detail in an opening hearing, but one is using 

not just tactical intelligence, but strategic intelligence about who 

and what the threat is to the United States in terms of that kind 

of a risk management system, and then using also anomaly analysis based upon the large amount of information that we have 

about goods and cargo and trade and the way people travel to try 

to exercise our authority in terms of making decisions as to what 

to look at and what to scrutinize. 

So, essentially, that is a broad overview of essentially an approach we have been attempting to take to more meaningfully use 

our limited resources to identify particularly someone who might 

pose a terrorist threat to the United States. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think this is enormously important 

and obviously I am interested in it. We saw the criteria, for example, you had prior to the time of the terrorists. People had Social 

Security return addresses that weren’t obvious, although some of 

these terrorists had phone numbers where they could call. So we 

set up these criteria in terms of this and, of course, all of them 

were able to circumvent it because we had the wrong criteria. So 

it constantly has to be reviewed and has to be upgraded, and we 

are in an entirely different situation. I am interested in this and 

we might pursue it at a later time. 

Just finally, Mr. Chairman, we find that many of the experienced 

people that have been involved in immigration are leaving the service in detectable numbers now and going into these other agencies. 

I guess the pay and other kinds of benefits are different and so 

there are a lot of people who have been experienced agents, border 

personnel and others, who are leaving. 

I don’t know whether you are aware of that, concerned about it, 

or have thought about it at all, or have noticed much of a problem 

or have any ideas about how to deal with it. I don’t know if there 

is anything you need from us to try and help. 

Mr. BONNER. Well, certainly, it would be a matter of concern, but 

let me just say with the Border Patrol, for example, where you 

were seeing under the INS literally attrition rates of 18 to 20 percent just 2 years ago, the attrition rate right now as part of Customs and Border Protection—I would like to think it is a lot of good 

management on my part, but for whatever reason the attrition rate 

at the Border Patrol is going to annualize out at about 5.5 percent 

this year. So that is a tremendous improvement over the last 2 

years. 

19

Similarly, with respect to the inspector workforce, Senator Kennedy—and I am talking about legacy customs inspectors, legacy immigration inspectors—the attrition rate there is running right now, 

this year, at about 5.4 percent, which is pretty good. When these 

immigration inspectors were with the INS, it was running last year 

and the year before we began this merger at about 8 percent. 

So it is an improvement, but obviously I am not satisfied with 

those numbers because we are always hurt when we lose experienced and good people, but the trend rate right now is pretty good 

with respect to attrition. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask a few questions about US VISIT and how it 

interacts with the various databases that are used either through 

the Terrorist Screening Center or NCIC and otherwise. 

If I understood your testimony, Mr. Verdery, you indicated that 

one of the principal purposes of US VISIT is to track people when 

they come into the country and when they leave the country, and 

then permit the immigration officials and the DHS officials to then 

match those against various lists. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, I wouldn’t want to oversell the exit part of 

it just yet. As you know, that is going to be deployed over the next 

couple of years. I can’t get into that if you want, but I wouldn’t 

want to oversell what we have in place today on exit. It is at two 

pilots, one airport and one seaport, and we will be deploying it 

later. But on the entry side, sure, we want to check against the 

watchlists and the criminal databases as people come in. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I want to ask you a little bit more about 

that, but perhaps, Ms. Bucella, let me ask you this. As I understand it, the number of names on the watchlist that your center 

employs is relatively modest, isn’t it, compared to the number of 

people, for example, in the NCIC database? 

The purpose of your organization is not necessarily to check people who are coming into the country with criminal backgrounds 

and otherwise, but mainly to focus on suspected terrorists. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. BUCELLA. Yes. We are purely terrorism only, and suspected 

terrorists. If the individual has a name and that name is checked 

through the NTC and they do have the prints from US VISIT, we 

are able still—with the identification of the name, if that name is 

in our database, we are still able to assist even with the prints. 

But, currently, at our database, while we are consolidated, we are 

not fully automated yet. That will be done by the end of this calendar year. 

Senator CORNYN. I raise that issue because I want to make sure 

that we understand the magnitude of the challenge ahead of you, 

and indeed ahead of us, and I think it is even bigger than perhaps 

those of us up here might imagine. Certainly, that is the case for 

me. 

What we are talking about, from the last testimony we had before this Committee, is we have between 300,000 and 400,000 people under final orders of deportation that have melted into the 

20

landscape of this country. We simply don’t know where they are. 

We have about 80,000 people who are criminal absconders, who 

have been convicted of a crime, and we don’t know where they are. 

So I just want to make clear just so I understand and your testimony is clear, Ms. Bucella, that the scope of your center is not to 

try to identify either of those groups. Is that right? 

Ms. BUCELLA. Yes, sir, terrorists only. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Verdery, ultimately is it the goal of the US 

VISIT program to be able to do that, to identify those people so 

that they can be deported or denied reentry into the United States 

or reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities? 

Mr. VERDERY. Yes, of course. The integration of the immigration 

databases will allow an inspector to know if somebody has been deported or is under a deportation order. Of course, as you mentioned, the problem we have now is that there are a large number 

of people who are in the country who are not trying to leave; they 

are here. And we obviously have initiatives in place to try to reduce 

that number, with a priority toward the criminal aliens, as you 

mentioned, who are under deportation orders. 

But, yes, the integration of the databases will make it possible 

so that if somebody were to leave, having had a deportation order 

and then tried to come back in, we will know about it and they 

won’t be admitted entry. It happens today. 

Mr. BONNER. Let me just sort of parse this out a little bit. If you 

are coming internationally into the United States, we have advance 

passenger information, the passport number, the name, the biographic and that sort of thing. Every one of those people are run 

through NCIC. We have already arrested about 5,000 people coming in through our ports of entry, our airports, because they are 

wanted in the United States. So they are run through NCIC based 

upon name and biographic. There is a hit; we know it before they 

arrive. 

Now, what US VISIT does is it gives us a biometric capability. 

It gives us two things. One, it tells us if the person that was issued 

the visa at the State Department is, in fact, the person who is presenting himself to our inspectors at the ports of entry, because we 

have matched them biometrically. 

Then, secondly, there is a database, and this is the IDENT database, basically, that those two inkless prints are scanned through. 

When somebody presents themselves at JFK or LAX or Atlanta or 

wherever it is, those are run against that database, and that database does have anybody who has entered illegally and subject to a 

deportation order because INS did take those two prints. 

I don’t want to say it has everything in the world in it, but it 

also does have the wants and warrants that the U.S. Marshal uses 

in terms of people that are criminally wanted. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me ask you a little bit about what you just 

said because my time is limited. You make a good point that where 

US VISIT has already been implemented at airports, there is a possibility to cross-check the various databases, assuming the name is 

on the database, with the entry of that person into the country. 

I guess what I was thinking about primarily is places where US 

VISIT has not yet been implemented, but is mandated for the end 

of this year, for example, at 50 of the busiest land-based ports in 

21

America, a number of which happen to be in my State on the 

1,200-mile border between Texas and Mexico. 

Is it fair to say just sort of in summary that we still have a lot 

of work to do to get all these names on the databases so that then 

the biometric entry and exit program can identify those people as 

they are coming in and going out? 

Mr. BONNER. A lot of work, yes. 

Mr. VERDERY. And a lot of deployment of equipment, of course, 

too. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, let me just make a little bit of a plug 

here, and I know, as I mentioned in my opening statement, that 

we are principally concerned about the security of our Nation. That 

is job number one, no doubt about it. But at the same time, we 

have got to recognize that we have important economic relationships with other countries. 

For example, across all of the major ports in my State of Texas—

Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo and El Paso—a 1-percent decline in 

border crossings costs that region $76 million in sales and about 

1,500 jobs, and a decrease in gross State product of $1.2 billion. 

That is a 1-percent decrease in border crossings. 

I hear a lot, and I suspect Senator Feinstein and other border 

State Senators hear from their constituents their concern that 

while we improve our security efforts, which is a goal they share, 

that we not ignore the economic impact and that somehow we find 

a way to marry these two objectives together to keep a strong economy in these areas and to protect our Nation against terrorism and 

those who want to do us harm. 

I worry a little bit because, of course, the next deadline for implementation of the US VISIT program is December of this year. Can 

you tell me—perhaps, Mr. Verdery, we will start with you—how 

you are going to do that by December 31? 

Mr. VERDERY. It is going to be a lot of work, but we have a very 

good team in place to do it and we have set the structures in place 

that make it manageable. One of those, as you know, is our decision as an initial matter to exempt border crossing cardholders 

from processing in US VISIT on a routine basis, and that is the 

overwhelming bulk of repeat travelers for— 

Senator CORNYN. I don’t want to interrupt you, but my understanding is you don’t have a contractor in place yet. 

Mr. VERDERY. No. The RFP is on the street. There are bidders 

in place and the award is due, I believe, in about three weeks or 

four. 

Senator CORNYN. And that contractor is going to get it done by 

the deadline of December 31? 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, working with us. It is an umbrella contract 

and they will be taking direction from Under Secretary Hutchinson 

and the program office and CBP for specific ports. They will be able 

to get in place the infrastructure, the RF technology we need, and 

also the enhanced processing in secondary. We will have a US 

VISIT capability in secondary for visa-holders or for others such as 

BCC-holders who are referred to secondary for some reason. 

Senator CORNYN. Please understand I am not being critical, but 

I do think it is important for us to understand the magnitude of 

what is in front of us here so we can provide you the resources that 

22

you need in order to be successful. But we also need to be realistic 

about this and make sure it is an approach that takes into account 

the entire context. 

One thing I have learned in Washington, D.C., is people don’t 

necessarily, just because they haven’t been there, understand what 

life is like along our border between Mexico and the United States, 

where people cross back and forth on a daily basis; they have family members on both sides of the border. And there is an enormous 

amount of economic benefit on both sides of the border from being 

able to go back and forth relatively easily, and we are talking about 

legal travel back and forth, not terrorists. So I just want to make 

sure we understand the challenge that lies ahead. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Cornyn is much newer to the Senate than I am, and he 

was very nice, Mr. Bonner. I am not sure I am going to be as nice 

on the integration of the IDENT and the IAFIS system. Let me 

quote from the Inspector General report of March, this past month. 

‘‘The integration of the IDENT and IAFIS automatic fingerprint 

systems continues to proceed slowly. Since our last report, the integration project has fallen another year behind schedule and will be 

delayed further because of JMD’s lack of planning for the INS’ 

transfer to the Department of Homeland Security. The slow 

progress is even more troublesome because the interim enhancements to IDENT resulted in the positive identification of approximately 4,820 apprehended individual aliens with those of suspects 

wanted for criminal offenses.’’ 

It goes on to say that this is a significant risk to public safety 

and national security, and I agree a hundred percent. If I could 

ever put any heat on you, I would put heat on you to get this program done. The IG doesn’t even think it will be operational by 

2007, and this I find unacceptable. I mean, we have been at this 

thing year after year after year. 

Mr. Bonner, I greatly respect you. Show some real oomph. 

Mr. BONNER. Senator Feinstein, let me say I have been at it in 

terms of this immigration issue because of the reorganization for 

13 months. But I will say this, and I will correct this if I am wrong, 

but if the IG is saying it is taking several years to do an integrated 

IDENT and IAFIS system, he must be talking about making it 

available to State and local law enforcement or something. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Have you not seen the report? 

Ms. BONNER. I have seen the report, and I am telling you, Senator Feinstein, that with respect to the Border Patrol, I have told 

you that we have identified funding. We have a system; it is an integrated IAFIS–IDENT system. We have already put it in place in 

some Border Patrol stations, but every Border Patrol station— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, so a Batras or a Resendez case can 

never happen again. Is that what you are telling me? 

Mr. BONNER. I would like to say they would never happen again, 

but it is true that with an IDENT–IAFIS system, it is much, much 

less likely that it could happen again, I mean short of Border PaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:09 Jul 21, 2004 Jkt 094810 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94810.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
23

trol agents not following procedures or something like that. The 

system will be there within 7 or 8 months. 

By the way, part of this requires the Appropriations subcommittees of the Congress to approve the spending plan for US VISIT, 

which I hope they will do. Within 7 months of that, I am telling 

you I will have the integrated IAFIS–IDENT system at all 150, 

more or less, Border Patrol stations that do processing. 

Now, that will, I think, take us a very, very long way to making 

sure something like the Batras case, which did not occur on my 

watch, by the way—this was in 2002, absolutely deplorable, and so 

was the Resendez case back in 1999. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If people don’t know, these are major murderers. If you read it, it just chills you how this thing got botched 

up. 

Mr. BONNER. Batras raped two nuns and murdered one of them. 

So we have got to do everything we possibly can to see that that 

cannot happen and that it does not happen. And we are, I will assure you, moving forward aggressively to get this integrated 

IAFIS–IDENT system to every Border Patrol station in this country. And subject to getting the spending plan approved, which I 

hope would be done, I think we will get it done within 7 months. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can you give us a date which I can write 

down? 

Mr. BONNER. Within 7 months of that, and I would hope that 

that will be done certainly this month that that spending plan will 

be approved. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Within 7 months of when? 

Mr. BONNER. Within 7 months of the approval of the spending 

plan for the US VISIT program that sets aside $1.8 million to deploy the integrated IDENT–IAFIS system for the Border Patrol. I 

have got a roll-out plan for it within 7 months to have it in place. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. As they say, you are on the record. 

Mr. BONNER. I am on the record on that, and I will be back here 

explaining it if it isn’t done, but I want our people to know. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right, that is good and I appreciate it. 

You gave me an answer and I appreciate that. Thank you. 

I wanted to mention the visa waiver program. It is my view that 

this is our soft underbelly. The visa waiver program has been used 

by terrorists and it will again be used by terrorists. I just looked 

at the numbers in 2002; they are way down. It is 13,230,000 in 

2002. I remember before 9/11, we were talking about upwards in 

the 20 millions of people that came in under a visa waiver program. 

So I don’t accept that we can’t get the fraud-proof passports in 

place. The other nations may not want to do it. My view is then 

they should go through the regular passport, you know, through all 

that has to be done. There are 28 countries involved in this now, 

and 13 million people in 2002. It is low, comparably, to what it was 

in the 1990’s and in 2000. I have a hard time seeing why we can’t 

get it done. I mean, if somebody wants to drop out of the program, 

they should drop out of the program. 

Mr. BONNER. I am going to refer that to Assistant Secretary 

Verdery, if you don’t mind, Senator. 

24

Mr. VERDERY. Senator, as I mentioned earlier, we believe that 

the overwhelming majority of countries cannot and will not meet 

the deadline for reasons largely out of their control. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. What would that be? 

Mr. VERDERY. The technical standards that would cover what the 

biometric passports look like are not sufficiently in place. They 

were just issued by ICAO earlier this year and are not sufficiently 

detailed to allow people to have the lag time to get the chips in 

place, to have the programs in place to meet the deadline. We 

couldn’t meet the deadline ourselves if it applied to us, which it 

doesn’t. 

Moreover, if we force people to rapidly try to meet the deadline, 

we are going to get inferior technology that is going to be much 

more difficult for us to make useful at the ports of entry. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Refresh my memory. When did we do this, 

and didn’t we have it staged? I am trying to remember. 

Mr. VERDERY. There were two deadlines maybe which you are remembering. There was a deadline for a machine-readable passport. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is right. 

Mr. VERDERY. Last October was that deadline. The countries 

couldn’t meet that either, and that provision had a waiver in it 

which Secretary Powell exercised, a 1-year waiver, which will now 

coincide with October 26 of this year. We understand that the 

countries will meet that deadline. That does not cover the biometric 

part of the passport, though, and they will not meet it, with very 

few exceptions. 

If they don’t and we have to begin issuing visas, as one example, 

right now in Japan we issue about 100,000 visas. We have the personnel over there to do 100,000. We would have to do 1.5 million, 

and it is just not possible to ramp up our resources in those countries to do that kind of workload. 

In addition, we believe lots of those travelers will decide not to 

come to the United States. They will say I don’t want to pay the 

money, I don’t want to have to wait for an interview, I don’t want 

to wait in line; I will go to some other country that doesn’t require 

a visa. So it is a difficult problem for sure. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But, respectfully, you are not the chamber of 

commerce. I know you know that, but I think one of the reasons 

that Mr. Bonner is so good is that the border has long wanted a 

law enforcement person, not a trade expediter. We get into this all 

the time, and if 9/11 didn’t teach us that security has to come before everything else, I don’t know what will. That is why it is really 

depressing to hear that 

Mr. VERDERY. We actually have a briefing scheduled tomorrow 

for the bipartisan staff on this issue on our mitigation plan for this 

issue, which I think you would find interesting. So perhaps we 

could double back with you after that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. I think you ought to brief the Senators 

because I think this is a huge vulnerability. 

Mr. VERDERY. We, of course, would be willing to do that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And it is going to be taken hold of by somebody who is going to do something terrible with it. 

Now, let me ask you about another problem. When I last looked 

at through flights—and I can’t remember whether it was 2001 or 

25

2002—there were two 2,000 people who had absconded from 

through flights; in other words, when passengers are isolated, 

planes are refueling and moving through the United States. 

Do you have a figure for 2003 of the number? 

Mr. BONNER. I don’t know that I have the number, but I can tell 

you we canceled the TWOV program, the transit without visa program. I know that there is some discussion as to whether and in 

what circumstances it should be reinstated. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So that is out now? 

Mr. BONNER. It has been out now since—wasn’t it August of last 

year? We considered it to be a security threat. This is through the 

Department of Homeland Security and the Secretary. So we terminated the program, and that was a program where people landed 

and there wasn’t adequate security. They were moving not to the 

U.S., but from some country, landing in the U.S. and then flying 

out from the U.S. to another country. 

Now, we are looking at it, I know, to see whether, with significantly higher security, it could be reinstated in some way or another. I don’t believe a decision has been made on that subject. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Don’t you think we are doing pretty well 

without it? 

Mr. BONNER. Well, we have done okay without it so far, but the 

question is—well, I think there is a question as to whether or not 

for certain kinds of flights—you know, I am thinking of the flight 

that comes up from Brazil to Japan that comes through LAX and 

that sort of thing. If you had enough security controls, you might 

be able to reinstate it. I am not going to state one way or the other 

what my view is because I don’t think the Department has decided 

where we are going to go on that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I see the red light. Will you 

allow me one more question? 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Sure. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. A USA Today article—‘‘catch and release’’ is 

the program. Eighty-six percent of notices to appear do not appear. 

In 2003, Border Patrol agents caught 905,000 people on the southern border. 

What percent were given a notice to appear and what percent did 

not appear? 

Mr. BONNER. First of all, if you take that 900,000 more or less, 

Senator, about 40,000-some of those were non-Mexicans. It is a 

term of art, but I will use it because the Border Patrol uses it. It 

is ‘‘other than Mexican,’’ OTMs. So it is really that population that 

is subject to—well, I am not sure I want to use the ‘‘catch and release’’ policy, but what is happening with respect— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think that is a mistake. I mean, why 

shouldn’t everybody be treated the same? 

Mr. BONNER. Senator, in an ideal world all of them would be detained and then they would be removed back to their home countries. As I understand it, the detention part of this issue is being 

handled not by Customs and Border Protection, but by ICE. And 

we are looking at, through the Department and through the Border 

and Transportation Security Directorate, trying to find the funding 

to permit us, the Border Patrol, to detain a hundred percent. 

26

That is the way it should be, and we are trying to identify funding to permit us to do that so that they can be detained and then 

removed. But right now, about a third of the other-than-Mexicans 

are apprehended by the Border Patrol and because there isn’t funding to detain them on the detention end of this, they are being 

given notices to appear. By the way, these are also sometimes 

called notices to disappear because very few illegal aliens that are 

apprehended respond to them. 

But I can tell you this: We are working on this issue very hard 

with the Department and through the Border and Transportation 

Security Directorate to identify money so that we can terminate 

this practice so that all ‘‘other than Mexicans’’ are detained and removed from the United States, because it is, in my judgment, invitational, where you have notices to appear. 

Throughout Central America and Brazil and other areas of the 

world, they know that we are doing this and it simply invites more 

illegal aliens, which increases the problem of border control for the 

Border Patrol. So we are looking at it and I think we are going to 

hopefully make some progress. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I also think that from the point of view of national security, the non-Mexicans offer more of a threat to our 

country. Yet, they have the lax rule of a notice to appear, and if 

this 86-percent figure in USA Today is correct, you are right; most 

don’t bother, so they disappear. So that is a whole other area where 

people are coming in. 

Mr. VERDERY. Senator, if I could just add, as the Commissioner 

mentioned, the responsibility for the detention and removal falls 

within ICE, not within CBP. There are significant requests for new 

resources for ICE for detention and removal. We are also working 

on some innovative programs to try to find alternatives to detention that will have security alternative monitoring techniques and 

the like. 

Perhaps most crucially, we are working with the government of 

Mexico on an interior repatriation strategy so that the Mexicans 

that are picked up can be transported back to the part of Mexico 

from which they came, as opposed to being just dumped across the 

border and are able to come back the next day or the next hour. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Are you telling me that the wristband rumor 

is correct? 

Mr. VERDERY. It is a little more stringent than a wristband, trust 

me. Electronic monitoring that many States use is an idea. It is, 

in our view, better than the run letter, as the Commissioner mentioned. But, again, this interior repatriation is absolutely critical so 

that we break the cycle of people returning time and time again. 

We are close to an agreement with the government of Mexico. We 

are working with them. A member of my staff was down there with 

a team just this past week to try to negotiate the final touches on 

an agreement that Secretary Ridge and Secretary Creel agreed to, 

in principle, during their recent trip to Mexico. It is absolutely crucial. 

On the TWOV, I would be happy to brief you about where that 

program stands, the transit without visa program, and where that 

stands. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are good on acronyms. 

27

Mr. VERDERY. It is a job hazard. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. I hope you all can understand the level of 

frustration that we all share with Senator Feinstein here. We may 

have to extend these deadlines. From a practical standpoint, they 

are not going to be complied with, and I think that message has 

gotten through. But by the same token, these deadlines were either 

asked for by the administration or certainly put in place with the 

concurrence of the administration. 

If there are real reasons why we should do it, then obviously we 

are going to have to do it. The passports, I think, are a good example why, but some of these other deadlines I really do question the 

extension on. So we will look forward to continuing the dialogue, 

but I hope you will carry the message back that there is a high 

level of frustration on the Hill relative to these extensions. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly agree 

with that, and I thank Senator Feinstein for her knowledgeable 

presentation of many of the issues that are out here. 

Mr. Bonner, it is good to see you. We had an opportunity to serve 

together as United States Attorneys. Mr. Verdery, your boss was 

also in that group and was here not long ago. 

Let me just say fundamentally that I have no confidence—and I 

hate to say this—I have no confidence that there is a serious commitment by this Congress or this administration to get our immigration system straight. The American people simply want that. 

They are not for dramatically reducing the number of people that 

come into America. They believe America is a nation of immigrants 

just like I do, but they expect our Government to be able to enforce 

the law and they still haven’t understood how pathetic the situation is. 

When you have 900,000 arrests and 86 percent released that abscond, it is just a mockery of law. I mean, surely you know this. 

So what I am saying is I am not supportive of plans to deal with 

the failure. I believe it is time for us to confront our failed system. 

I would expect, Mr. Verdery, that if you don’t have the money to 

do what needs to be done, you would be here demanding the money 

and asking why not and blaming this Congress if you can’t get the 

job done, with a clear presentation of how, if you had a certain 

amount of money, you could change this failed system. So that is 

frustrating. 

Now, Mr. Verdery, I asked your predecessor who was here before, 

Mr. Hutchinson, about document fraud. Mr. Bonner was a United 

States Attorney. I have prosecuted document fraud cases. We are 

told that one of the reasons we can’t do anything about immigration is because everybody has illegal documents. So my question to 

you is how many cases have been prosecuted in the last year for 

document fraud. 

Mr. VERDERY. I don’t have the numbers in front of me here 

today. I can tell you from seeing our operations reports everyday, 

almost every single day our Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

agents are taking cases on illegal documents, whether they are 

28

fake passports, fake immigration documents, fake visas and the 

like. 

I would have to get back to you on the specifics, but as you know 

from the conversations with Under Secretary Hutchinson, this 

issue of document fraud and document integrity is a huge priority 

for him and for our directorate, and that has filtered down to Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. His inspectors are out there everyday seizing these documents as they come in, but clearly there is work to be done. That 

is one of the beauties, again, of the VISIT program is it can see 

through these phony documents. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, my question is, to which we don’t have 

the answer—somehow we have just been told it is going to be May. 

So I can call the Department of Justice, because they have an annual report of convictions in various categories. So I suspect I can 

get it from the Department of Justice if your agency doesn’t know. 

A person with a false document, Mr. Verdery, represents one of 

many. In other words, if he has a false document, then somebody 

has probably made many, and what you should do is investigate 

the matter and find out who is making them and prosecute that 

person. If that is done systematically and with attention and aggressiveness, you can begin to make a dent in that. 

Mr. Bonner, do you find that Assistant U.S. Attorneys are prosecuting aggressively document cases that you bring to them? 

Mr. BONNER. Every case where somebody presents to Customs 

and Border Protection, because all the immigration inspectors on 

the front line are part of CBP, a false or fraudulent document, 

whether that is a false or phony passport, counterfeit visa or other 

fraudulent document, each and every one of those cases are presented to a U.S. Attorney’s office for prosecution. 

No, I am not satisfied because I know from cases that I have 

been looking at that very frequently we do not get criminal prosecution through the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys’ office, and we ought to. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am sure they get a little jaded, and it is not 

as exciting as prosecuting some public corruption case that is on 

the TV news every night. But I think you have a right to insist 

that the Department of Justice prosecute your cases, and I think 

you need to be making those cases and taking them to them. And 

if they are not getting prosecuted, I would like to know. 

Mr. VERDERY. Senator, we can get you the statistics. You don’t 

have to go to Justice. We can get them for you. I can get them tomorrow. 

Senator SESSIONS. I have been asking for them a month ago, and 

now I am told you can get them in May. I mean, you should be able 

to get them in two hours. 

Mr. VERDERY. We will do better than that. 

Senator SESSIONS. You know, you have the situation with employers, and I had the numbers here. I believe that the President’s 

budget request includes an increase of $23 million for worksite enforcement. It would more than double the number of worksite enforcement investigations, I am told. 

29

I don’t know what I did with my numbers here, but as I recall, 

last year there were 13 cases. Is that about right to you? How 

many cases did you do last year on worksite enforcement? 

Mr. VERDERY. Thirteen does not sound right to me. I know alone 

on Operation Tarmac, which was the investigation about illegal 

workers on airport sites, there were over 1,000 people arrested and 

convicted in that initiative alone. 

Senator SESSIONS. What kind of prosecution was that, or enforcement action was that? 

Mr. VERDERY. These were people who were illegally working at 

airport facilities and were either deported or incarcerated, depending on their particular record. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. Well, this is what I have been told 

with regard to employer sanctions. We heard about Wal-Mart, and 

you deserve credit for stepping up on that. I am not surprised at 

the hive that exists to defend this illegality in immigration that attacks you for it, but you are doing the right thing in pursuing those 

issues. 

In 2002, notices of intent to fine were sent to only 42 employers, 

and only 66 employers actually paid fines in 2002. Some of those 

were notices obviously issued the year before. In 2003, the number 

of fines to employers dropped to 21, and the unconfirmed number 

of notices of intent to fine I have been given is a mere 13. So that 

is there. So with $23 million as an increase, we ought to be able 

to get more than 13 notices sent out, shouldn’t we? 

Mr. VERDERY. I agree, and I would not sit here today and argue 

that over the last, say, half dozen years that workplace enforcement of immigration laws has been what it should be. Most of that 

obviously pre-dates our Department, but I think you are seeing an 

increased willingness to enforce the laws. There is no hesitation 

here to do that, especially if the Congress were to pass a temporary 

worker program. Effective enforcement has to come with that. Otherwise, there is no incentive for people to use it. So we need to enforce the existing laws and we need to enforce the laws that you 

might pass. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you have said that well. My experience 

as a prosecutor has been that if you don’t prosecute investigators’ 

cases, they become demoralized. If the guys out there on the border 

arrest 900,000 people and 86 percent of them don’t show up for a 

hearing, they wonder what they are doing. It is a cycle that breeds 

on itself. 

Mr. BONNER. Senator Sessions, could I just make a comment? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, sir, Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. First of all, the INS, which no longer exists, criminal investigators are part of ICE. So they have that interior immigration enforcement function, including workplace enforcement. 

But let us not repeat the mistake of the Immigration Reform and 

Control Act of 1986. I think the President has a good proposal here. 

You and I know that the employer sanctions of that law were watered down to almost nothing, where you had to have two administrative warnings for knowingly hiring illegals, and only the third 

one could result in a criminal prosecution and that was a misdemeanor. So we are going to have some sort of a more serious 

30

mechanism for—at least I think we ought to be considering a more 

serious mechanism than that. 

Of course, the document fraud, and you have been referring to 

that—in terms of being able to present to the employer two documents, which can be bought on the streets of Los Angeles for 

under—counterfeit, fraudulent drivers’ licenses and Social Security 

cards, which is all you need to prove that you can be legally employed in the United States, can be bought for under $50 on the 

streets of Los Angeles, and probably on the streets of Mobile for all 

I know. 

Anyway, that is one of the things that we certainly are going to 

have to look at and make sure that we have got some meaningful 

sanctions here, if we are going to have a good temporary worker 

program, as the President is proposing, that has some real enforcement parts to it. That is what the President wants. I mean, he 

wants something that does have a strong enforcement component, 

and one that will assure us that at the end of the day we are going 

to be able to better control and secure our borders against criminals and potential terrorists. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Mr. Bonner, you are saying that well 

and all of that is true, but I think we have been so overwhelmed 

so long that we have just gotten kind of stunned and nobody is 

really looking at the overall picture and saying unless we do ‘‘x’’ 

number of things, maybe ten different things—if we do those ten 

things, though, like you said, I think all of a sudden numbers 

change. If it is effective at the border, maybe you don’t have to 

make 900,000 arrests. And if they removed from the country 

promptly and effectively, maybe they don’t come back as often. So 

there are a lot of things that can be done. 

Briefly, Mr. Bonner, do you know what percentage of documents 

that get presented are fraudulent? Do you have any numbers on 

that? 

Mr. BONNER. Do you mean of the percentage of overall documents that we are presented with? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Mr. BONNER. That would be infinitesimally small, but I think the 

total number would be—you know, it is not insignificant and I will 

get it for you. I don’t have it at my fingertips, but we will get it 

to you in the next day or two. 

Senator SESSIONS. This will be the last question. 

On the NCIC, Ms. Bucella, John Muhammad was potentially 

identified in Alabama, the sniper here. The way local law enforcement operates is that they are tied directly to the National Crime 

Information Center. They utilize that on a daily basis. To me, it is 

absolutely critical that every individual who has any connection to 

violence or terrorism be immediately put in the NCIC. 

In addition to that, every absconder, in my view, who has been 

ordered by a court to appear in court and absconds should immediately be put in there. We know that we are not close to putting 

the absconders in there. Therefore, if somebody absconds in El 

Paso, Texas, and comes to Alabama and he is picked up for burglary or speeding, the local police will not get a hit when they access the NCIC. 

31

I guess my question to you first is what is the status of being 

able to enter into the NCIC promptly anyone that may have violated immigration laws and has any connection to terrorism or violence? 

Ms. BUCELLA. Senator, I can’t speak to NCIC as to all the other 

categories that are entered in there because the Terrorist Screening Center is only concerned with known or suspected terrorists. 

What I can tell you is there have been a number of names that 

have been entered into the NCIC, so that the State or local law enforcement officer puts the name in, and it could be someone that 

they pulled over for a traffic violation. 

Now, they actually have immediate, ready access. The NCIC 

comes back and identifies that they are to call our Terrorist 

Screening Center, and for the very first time the local law enforcement officer actually responds to the person that they have pulled 

over. If they have actually pulled over a known or suspected terrorist, there is immediate action from the joint terrorism task force 

that reaches out to the State or local law enforcement officer. This 

has been happening since we opened up our center on December 

1, and we are really working hard with the State and locals to get 

the message out there to run everybody through the NCIC. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think that is just a critical component 

of modern law enforcement. If a person is released on bail and they 

skip for one joint of marijuana, it goes into NCIC. If there are 

stopped somewhere else in the United States, there is a hit and 

that person is detained. 

Again, my question is are you certain right now that the system 

is working with regard to those who may have connections to violence or terrorism? Are those getting in the system promptly? 

Ms. BUCELLA. I cannot speak to anything other than terrorism. 

Our only function at the Terrorist Screening Center is to put 

names of known or suspected terrorists into the NCIC. As to all 

those other crimes, that would be a question better directed to the 

FBI. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VERDERY. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I actually have an answer to the question about document fraud. In fiscal year 2003, 105 

defendants prosecuted, 83 convicted by ICE. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would say that is a very, very low number, 

in my opinion. If you prosecuted at the level of several thousand 

a year, you could break the back of that system. At 100 a year, that 

is not touching it. That is just my best judgment. 

And it wouldn’t be impossible. Those cases are not that hard to 

prosecute for the prosecutor. They may be a little hard to investigate, but not that hard to prosecute. If the Attorney General tells 

his U.S. Attorneys he expects them to prosecute those cases and 

you bring those cases to them without any new money, you could 

easily have 1,000, 2,000 prosecutions, in my view. Most people will 

plead guilty before going to trial on a case like that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. I want to thank you all for the great job 

you all are doing. Getting our arms around this immigration issue 

is a huge, huge problem. It appears to me just from what we have 

said today and what came out of our previous hearing that our conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:09 Jul 21, 2004 Jkt 094810 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94810.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
32

centration has been in the area of trying to make sure that from 

a terrorist threat perspective we have committed the resources and 

concentrated on doing a pretty good job, at least at this point in 

time, in getting that system up. 

I am pretty encouraged by what you said, Ms. Bucella. And the 

numbers, Mr. Bonner and Mr. Verdery, that you have to deal with 

are obviously far greater. We are going to move toward implementation of some sort of H–2A reform, would be guess, hopefully between now and the end of the year as the first step in the immigration reform process. 

A number of us have bills out there, but we can’t think about 

that kind of reform without having confidence that our borders are 

going to be secure, because if we make reforms and we continue to 

have the flood of illegal immigrants coming in, whether it is for agricultural purposes or other purposes, it is not going to work. So 

I hope that we are giving you the resources that you need to do 

the job. If we are not, Senator Sessions is right; you all need to be 

up here telling us you need the resources. 

Ms. Bucella, one other comment I would make on your end is 

that while this information is plugged into the system and we have 

the names, and I guess any other number of aliases that these 

folks have used over the years, we have got to move toward some 

sort of recognition of really who these people are before they hit our 

borders. 

Again, if it is resources, we have got to commit the resources. 

Congress has got to make a commitment. If this immigration is 

going to work and if stopping the terrorists before they get here is 

going to work, we have got to commit the resources to it, and I 

think this Committee is prepared to make recommendations along 

that line. 

I commend you on the work you are doing and I just ask you to 

move ahead with even greater speed than what you have moved 

thus far. As we move toward the issue of these deadlines, we have 

got to be kept informed of exactly what is going on out there with 

respect to your agencies, so I would ask you to do that. 

With that, we thank you for being here today and we are going 

to move to our second panel. 

Our next panel is Mr. Daniel Griswold, Associate Director for 

Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute here in Washington, 

D.C. 

Mr. Griswold, welcome. We are glad to have you. 

Ms. MARGARET D. Stock is an assistant professor at the United 

States Military Academy, in West Point, New York. 

Ms. Stock, thank you very much for being here. 

We have your written statements, and again we would ask that 

you summarize those statements and we look forward to hearing 

from you. 

Mr. Griswold. 

33

STATEMENT OF DANIEL GRISWOLD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

FOR TRADE POLICY STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss and members of 

the Subcommittee, for allowing the Cato Institute to testify on the 

pressing issue of border security and immigration reform. 

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress and 

the administration and this Subcommittee have labored to balance 

the need to secure our borders with our need to remain a free society open to the world. Long-time opponents of immigration seized 

on the attacks to argue against legalization of Mexican migration 

and in favor of drastic cuts in existing levels of legal immigration. 

But any connection between terrorism and illegal immigration 

from Mexico is tenuous. None of the 19 hijackers entered the country illegally or as immigrants. They all arrived in the United States 

with valid temporary non-immigrant visas. None of them arrived 

via Mexico. None of them were Mexican. Sealing our southwestern 

border with a three-tiered, 2,000-mile wall, patrolled by a division 

of U.S. troops, would not have kept a single one of those terrorists 

out of the United States. 

The problem, Mr. Chairman, is not too many immigrants, but insufficient control over who enters the country. Immigrants who 

come to the United States to work and settle are but a small subset 

of the tens of millions of foreign-born people who enter the United 

States every year. In fact, on a typical day, as you know, more than 

1 million people enter the United States legally by air, land and 

sea, through more than 300 ports of entry. In a typical year, more 

than 30 million individual foreign nationals enter the United 

States as tourists, business travelers, students, diplomats and temporary workers. 

Now, of those, about 1.3 million will eventually settle here as 

permanent immigrant residents, some of them illegally. In other 

words, less than 5 percent of the foreigners who enter the United 

States each year intend to emigrate in any sense of the word. We 

could reduce immigration to zero and still not be safe from terrorists who might enter on temporary non-immigrant visas. 

Our focus, one might say our obsession in recent years with stifling the migration of Mexicans across our southwest border has 

not served our National security interests. It has diverted resources 

and attention away from efforts to identify and keep out people 

who truly mean to do us harm. 

While we were guarding the back door in 2001 to make sure no 

Mexican immigrants entered our country illegally to work, we were 

neglecting the far larger barn door of temporary non-immigrant 

visas, through which all the September 11th hijackers entered. 

Most members of Congress understand that willing workers from 

Mexico are not a threat to America’s national security. In May 

2002, Congress overwhelmingly approved and the President signed 

the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. We 

don’t get to say this very often at Cato, but that was a good piece 

of legislation. The law was aimed at the right target: keeping terrorists out of the United States. 

It mandates the timely sharing of intelligence with the State Department and border control agencies, and use of machine-readable 

34

and tamper-resistant entry documents, among other common-sense 

reform. Notably absent from the bill were any provisions rolling 

back levels of legal immigration or bolstering efforts to curb illegal 

migration from Mexico. 

Indeed, legalizing and regularizing the movement of workers 

across the U.S.-Mexican border would enhance our National security by bringing much of the underground labor market into the 

open, encouraging newly-documented workers to fully cooperate 

with law enforcement officials and freeing resources for border security and the war on terrorism. 

Real immigration reform would drain a large part of the underground swamp of smuggling and document fraud that facilitates illegal immigration. It would reduce the demand for fraudulent documents, which in turn would reduce the supply available for terrorists trying to operate surreptitiously inside the United States. It 

would eliminate most of the human smuggling operations, I believe, overnight. The vast majority of Mexican workers who enter 

the United States have no criminal records or intentions. They 

would obviously prefer to enter the country in a safe, orderly, legal 

way through the standard ports of entry rather than putting their 

lives in the hands of unscrupulous smugglers. 

Just as importantly, legalization would encourage millions of currently undocumented workers to make themselves known to authorities by registering with the Government, reducing cover for 

terrorists who manage to enter the country and overstay their 

visas. Workers with legal documents would be more inclined to cooperate with law enforcement because they wouldn’t fear deportation. 

Immigration reform would free up enforcement and border control resources to focus on protecting the American homeland from 

terrorist attack. Our Department of Homeland Security, which I 

believe has a hiring freeze on right now, should concentrate its limited resources and personnel on tracking and hunting down terrorists instead of raiding chicken processing plants and busting janitors at discount stores. 

Congress should respond to the leadership shown by President 

Bush and reform our dysfunctional immigration system. Immigration reform would help our economy grow, it would reduce illegal 

immigration and it would enhance the Federal Government’s ability to wage war on terrorism. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griswold appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Professor Stock. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET D. STOCK, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 

OF LAW, U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY, WEST POINT, NEW YORK, 

ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. STOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to be here 

in two capacities. First, I am a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and I have been practicing in the field of 

immigration law as an attorney for more than 10 years. I am also 

35

here as an expert in the area of constitutional, military, national 

security and comparative law, areas in which I teach. 

I am an assistant professor in the Department of Law at the 

United States Military Academy, at West Point, New York, and I 

am also a lieutenant colonel in the Military Police Corps, in the 

United States Army Reserve. But I need to emphasize that the 

statements, opinions and views I am expressing today are my own 

opinions and not the opinions of the United States Military Academy, the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. 

With that said, you have my written testimony and I only want 

to make three key points which are summarized as follows. 

First, we secure our borders best by enhancing our intelligence 

capacity, and national security is most effectively enhanced by improving the mechanisms for identifying actual terrorists, not by implementing harsher immigration laws that blindly label all foreigners are potential terrorists. In fact, that can hurt our intelligence collection capability if it causes people in immigrant communities to be unwilling to come forward and provide us with the 

information that we need in order to locate the real terrorists. 

Any policies and practices that fail to distinguish between terrorists and legitimate foreign visitors or foreign travelers are ineffective security tools that waste our valuable resources, damage the 

U.S. economy and alienate those groups that we need to cooperate 

with in the war on terrorism. They also promote a false sense of 

security by promoting the illusion that we are reducing the threat 

of terrorism when, in fact, in many cases we are not actually doing 

that. 

Part of security is economic security. We need to stop thinking 

about security as simply a matter of keeping people out of the 

country and also think about the fact that security has other dimensions. We can’t fight a global war on terrorism with an economy that has been hampered by the fact that we can’t get businesses in the country. If American workers are out of jobs because 

the Japanese investors can’t come into the country, for example, 

that is going to hurt our security. We need to think broadly about 

security and not limit that concept. 

Reforming our immigration laws is critical if we do it in a way 

that will help us identify those who want to hurt us and distinguish them from those that are no national security threat to us 

and are already here, already residing here, paying taxes, part of 

our family networks, even in some cases part of our military. 

Second, we need to make our borders our last line of defense, not 

our first line of defense. The physical borders of the United States 

should be our last line of defense because terrorism does not spring 

up at our borders. We need to reconceptualize how we think about 

our borders because in the modern world they really start overseas 

and they start at our consulates overseas. 

When people refer to our borders, they usually think of the geographic boundaries between us and Canada and Mexico. But to enhance our security, that has to be the last place, not the first place 

that we look to defend against terrorism. So we have to pursue initiatives such as the North American Perimeter Safety Zone, increase the use of pre-clearance procedures, pre-inspection programs 

overseas, and provide U.S. officials the opportunity to check people 

36

before they even get on a plane and come to America, before they 

even try to approach the border. 

Third, comprehensive immigration reform is an essential component of any effort to enhance our National security. Right now, our 

current immigration system, as other people have said, is dysfunctional. I agree with that entirely. We currently allocate massive resources in a futile attempt to enhance a system and enforce a system that does not work. 

Our enforcement efforts could be far more effective if our laws 

made sense. We have laws that simply do not make sense, and I 

think that is best exemplified by the quote from Karen Croshare 

in 2001, an INS spokesperson, who said that immigration law is a 

mystery and a mastery of obfuscation. I think she was right about 

that. 

A new break-the-mold guest worker program is an essential component to sensible reform that would help enhance our security and 

secure our borders because it would legalize the flow of people that 

is happening anyway. It is insufficient by itself, however. We also 

need to offer to those who are residing here, working here, paying 

taxes and otherwise contributing—some of them have sons and 

daughters in the military, for example—the opportunity to earn 

their permanent legal status. We need to recognize that blood is 

thicker than borders. We need to deal squarely with the issue of 

family reunification and the backlogs in the family program so that 

families are not separated 20 years or more, sometimes, by our dysfunctional laws. 

I want to put in a small plug, in closing, for the DREAm Act. 

Just from my personal experience in the military, I know that we 

have thousands of young people living in America today who came 

to the United States when they were very small who would like to 

serve in the military, but they can’t because they can’t get legal papers. 

They speak English and are in great physical condition. They 

have graduated from our high schools, and yet they cannot serve 

in the military unless they somehow get in by using fake documents. We should pass a law like the DREAM Act to allow some 

of those people not only the opportunity to work at janitors at WalMart and things like that, but also the opportunity to volunteer to 

serve this great country. 

In closing, I would say our Nation has no choice but to move 

ahead with comprehensive immigration reform. We need to think 

that immigration reform is national security reform, but we need 

to think about it in a new and creative way if we are going to enhance our security at the border, and we need to do this immediately. We can’t wait. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stock appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Well, I thank both of you for those comments. I will have to say I agree with most everything that both 

of you said. 

Professor Stock, I really have been supportive of the President’s 

approach to this because he is the first President we have had who 

has been willing to say, hey, look, we have got a problem and we 

37

had better face it now. You highlight a real reason why the leadership in this country needs to face this problem, and that is these 

kids coming along. 

They didn’t ask for this. They came with their parents who may 

have come here illegally, and obviously did come here illegally. Yet, 

they are having to pay really a higher price than what their parents have had to pay. We need to think about the overall issue and 

those young people who are qualified to be educated, qualified to 

go into the armed forces, qualified to go into the workforce. Yet, 

they are going to have this handicap hanging over their head. 

I don’t pretend to have all of the answers to the question, and 

I have talked with the President any number of times about this 

and he doesn’t have all of the answers. But the fact of the matter 

is I applaud him for being willing to face this. 

I want to make sure that the next generation—and I have got 

children and grandchildren—don’t have to look at this 30 years 

from now. If we don’t look at it today, then the problem is only 

going to get more complicated. I don’t know that it can get any 

worse, but it is certainly going to get more complicated by the number of people. So both of you are right in your comments relative 

to these young folks coming along and, Mr. Griswold, particularly 

your comment about building a wall. That is simply not going to 

work. 

Ms. Stock, in your written testimony you address border security 

by describing the issue as terrorist versus legitimate entrants. But 

we hear about false documentation that is presented at the border, 

and under a guest worker program we will have hundreds of thousands of people presenting documents at the border. 

How would you propose that we address what is sure to be a 

growing problem of people attempting to enter the United States 

through our ports of entry in an illegal manner? In other words, 

how can we be confident in our border security against people illegally entering our country even if they are just seeking a job? 

Ms. STOCK. Well, I think part of the guest worker proposal is the 

idea that we are going to have a drop in the number of people who 

are trying to come in, and I believe that is the case based on my 

experience dealing with immigrants. 

I know that the vast majority of people coming particularly from 

Mexico are coming here to work or to be part of a family, and they 

come in illegally because there isn’t a way for them to come legally. 

If there were a way, these immigrants would love to be legal. I 

have had so many people over the years come into my office and 

say, is there any way that I can get legal? They are just dying to 

do it legally, but the current system is broken and they can’t do 

it. 

There is a myth out there among many people that it is easy to 

emigrate to America. In fact, it is not. It is extremely difficult 

today. We call ourselves a nation of immigrants. It is not really 

true today; it hasn’t been true for decades. It is extraordinarily difficult for the average person out there in the world to emigrate to 

America even if they have relatives who are here already and even 

if they have a job here that nobody wants. 

Much of the illegal immigration is driven by the fact that people 

can’t get here legally. I expect if a guest worker program is deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:09 Jul 21, 2004 Jkt 094810 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94810.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
38

signed properly and has an earned adjustment or regularization 

program with it that we will see a significant drop in the flow of 

people trying to come in illegally with false documents. There won’t 

be any need for them to do that if they can come legally. Why 

would they run the risk of dying in the Arizona desert when they 

could simply walk through the San Ysidro port of entry with the 

correct documents? 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Senator, could I just add to that quickly? 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Certainly. 

Mr. GRISWOLD. I agree with everything Margaret says. Besides 

just the common-sense reasons why Mexicans, in particular, would 

prefer to come in legally, we do have some historical experience. 

We had the bracero program in the 1950’s and into the 1960’s, and 

that program had some flaws. It is not a good model point by point, 

but President Eisenhower dramatically increased the number of 

visas available during the 1950’s and the apprehensions of people 

coming in illegally at the border dropped dramatically by 95 percent. I think we have every reason to expect that to happen here. 

Wouldn’t the job of Mr. Bonner and other people trying to protect 

our borders be easier if 95 percent of the people coming in illegally 

now were basically taken off the table and coming in through an 

orderly process through ports of entry? Then we would know, if 

somebody was sneaking in, they were probably up to no good. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. You make a good point. 

Mr. Griswold, you have written that if President Bush’s guest 

worker plan is put into action, we would eliminate most of the 

smuggling operations overnight and drain the underground channels by which terrorists might try to enter the United States. 

Can you elaborate on that, and particularly in contrast to our 

border protection agents’ ability to control illegal immigration, as 

recent figures of illegal immigrant arrests seem to demonstrate? 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes, that is a good point. Well, part of the reason 

why I think that is true is just the point I made about the historical record of the bracero program. If people can come in illegally, 

they will choose to come in—if they can come in legally, they will 

not come in illegally. I think what you do is you reduce the demand 

for these documents and you will see the supply shrink. Now, there 

will always be illegal activity, people for one reason or another 

wanting to come in illegally, but it is more of a manageable problem. 

There is some historical analogy with Prohibition, as well. One 

of the unintended consequences of Prohibition was we created a lot 

of underground crime. Once Prohibition went away, a lot of that 

underground crime and organized crime went away as well, and I 

think we could expect that with this program. Let’s get the vast 

majority, 99 percent or whatever, of people coming across the 

southwest border who are just coming here to work—let’s get them 

off the table through a legal, orderly process. Then we can focus 

the full force of our law enforcement and border enforcement on 

that 1 percent or less whom we have reason to believe are up to 

no good. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Ms. Stock, you alluded to this a little bit 

earlier and you have also written that passing new and more comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:09 Jul 21, 2004 Jkt 094810 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94810.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
39

plicated laws will not cure our security problems, but our focus 

should be on simplifying and implementing existing laws. 

Does a massive guest worker program help or hurt this objective 

to achieve better border security? 

Ms. STOCK. Well, I think it is very important to simplify our 

laws. Right now, it is impossible for the average person to understand our immigration laws. Even the average lawyer doesn’t underhand our immigration laws, and I run into that everyday when 

I try to explain to somebody who comes into my office and says, I 

have a simple immigration question, and two hours later we are 

still talking about it. 

In fact, our laws are extraordinarily complicated. A guest worker 

can address that if, in conjunction with the program, we perhaps 

repeal some of the provisions of the immigration law that tie up 

or resources, but do nothing to enhance our security. 

For example, Section 212(a)(9) of the immigration law currently 

contains 3-year bars, 10-year bars, permanent bars that essentially 

divide families up. There are plenty of provisions in the law that 

keep out terrorists. We have had provisions in the law to keep out 

terrorists for years. The problem we have is the terrorists don’t 

come up to the border and say, hi, I am a terrorist, can I come in. 

What we are doing with a lot of complicated provisions of the 

law, though, is we are keeping out people that are breadwinners 

in the family, that are married to Americans, that overstayed a 

visa for too long or has some problem with paperwork that may not 

even be their fault. And we are telling them that you need to leave 

the United States and in 10 years or 20 years you can come back 

to be here with your family. That makes no sense from a national 

security perspective. 

The average person—as I said, blood is thicker than borders—

they are going to try to sneak back in to be with their family members, or we force the American to move to a foreign country to live 

with their family members. In a lot of cases I have seen, we force 

the American family to go on welfare because the Mexican worker, 

for example, who is being deported is the breadwinner in the family. He is married to an American woman and they have a bunch 

of children. Once he is deported, the family has no income. They 

then have to go on welfare. 

When they are faced with a 3-year bar, a 10-year bar, a 20-year 

bar, he is not coming back, at least not legally, and the family ends 

up essentially relying on the taxpayers to support them. These 

kinds of situations are far too common today because of our immigration laws. Some of the laws, while well-intentioned, don’t address national security at all. 

I would like to mention just for the record that I did coauthor 

a report called ‘‘The Lessons of 9/11: A Failure of Intelligence, Not 

Immigration Law,’’ and I would like to submit this report for the 

record. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Sure, we will be glad to add that. 

Let me give both of you a hypothetical as to how I envision longterm the principles of the President and the general understanding 

of the ideas that a number of us have thought about relative to the 

illegals who are here today and how we are going to deal with 

them. 

40

We are not going to give these folks a green card. I think the 

President has correctly stated that they have got to be identified 

as being here illegally today. They didn’t comply with the law and 

we don’t want to recognize them as being here legally. 

But by the same token, if they are here and they are gainfully 

employed, they are providing a better quality of life for them and 

their families, and they are not displacing American workers, then 

the idea is that we allow them to stay here as a temporary employee, with the understanding that they will have to renew that 

right of staying here every 3 years or whatever the period may be. 

Those people, I envision, are going to be what we refer to as blue 

card-holders. We are going to give them a document that is a noncounterfeitable document that allows them to stay here so long as 

they are gainfully employed. 

Now, if we do that and if we put some sanctions on employers 

to hire only people who have that blue card or who otherwise are 

here legally under a green card or a visa or whatever, and that we 

begin removing or deporting those people who are not here legally 

under one of those scenarios, do you think that an incentive will 

be there on those people who are here, gainfully employed, to come 

forward and make application for that blue card? 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Senator, I do think there would be an incentive, 

and I think you have outlined the issue very clearly. One, they 

could have portability moving from one job to another. A broader 

range of jobs would open up. They could move across the border 

multiple times instead of paying a coyote, a smuggler, every time 

they come across and risking their lives; you know, all the reasons 

that were in the previous panel. 

I think it is important, as the President outlines, that we not duplicate the mistakes of the 1986 law. That was an amnesty. You 

have been here 4 years, here is your green card. We didn’t do anything to fix the flow of people coming in illegally. 

So I think the way the President has outlined it would give an 

incentive for people to come forward, which has all sorts of positive 

national security implications if people come forward. It would not 

allow them to jump the queue and get an extra advantage in getting citizenship or permanent residency. 

So for all these reasons, I think the way the President has outlined it offers—of course, Congress will put its stamp on it and 

there needs to be compromise, but I think the way he has outlined 

it, all the ingredients are there to fix this problem in a way that 

serves our economic needs, maintains our free and open society and 

helps protect us from terrorism. 

Ms. STOCK. Could I address that, too? 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Ms. Stock. 

Ms. STOCK. I really like the President’s proposal, and I agree 

with you that it was very courageous of him to come forward because obviously a lot of people have not felt positively about the 

proposal. I believe, though, that if you have a full understanding 

of U.S. immigration law, you should agree with the President that 

we need to do something about the situation, particularly the situation involving Mexican workers. 

I do think, though, that if we don’t consider allowing a certain 

number of workers who come in as guest workers to have the possiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:09 Jul 21, 2004 Jkt 094810 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94810.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
41

bility of adjusting status that we are going to have far fewer takers 

on the temporary program. There is a sense out there in the immigrant community that if it is just a guest worker program and you 

can’t get a green card eventually through some other method or 

through the program that you may want to just stay in the shadows because you are simply going to be identifying yourself to the 

authorities for 3 years and then you are going to be deported. 

So in conjunction with the temporary guest worker program, I 

think it is important to have some avenue for regularizing some of 

those people. Not everybody is going to want to regularize. Many 

people from Mexico do come to the United States and they just 

want to work here for a short time, earn some money and go back. 

That has been a historic pattern. But there are some that are going 

to want to stay and that deserve to stay that should be allowed to 

stay. 

So I believe in conjunction with the guest worker program, we 

should have some kind of earned adjustment program. We should 

not, of course, make people immediate citizens. That is a crazy 

idea, but we should have some kind of program in conjunction with 

the guest worker program that allows some of those people to regularize their status. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Do you have any numbers of any sort that 

might indicate how many folks in the Hispanic community would 

want a green card versus some other temporary status? 

Ms. STOCK. No, I don’t have numbers on that. I haven’t done a 

poll. 

Mr. GRISWOLD. I will say, Senator, we had an experience from 

the mid-1960’s when the bracero program ended until 1986 when 

we passed IRCA and imposed employer sanctions. It was a kind of 

‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’ guest worker program. They could come in 

without much trouble. Employers could hire them without even 

asking for documents. 

We found during that experience, according to the research, that 

about 80 percent of them eventually went back to Mexico. The average stay was something like two-and-a-half years. So there is a 

very clear demand for a temporary entry into the United States. 

Many Mexican migrants come here to solve temporary problems, to 

raise some cash for investment back home, to deal with temporary 

financial problems, and then they want to go back to the country 

of their birth and their culture. So I think there is a reasonable expectation, based on history, that there would be a demand and 

compliance with a temporary worker program. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Ms. Stock, your comment relative to educating the public on the broad immigration issue, I think, is very 

well taken. I also have said to my friends who are critical of me 

for supporting the President, you don’t really understand what the 

President has said here. This is not an amnesty program. As Mr. 

Verdery alluded to once again today, this is a program where we 

are simply recognizing that people are here illegally, and facing 

that problem and trying to figure out what is the best way to deal 

with this issue. 

I am not sure where we are going to go from here, but you folks 

know a lot more about this than any of us do. You deal with it on 

a much more regular basis, and I would simply say to you that as 

42

we move through the process, don’t wait on us to call you. We 

asked you here today to testify because we knew you had something to offer, and I hope that you will free to contact either me 

or my staff or Senator Kennedy or his staff as we move through 

this process. 

And it is going to be a long process. We are not going to get an 

answer to these issues in the short term. It is going to take us 

months, maybe even years to finally get our arms around this, but 

we can’t do it in the right way without help from folks who know 

the issues on the ground. That is why we asked you here today, 

so I hope both of you will stay in touch with us as we go through 

this and give us your thoughts and your ideas, and give us your 

criticisms. If we are moving in the wrong direction, we need to hear 

from folks out there who are really on the street and are a little 

closer to the issue maybe than we are. 

So I thank you for being here today. It has been very insightful 

to hear your observations and your insight into this issue, and we 

look forward to continuing the dialogue with you. 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Thank you, Senator. 

Ms. STOCK. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. At the request of Senator Feinstein, we 

have a statement of Senator Leahy, and also some documents that 

Senator Feinstein would like to add to the record. That will certainly be done, without objection. 

With that, this hearing will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

43


94810.001
44


94810.002
45


94810.003
46


94810.004
47


94810.005
48


94810.006
49


94810.007
50


94810.008
51


94810.009
52


94810.010
53


94810.011
54


94810.013
55


94810.014
56


94810.015
57


94810.016
58


94810.017
59


94810.018
60


94810.019
61


94810.020
62


94810.021
63


94810.022
64


94810.023
65


94810.024
66


94810.025
67


94810.026
68


94810.027
69


94810.028
70


94810.029
71


94810.030
72


94810.031
73


94810.032
74


94810.033
75


94810.034
76


94810.035
77


94810.036
78


94810.037
79


94810.038
80


94810.039
81


94810.040
82


94810.041
83


94810.042
84


94810.043
85


94810.044
86


94810.045
87


94810.046
88


94810.047
89


94810.048
90


94810.049
91


94810.050
92


94810.051
93


94810.052
94


94810.053
95


94810.054
96


94810.055
97


94810.056
98


94810.057
99


94810.058
100


94810.059
101


94810.060
102


94810.061
103


94810.062
104


94810.063
105


94810.064
106


94810.065
107


94810.066
108


94810.067
109


94810.068
110


94810.069
111


94810.070
112


94810.071
113


94810.072
114


94810.073
115


94810.074
116


94810.075
117


94810.076
118


94810.077
119

Æ


94810.078