U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–873 PDF 2008

THE BORDER SECURITY CHALLENGE: RECENT 

DEVELOPMENTS AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, 

AND GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 22, 2008 

Serial No. 110–118 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

AL GREEN, Texas 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JESSICA HERRERA-FLANIGAN, Staff Director & General Counsel 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND GLOBAL 

COUNTERTERRORISM 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, CALIFORNIA, Chairwoman 

JANE HARMAN, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

AL GREEN, Texas 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

ALISON ROSSO, Director 

DENISE KREPP, Counsel 

CARLA ZAMUDIO-DOLAN, Clerk 

MANDY BOWERS, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

(II) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, 

and Global Counterterrorism .............................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Mark E. Souder, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism .................................................................... 2 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES

PANEL I 

The Honorable Silvestre Reyes, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas: 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

The Honorable Brian P. Bilbray, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 8 

The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Florida: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

The Honorable Gabrielle Giffords, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Arizona .................................................................................................... 13 

The Honorable Heath Shuler, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

PANEL II 

Mr. Thomas S. Winkowski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 37 

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

Mr. David V. Aguilar, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 43 

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

Major General Michael C. Kostelnik, (USAF) Retired, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and Marine, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 44 

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

(1) 

THE BORDER SECURITY CHALLENGE: 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND LEGISLATIVE 

PROPOSALS 

Thursday, May 22, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND GLOBAL

COUNTERTERRORISM, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 

Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Loretta Sanchez 

[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Thompson, Sanchez, Harman, Lofgren, 

Jackson Lee, Christensen, Langevin, Cuellar, Carney, Green, 

Souder, Reichert, Bilirakis, and Rogers. 

Ms. SANCHEZ [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism is meeting today to receive testimony on the border security challenge, recent developments and 

legislative proposals. 

Good morning. Today our first panel consists of a distinguished 

panel of our colleagues, Members of Congress who have introduced 

proposals to enhance and respond to America’s border security 

challenge. 

Our second panel will give the subcommittee a chance to hear 

from the agency representatives who operate and direct the 

frontlines of our border security operations. 

I look forward to discussing and assessing the staffing and resources needed to ensure that our homeland is safe and secure. 

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. 

This is the 11th border security hearing that this subcommittee 

has held this Congress, and we welcome the opportunity to continue our examination of the challenges we face in securing our 

borders and implementing real, comprehensive reform of the immigration system. 

In developing a strategy to secure our border and reduce illegal 

immigration, we must also create strategies and reforms to holistically address the important commercial, humanitarian and environmental issues involved in border security and immigration reform. 

Many of the agents on the frontlines of our border have to consider combinations of these issues every day, and it is our responsibility to make sure they have the adequate training and resources 

to do that job. 
2 

The 110th Congress has increased border security funding by $2.4 billion between fiscal years 2007 and 2008, far surpassing the 

administration’s proposed funding levels. 

So I look forward to hearing how the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection is using this ample and increased funding to enhance 

our Nation’s border security. I believe that these funds can help address some of the issues that were recently reported. 

For example, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency 

has struggled to retain and recruit qualified officers. Also, in recent 

weeks, we have heard of overworked customs officers and reports 

of poor working conditions for these officers. This situation has 

even resulted in a picket at one of our countries, major ports of 

entry. 

In addition, a recent report from the Government Accountability 

Office expressed concerns that many ports of entry have serious security gaps due to low and inadequate staffing levels, as well as 

some infrastructure problems. 

There is no silver bullet, or perfect bill that will completely solve 

all of our Nation’s border security challenges. 

Everything that happens on our Nation’s borders and at our Nation’s ports of entry is related to the overarching supply and demand issues that really, in my opinion, can only truly be addressed 

by having some comprehensive immigration reform. 

However, in terms of the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, we 

must provide comprehensive training and support for our personnel 

in order to ensure that they are prepared as well as possible to do 

the difficult jobs that we task them with. 

We particularly need to retain experienced Border Patrol agents 

who can help guide and provide ongoing supervision and training 

to the large number of new agents who have joined the Border Patrol in just the last few years. 

In addition, we must continue to invest in equipment and infrastructure that will act as force multipliers for the personnel at our 

ports of entry and on our borders. 

Once again I thank our witnesses for being here today. 

I would like to at this time ask unanimous consent that the gentleman, Mr. Carney from Pennsylvania, be authorized to sit for the 

purpose of questioning witnesses during the hearing today. 

So be it. 

Once again, I thank the witnesses. 

I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Souder, for his opening statement. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Securing our Nation’s borders is one of our most important tasks. 

Over the past 7 years, and especially since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a great deal has been done to increase resources and activities along the border and in the interior 

of the country. 

I have had the opportunity to travel a good portion with both 

borders and have seen for myself that, despite the huge increases 

in resources that have been provided over the past few years, there 

is a lot more to be done. 

One area in particular where more needs to be done is our national parkland located on or near the border. I am also looking for-
3 

ward to discussing CBP efforts to work with the Park Service to 

enhance security in those areas, particularly in Texas. 

Related to that, I am concerned with legislative proposals that 

result in limiting Border Patrol access to Forest Service areas of 

the border by declaring illegal transit routes as wilderness areas. 

Not only would that degrade the wilderness area, but it would severely restrict our ability to stop illegal activities. 

We cannot afford to back down or scale back our efforts along the 

border. We need to move forward with getting agents into the field 

and not limiting their actions. We need to complete fencing projects 

and find technology that will actually work for the Secure Border 

Initiative. 

We need to make sure that we eliminate invasive species like 

chorizo cane and salt cedar that block the ability to see the illegal 

activities. We need to maintain the catch-and-return policy, and 

not revert back to releasing illegal aliens. 

Additionally, more needs to be done on our interior enforcement 

programs, especially related to cooperation with State and local law 

enforcement and reforming our immigration court system. 

There are initiatives we need to be moving forward with, rather 

than granting, mass amnesty and repeating the mistakes of the 

past. 

As important as I believe it is for this Congress to pass legislation to provide tools and authorities to the Department of Homeland Security to gain operational control over the border, it is better to do no legislation than bad legislation. 

I would like to thank our colleagues from the House, who have 

volunteered their time to provide some insight into existing legislative proposals to address border security and interior enforcement 

challenges. 

I hope this hearing is the first step in moving forward with bipartisan border security legislation. To that end, I would like to 

point out several other bills that have been introduced by Republican members of the Homeland Security Committee and ask the 

Chair to commit to considering these proposals, should the committee move forward with any border security legislation. 

H.R. 2954, Secure Border First Act of 2007, is sponsored by 

Ranking Member Peter King. Resolution 499, expressing the sense 

of the House that U.S. immigration laws should be enforced, is 

sponsored by Representative Lamar Smith, a senior member of this 

committee. 

H.R. 3916, to provide for the next generation of border security 

technology, is sponsored by Representative Ralph Hall and Representative Michael McCaul of this committee. 

H.R. 2561, Fast and Secure Travel at the Borders Act of 2007, 

is sponsored by Representative Dent of this committee. H.R. 3496, 

Border Patrol and Contractor Accountability Act of 2007, is sponsored by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite of this committee. 

H.R. 2490, to conduct a pilot for the mobile biometric identification in the maritime environment, is sponsored by Congressman 

Bilirakis of this committee, as is H.R. 4517, the Visa Security Improvement Act. 

I think it is important that we work how to move legislation forward, and not get it bottlenecked in the committee. I look forward 
4 

to working with you on this issue and hope that we can give fair 

consideration to the variety of bills discussed here today and others 

that have been referred to by this committee, especially those by 

committee members. 

One additional issue that I believe the committee urgently needs 

to consider, and I hope is discussed during this hearing, is the current plan to end the deployment of the National Guard along the 

southwest border, referred to as Operation Jumpstart, in July. 

I am very concerned from visits on the border and talking with 

the Border Patrol directly that we will not have the Border Patrol 

agents in place to cover the missions, and this is the wrong time 

to open any new weaknesses along the border, when we are in fact 

trying to brag about what we have done. To back down and retreat—this is not the time to do that. 

Thank you for yielding the time. I yield back any remaining. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank the gentleman. We have worked together, 

I think, very well on many of these issues before this. I would just 

say that we have a good faith panel in front of us of our colleagues 

with bills, and if we would have included everybody from this committee in front of us, we would have nobody to ask questions but 

you and I. 

So we will start with this, and we will see how we get through 

the rest of the bills, because I know there are quite a few. Of 

course, many of those bills really don’t stand to the jurisdiction of 

this committee. This committee is really about border security, not 

about immigration reform, visas and other issues of that type. 

But having said that, the Chair now recognizes the Chairman of 

the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I will overlook the demotion. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony today. 

Securing America’s borders is a significant challenge for our Nation. The unique features of our geographically diverse land and 

maritime borders present a number of issues that cannot be solved 

with a one-size-fits-all mentality. 

We must recognize that securing our borders requires a multifaceted approach. I am pleased to be a part of this morning’s hearing, because I believe that the best way to develop effective border 

security proposals is by going through the legislative process and 

holding hearings with Members engaged in informed discussion. 

Everyone here today is united in their desire to address the challenges presented at our borders. Our dedicated border security professionals need our support, because their service is critical to the 

security of our borders and the health of our economy. That is why 

this Congress appropriated $14.8 billion to DHS’ border and immigration enforcement programs in fiscal year 2008. 

That act funded included $1.225 billion for border infrastructure 

and fencing, $507 million for additional helicopters and marine 

interdiction units, $200 million to identify and begin removal proceedings for incarcerated aliens, and funding for an additional 

4,500 detention beds and 3,000 Border Patrol agents. 

Despite this unprecedented investment in border security, more 

remains to be done. I have long said that the Department needs 
5 

a comprehensive strategy for border security. The current piecemeal approach is not the answer. 

I look forward to a constructive discussion about how best to secure our Nation’s borders and to working with my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle to develop effective, common-sense border security solutions. 

[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HONORABLE BENNIE G. THOMPSON

Securing America’s borders is a significant challenge for our Nation. The unique 

features of our geographically-diverse land and maritime borders present a number 

of issues that cannot be solved with a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ mentality. 

We must recognize that securing our borders requires a multi-faceted approach. 

I am pleased to be a part of this morning’s hearing because I believe that the best 

way to develop effective border security proposals is by going through the legislative 

process and holding hearings where Members engage in informed discussion. 

Everyone here today is united in their desire to address the challenges presented 

at our borders. 

Our dedicated border security professionals need our support, because their service is critical to the security of our borders and the health of our economy. That is 

why this Congress provided $14.8 billion for DHS’ border and immigration enforcement programs in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act. 

Funding included: 

• $1.225 billion for border infrastructure and fencing; • $570 million for additional helicopters and marine interdiction units; • $200 million to identify and begin removal proceedings for incarcerated aliens; 

and • funding for an additional 4,500 detention beds and 3,000 Border patrol agents. 

Despite this unprecedented investment in border security, more remains to be 

done. I have long said that the Department needs a comprehensive strategy for border security. The current piecemeal approach is not the answer. 

I look forward to a constructive discussion about how best to secure our Nation’s 

borders and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to develop effective, common-sense border security solutions. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Other members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under 

committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the 

record. 

Now to our witnesses. I welcome our first panel of witnesses. 

Our first witness, Representative Silvestre Reyes, is chairman of 

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Before he 

was elected to Congress, he served for 26 years in the Border Patrol, including as chief of the McAllen and El Paso sectors from 

1984 to 1995. He has represented the El Paso, Texas, area in Congress since 1996. 

Our second witness is Representative Brian Bilbray, of the 50th 

congressional district of California, which includes a portion of the 

San Diego area. In addition to serving on the House committees on 

Oversight and Government Reform, Veterans Affairs, and Science 

and Technology, Representative Bilbray chairs the House Immigration Reform Caucus. 

Our third witness is Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, from 

the 5th congressional district of Florida, which is situated along the 

Gulf of Mexico. Congresswoman Brown-Waite is serving her third 

term in Congress, sits on the House Financial Services, the Homeland Security Committee, and the Veterans Affairs Committee. 

Our fourth witness is Representative Gabrielle Giffords, from the 

8th congressional district of Arizona, which includes a 114-mile 

border with Mexico. Representative Giffords was elected to the 
6 

110th Congress. She serves on the House Armed Services, the 

Science and Technology, and the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Our final witness on our first panel is Representative Heath 

Shuler, from the 11th congressional district of North Carolina. Representative Shuler was elected to the 110th Congress and serves on 

the House Small Business, Transportation and Infrastructure, and 

Natural Resources Committee. 

Welcome to all of you. 

At this point I would ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, be authorized to 

sit for the purpose of questioning witnesses during this hearing. 

So be it. 

Okay. Mr. Reyes, please summarize your testimony for us in 5 

minutes or less. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing—both you and my good friend, Ranking Member Souder. 

I would also like to thank the Chairman of your committee, Mr. 

Thompson, because he has been to my district and to other parts 

of the border with me and knows and has an appreciation of just 

how challenging border security issues are. 

As you mentioned, before coming to Congress, I spent 261⁄2 years 

in the Border Patrol. Part of those 261⁄2 years, I worked 4 years 

as an inspector at the international bridges in El Paso. 

The reason that I am here today is because of legislation that I 

have brought that primarily deals with bringing forth the second 

part of what I think is vitally important. We have done quite a bit 

in between the ports of entry with Customs and Border Protection. 

Now I think it is important that we focus on the ports of entry, 

the part that often gets overlooked, but also is an important and 

integral part of our whole border security function. 

I also want to commend the Committee on Homeland Security for 

recognizing this need to ensure that economic security of our Nation is taken into account when we work to secure our Nation’s borders. 

At the beginning of the year, as I mentioned, Chairman Thompson held a field hearing in my district in El Paso to examine the 

many different challenges that we are facing today at our land 

ports of entry and the long waiting times being experienced by our 

constituents. 

After participating in many hearings with border residents and 

listening to the testimony at the hearing and consulting with my 

former colleagues and current leadership at DHS on port challenges, we crafted the bill, H.R. 5662, which we titled Putting Our 

Resources Toward Security Act, or for short, PORTS Act. 

This bill increases the number of customs and border protection 

officers by 5,000 over the next 5 years, which is sufficient to cover 

the vacancies on both the southern border, the northern border, 

and a significant part of airports and seaports. 

But this legislation doesn’t just stop there. It also takes into account the need for support personnel positions, which, in my expe-
7 

rience, has been often overlooked by Congress. It also addresses a 

very critical shortage in agricultural specialists. 

The PORTS Act would provide a 30 percent increase in the number of customs and border protection officers across the Nation. In 

discussion with customs and border protection personnel, this increase, as I said, would fully staff our ports of entry. 

This PORTS Act also would authorize $5 billion in funding to the 

General Services Administration to allow for reconstruction and repair of the Nation’s land border ports of entry. 

We must look at the current state of our Nation’s ports of entry 

and commit, I think, as a Congress to properly fund, in terms of 

staffing and infrastructure, our ports in order to provide security 

for our Nation. 

Being understaffed and underfunded all these years is simply unacceptable and not good policy in terms of our challenges faced on 

both security and commerce. 

The current administration has focused up to now their attention 

on in between the ports of entry, but this legislation is intended to 

correct a very critical part, and the part that we examined in the 

field hearing in El Paso with Chairman Thompson with the challenges that our ports are facing in terms of facilitating trade and 

commerce and the movement of people along our border communities. 

In closing, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to 

come before your subcommittee. I am willing to answer any questions you might have about this legislation or other efforts. 

The last point I will make is that it is critically important that 

in the legislation that we take into account and consult with Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Reyes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HONORABLE SILVESTRE REYES

MAY 22, 2008 

I would like to begin by thanking Chairwoman Loretta Sanchez and Ranking 

Member Mark Souder for holding this very important hearing today. 

Before coming to Congress, I served for 261⁄2 years in the U.S. Border Patrol. Half 

of that time I was a Border Patrol Sector Chief, first in McAllen, then in El Paso. 

As the only Member of Congress with a background in border enforcement, I have 

first-hand knowledge of what we need to do in order to secure our Nation’s borders 

and protect the American people. 

During my tenure with the INS, I spent 4 years at the El Paso international 

bridges where I helped facilitate the free flow of trade into our country. Security 

for our country does not just mean curtailing illegal immigration. But allowing the 

flow of trade critical to both border communities and our national economy is vital 

to the security of our country as well. 

I want to commend the Committee on Homeland Security for recognizing this 

need to ensure the economic security of our Nation is taken into account when we 

work to secure our Nation’s borders. At the beginning of the year, the Chairman 

Thompson held a field hearing in my district of El Paso, Texas to examine the challenges facing our Nation’s land ports of entry. 

After participating in many meetings with border residents and listening to the 

testimony at the hearing, I crafted H.R. 5662, the Putting Our Resources Toward 

Security Act, or for short, the PORTS Act. The bill would increase the number of 

Customs and Border Protection Officers by 5,000 over the next 5 years. But the bill 

does not just stop there. 

It also takes into account the need for support personnel positions which are often 

overlooked, as well as increases in agricultural specialists who ensure that our Na-
8 

tion’s food supply coming from outside the United States meets the national standards. 

The PORTS Act would provide a 30 percent increase in the number of Customs 

and Border Protection Officers across the Nation. In discussions with Customs and 

Border Protection, the increase will be sufficient to fully staff all ports of entry— 

land, sea and airports. This would ensure that officers will not be pulled from one 

station in order to service another category of port experiencing insufficient staffing 

levels. 

The bill also authorizes $5 billion in funding for the General Services Administration to allow for reconstruction and repair of the Nation’s land ports of entry. 

We must look at the current state of our Nation’s ports of entry and commit to 

properly fund, in terms of staffing and infrastructure, our ports in order to provide 

security for our Nation. Being understaffed and underfunded is unacceptable. 

The current administration has focused their efforts on the areas between ports 

of entry and have shied away from providing needed resources to support efficient 

legal crossing at our Nation’s international bridges. 

Don’t get me wrong, as a former Border Patrol agent, I know firsthand the need 

for added resources and additional agents. However, I firmly believe the border 

must be seen in its totality and not focus on a single area. Every single mile of the 

Northern and Southern border needs the proper attention in order to secure our 

homeland. We need a holistic approach to border security. 

While we have been pumping millions of dollars into technology that is supposed 

to be protecting our Nation’s security between the ports of entry, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report showed during fiscal year 2006, Customs and Border Protection officers failed to stop 10 percent of illegal immigrants, drugs and 

weapons violators from entering the United States through airports and land border 

crossings. 

While I strongly believe we need a proper balance between agents on the ground, 

technology at our borders, and tactical infrastructure, we cannot forget all the agencies securing the border along with Border Patrol. The GAO report speaks to this 

exact point. Our Nation’s international bridges have been neglected, causing bridge 

wait times to swell up to 3 hours. 

Beyond the strain those wait times put on our economy and border residents, 

ports of entry which are inadequate and understaffed put our national security at 

risk. 

Thank you for allowing me to address your committee about the need for the provisions in the PORTS Act. I look forward to answering any questions you might 

have. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. We certainly are the better 

here in Congress for having someone who has direct experience 

there on many of our land borders. So we appreciate you coming 

before our committee. 

I will remind everybody that without objection the witnesses’ full 

statements will all be inserted into the record. 

I now recognize Representative Bilbray, of my home State of 

California, to summarize his statement for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate being here, 

and I appreciate being here with the authors of the bills before you. 

I guess I am here as the B team as a sponsor of each one of these 

bills. 

I come from a background of born and raised at the border. I was 

also privileged to be able to be a child of an immigrant into this 

country. But growing up on the border and spending most of my 

leisure time south of the border, I look at this issue from a different perspective than most people do—more looking up at it, 

rather than down at it. 

I think that one of the critical things we need to remember is, 

as we face the challenges of securing our borders, we need those 
9 

resources along our ports of entry. San Diego is known as a great 

port city, but it is not well-known that our southern part of San 

Diego has the largest port of entry in the world—land port of entry 

in the world—called San Ysidro. 

Watching the activities along the border my entire life, I have 

come to the conclusion that, while we need to study, as Ms. Giffords pointed out, how to be more efficient in our resources—and 

I strongly support the concept of Congressman Reyes’ bolstering of 

the resources, especially ag inspection along the border—we need 

to talk about issues like Ms. Brown-Waite and Mr. Shuler’s issue 

that if you are going to secure the border, you have got to stop the 

illegal activity that is happening at the border. 

The sheer numbers of those illegal activities—and I think just 

this week we saw the cartel and the violence that is happening 

along the border. It may surprise you, but I strongly support military aid to Mexico to address that fight that the people of Mexico 

are having to defend their sovereignty against the drug cartels, because that threat is our threat, too. 

We should work together at fighting while it is still on Mexican 

soil, before it ends up on U.S. soil. In fact, it is already done on 

San Diego soil. We have got murders and kidnaps in San Diego. 

So that aside, Madam Chair, we have got to remember, though, 

that just as we cannot stop drug trafficking at the border if we just 

try to do it all at the border, the other activities, such as illegal 

immigration, are contributing not just to the problem of immigration. 

But the fact is that terrorism and the bad guys, who want to do 

us harm and are crossing the border specifically to attack the 

American people with harm, hide among those elements that may 

want to smuggle drugs or just come here for illegal employment. 

Until we reduce the number of that—all illegal activity along the 

border—we will never be able to secure the American neighborhoods in the interior from the threat from overseas until we address that. 

That is why it becomes essential that we not only have the resources along the border, but that we also have a plan that can be 

conceived that actually addresses the source of the problem. 

Just as we have addressed the fact that we can’t stop illegal drug 

activity just at the border, and we have interior enforcement—we 

do have our local law enforcement arresting people who are illegally in possession of drugs, we do crack down on the drug dealers 

in the cities and homes in America who are actively pursuing these 

pursuits—we also need to finally do the tough thing, when it comes 

to illegal employment and illegal immigration. 

Let us be frank about it. The source of illegal immigration, No. 

1, overwhelmingly, is illegal employment. But it is so much easier 

for us politically in Washington to point fingers at the border, but 

not tell our friends, ‘‘Stop hiring these people, because they are creating the problems that we are seeing along the border.’’ 

Madam Chair, I would ask that we just take a look at the fact 

that we have a very moderate with Mr. Shuler that just says you 

use e-verification. The fact is that system has been proven over the 

years, over a decade, to work very well. 
10 

In fact, that is why Members of Congress—and short of some 

procedural small percentage of problems—if we can’t come together 

with Mr. Shuler’s bill, where you have 49 Democrats, over 100 Republicans, let us not go back to the people of America and say we 

are really willing to secure our borders and our neighborhoods, because we don’t want to work together. 

I would ask for the record that DHS’ leadership journal on the 

e-verification by Stewart Baker be included in the record specifically on this item. 

I strongly support Mr. Reyes’ upgrade of the Social Security card, 

which hasn’t been upgraded since 1937, Madam Chair. Why in the 

world has the Federal Government not upgraded its No. 1 document for employment, except for the fact that we don’t want the 

system to work on interior enforcement? 

I will close just by saying this. There were 85 people who pleaded 

guilty in Iowa this week. Seventy-seven of them are going to prison, because they used somebody else’s Social Security number. I 

would like to know what is happening to the employer. 

If we had used e-verification here, those 77 people would not be 

going to prison today. They would have been turned back and gone 

home, where they should have. That is the kind of thing we ought 

to be working together with. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. I thank my colleague from San Diego, 

and I would just remind him that the e-verification system and the 

Social Security card really aren’t under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. 

It really falls under the jurisdiction of Ways and Means. I think 

they have held a recent hearing, and I wasn’t there that day, so 

I don’t know if they went over those issues. But this committee has 

jurisdiction more to the border, not to Social Security items. 

I would now like to recognize for 5 minutes or less our representative from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much, Chairman and Ranking Member Souder and members of the committee, for allowing 

these bills to be heard. 

I am pleased to speak on behalf of my bill, H.R. 3531, and join 

my colleagues, who have taken steps to confront our Nation’s border security and immigration crisis. 

H.R. 3531, the Accountability in Enforcing Immigration Laws Act 

of 2007, would ensure America’s immigration laws are actually 

upheld. It would also serve as a critical deterrent to illegal entry, 

an invaluable border enforcement tool. 

This bill was drafted after, in this very room, I asked Secretary 

Chertoff if he had the authority to deny Homeland Security funds 

to sanctuary cities or municipalities that took steps to provide 

sanctuary to illegal immigrants. 

Such practices certainly negate any effectiveness of our immigration laws or border security measures. We cannot have local leaders refusing to assist in managing the growing law-breaking population of our Nation. 
11 

In response to my question about sanctuary cities, Secretary 

Chertoff said, ‘‘I don’t know that I have the authority to cut off 

Homeland Security funds, if I disagree with a city’s policy on immigration.’’ 

Well, many think that it is time to give him that authority. First, 

this bill clarifies that law enforcement has the inherent authority 

to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain and transfer to Federal 

authorities any illegal immigrant apprehended in the course of routine duties. 

The bill revokes 25 percent of non-emergency Homeland Security 

funding for sanctuary cities within 6 months of enactment and 

gives the secretary authority to cut up to 50 percent. 

If a city isn’t willing to uphold our laws, why should DHS provide that city with additional funding? 

Besides holding sanctuary cities accountable, this bill would also 

make illegal entry into our country a felony. 

In addition to these two fundamental measures, H.R. 3531 prescribes several other attempts to confront illegal immigration. In 

an effort to improve protection of critical infrastructure, the bill requires annual immigration checks for airport employees and other 

critical infrastructure site employees. 

As I have mentioned before in the mark up of the Chemical Facilities Bill, Americans deserve to know those who are working on 

our critical infrastructure sectors are here legally and that they are 

authorized to work and not that they have overstayed their visas, 

as did the majority of the 9/11 hijackers. 

Second, the strain of dealing with illegal aliens while waiting for 

ICE is squeezing law enforcement resources. Accordingly, my bill 

requires ICE to take illegals into custody or pay State or local governments a per diem rate to detain the aliens until the individual 

is removed. 

Finally, the encourage enforcement of immigration laws, H.R. 

3531 includes several provisions to provide financial assistance for 

an increasing cooperation with State and local law enforcement officials. 

The bill specifically authorizes the State criminal alien assist- ance program an additional $1 billion a year and authorizes a 

bonus program for State and local law enforcement agencies for assisting in enforcing immigration laws under the 287(g) program. 

It is time, clearly, to address the immigration crisis facing our 

Nation, and this proposal, such as this and Congressman Shuler’s 

SAVE Act, along with I just yesterday signed onto Representative 

Reyes’ bill for additional law enforcement along the border—it certainly is time that we really get serious about enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws. 

I look forward to discussing all these issues today and welcome 

the committee’s questions. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

[The statement of Ms. Brown-Waite follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HONORABLE GINNY BROWN-WAITE

MAY 22, 2008 

Thank you Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder, and Members of the 

subcommittee. 
12 

I am pleased to speak on my bill, H.R. 3531, and join my colleagues who have 

taken steps to confront our Nation’s border security and immigration crisis. 

H.R. 3531, the ‘‘Accountability in Enforcing Immigration Laws Act of 2007,’’ would 

ensure that America’s immigration laws are upheld. 

It would also serve as a critical deterrent to illegal entry and a valuable border 

enforcement tool. 

This bill was drafted after I asked Secretary Chertoff if he had the authority to 

deny Homeland Security funds to ‘‘sanctuary cities’’—or municipalities that took 

steps to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants. 

Like so many Americans, I am disturbed by the growing trend of cities and localities instructing law enforcement to ignore immigration status in the course of routine duties. 

Such practices negate any effectiveness of our immigration laws or border security 

measures; we cannot have local leaders refusing to assist in managing the growing 

lawbreaking population in our Nation. 

In response to my question about sanctuary cities, Secretary Chertoff said, ‘‘I 

don’t know that I have the authority to cut off all Homeland Security funds if I disagree with the city’s policy on immigration.’’ 

Well, it’s time Congress granted him authority. 

First, H.R. 3531 clarifies that law enforcement has the inherent authority to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal authorities, any illegal 

immigrant apprehended in the course of routine duties. 

The bill also revokes 25 percent of non-emergency Homeland Security funding for 

sanctuary cities within 6 months of enactment, and gives the Secretary authority 

to cut up to 50 percent. 

If a city is unwilling to uphold our laws, why should DHS provide that city with 

additional funding? 

Besides holding sanctuary cities accountable, H.R. 3531 would also make illegal 

entry into our country a felony. 

This provision acknowledges a simple truth when it comes to border security: 

there has to be a real penalty for illegal entry into the United States. 

More agents, fencing, and technology is important, but the greatest deterrent is 

the knowledge that illegal entry comes with the risk of mandatory detention and 

substantial jail time. 

In addition to these two fundamental measures, H.R. 3531 prescribes several 

other steps to confront illegal immigration. 

In an effort to improve protection of critical infrastructure, H.R. 3531 requires annual immigration status checks for airport employees and other critical infrastructure site employees. 

As I have mentioned before, in the markup of the Chemical Facilities bill, Americans deserve to know that those working in critical infrastructure sectors are here 

legally—that they are authorized to work and have not overstayed their visas, as 

did the majority of the 9/11 hijackers. 

Second, the strain of detaining illegal aliens while waiting for ICE is squeezing 

local law enforcement resources. 

Accordingly, my bill requires ICE to take illegals into custody, or pay State and 

local governments the per diem rate to detain the alien, until that individual is removed. 

I am aware that there is an expensive proposal, but if we are ever really going 

to be serious about securing the border and enforcing our laws, it is essential to 

ramp up ICE resources. 

Finally, to encourage the enforcement of immigration laws, H.R. 3531 includes 

several provisions to provide financial assistance for, and increase cooperation with, 

State and local law enforcement. 

The bill: 

• authorizes the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) at $1 billion 

per year, 

• and authorizes a bonus program for State and local law enforcement agencies 

for assistance in enforcing immigration laws under the 287(g) program. 

Combined, the many provisions of H.R. 3531 would combat sanctuary cities, deter 

illegal entry into our country, and support State and local law enforcement as they 

uphold our Nation’s immigration laws. 

It is time to address the immigration crisis facing our Nation, and with proposals 

such as H.R. 3531 and Congressman Shuler’s SAVE Act on the table, Congress has 

the ability to move forward and begin to solve the problem. 

I look forward to discussing these issues today, and welcome the committee’s 

questions. 
13 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida. As we 

know, you are a Member of this committee, so you have, I think, 

a real deep understanding of what many of the issues are, so we 

welcome you before, and your testimony. 

I now recognize Representative Giffords to summarize her statement for 5 minutes or less. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the 

committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before such a distinguished group of Members, and such a distinguished group of 

panelists as well. 

I probably represent 9,000 square miles of a southeastern Arizona border district. I have 114 miles of the 2,000 U.S.-Mexico border. My community is directly on the frontlines of America’s immigration crisis. 

You can imagine immigration is just as polarizing and emotional 

in my district as it is right here in Capitol Hill. But in southern 

Arizona, where we are on the frontlines, we want Members of Congress to roll up their sleeves, roll up our sleeves, get to work, tone 

down the hysterics, tone down the rhetoric, and fix this broken system. 

Along with most of the Arizona delegation, I support comprehensive immigration reform. 

Chairwoman, you talked about that. 

Mr. Chairman, you talked about that as well. 

It is truly the only way that we are going to solve this very complex problem. I know that the topic of today’s hearing is solely 

about border security, but I just want to lay that as a framework, 

because if we are going to really solve that problem, we need to 

focus on a comprehensive solution. 

My district is unique. My district includes the Tucson sector of 

the Border Patrol, which is the most porous part of the U.S.-Mexico 

border. In fiscal year 2007, almost 400,000 apprehensions were 

made by the Tucson sector Border Patrol. Forty-four percent of all 

the apprehensions along the border happen within my district, so 

approximately 1,000 illegal crossings every day. 

Over 950,000 pounds of the 2 million pounds of marijuana were 

seized in fiscal year 2007 in the Tucson sector of the Border Patrol. 

Illegal guns, violence from Mexican drug cartels, international 

criminals as well are making their way through my border ranches, 

through my communities, retirement homes, all through southern 

Arizona. 

There are a lot of proposals out there. I am pleased to join with 

Mr. Cuellar in H.R. 1909, because funding the criminal immigration courts is important. I am also a co-sponsor of Chairman Reyes’ 

Southwest Regional Border Authority Act, H.R. 2068, which is a 

very important piece of legislation as well. 

But I have worked with Congressman Bilbray to introduce H.R. 

5552, the Border Security Accountability Act. 

Madam Chair, you talked about the billions of dollars being put 

toward border security. But we have to ensure that the taxpayers’ 

dollars are effectively being spent. We need transparency, and we 
14 

need accountability within DHS. We need solid data on the apprehensions, detentions and the deportation process being implemented by the agency. 

In addition, I believe that Congress needs—Members need—to 

have detailed information about the success rates, including exact 

distance apprehensions that take place from the border and the release rates for those apprehensions. 

So while we continue to put millions and millions of dollars—billions of dollars—towards the border, I think we have to have a 

thorough assessment of the staffing, equipment, training and the 

policies for all of the border security functions. 

As our legislation instructs, Congress must demand meaningful 

data from DHS on the effectiveness and the costly investments. So 

I am working as well to make sure that my constituents—that our 

taxpayers—have an opportunity to evaluate the structures, the operations, and to provide input into the planning of these processes. 

If we had more input from people on the border, I don’t believe 

that the failures we have seen with the Secure Border Initiative 

would happen, where there was no confrontation with the local authorities or with the Border Patrol right there on the frontlines. 

Last December a bipartisan group of nine lawmakers from the 

House and Senate joined me as well to study the effectiveness, 

using a GAO study, of the checkpoints along the U.S.-Mexico border, because as we build more infrastructure, we have to assure 

taxpayers and residents that the infrastructure is actually working. 

I am pleased to work closely with Chief Gilbert and his staff. We 

have had a variety of meetings up and down the border. I hope in 

the question-and-answer, we can get to this, because here, for example, are the meeting and notes with my ranchers on the frontline about what really happens when you have hundreds of thousands of people moving through your community. 

So a lot is going on. Staff funding is something very unfunded. 

We should talk about that as well. 

So, just in closing, Madam Chair, southern Arizona, I think like 

most Americans, expect their elected officials to tackle not just the 

easy problems, but the tough problems. The fact that immigration 

has become polarized—it has become ugly, radioactive—is a reason 

why Congress has to move. 

It has become fashionable here on Capitol Hill to talk tough 

about immigration, but when it comes to the larger immigration 

crisis as a whole, it is shortsighted to look at an enforcement-only 

solution. 

The fact remains that all of it—the border, the visas, the deportation, the citizenship, verification, the Social Security, the green 

cards—this all is the responsibility of the Federal Government. 

We can’t just wring our hands. We have to get to work. If this 

110th Congress does not move forward on meaningful legislation 

coming out of your subcommittees, I think that this 110th Congress 

will be a failure. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Ms. Giffords. I would just remind you 

that I wish we had all those pieces of jurisdiction, but the reality 

is ours is much more limited. 
15 

I think you are correct when we talk about staffing and accountability. I believe the second panel will give some of that information. 

Two of our subcommittees just made a visit to your district recently maybe in the last 2 weeks—and I would just say, as someone whose parents are originally from your border, and I have family on both sides of that border, when I go there and I see what 

has become of your border, your area, as opposed to what it was 

like 30 or 40 years ago, people who live there really have a challenge. 

We need to do as much as we can. So I appreciate your testimony. 

We will now go to our last panelist, and that would be Representative Shuler, please, to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. Mr. Shuler. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEATH SHULER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for 

all the hard work that you—and Ranking Member Souder has 

also—and also having Chairman Thompson here. 

Mr. Thompson, it is really good to have you here in our presence. 

This year in November, I have been working, since I was first 

elected here, to do something about the problems that we had in 

my district—drug trafficking from Atlanta to Charlotte comes right 

through my district, through Knoxville, Tennessee, Interstate 40, 

26, 85. 

So we have truly had a tremendous amount of problems and 

issues with drug trafficking—the costs and expenses as it relates 

to incarceration, as it relates to education. 

It was very strong that my district really wanted to do something 

about immigration, and it was the No. 1 topic. It far exceeded the 

issues with the war in Iraq. It was the No. 1 topic that was talked 

about. It continues to be the height of a lot of the problems and 

issues that we have in our district. 

People say, ‘‘Why North Carolina?’’ Well, it is the No. 1 State for 

increase of illegal immigrants coming through our State—No. 1 in 

the United States. So we have worked several months with a lot 

of Members of the Congress, spent many hours talking to the Border Patrol, sending staff to the border to talk about the importance 

and the issues that they see—not just what happens up here in 

Washington, but actually talking to the people that are doing the 

job every day. 

So much and so often, we look at it at 10,000 feet, when we really need to talk to the individuals who are participating. When they 

are having to—the lack of space. In some of the pictures that were 

taken from the some of the Border Patrol offices, the ceiling was 

falling in. 

They were having to trade out their guns. They didn’t have their 

own equipment. The vehicles that they were using they were having to trade out. Some of them are broken down. 

So I commend this subcommittee and the committee as a whole, 

that the amount of authorization money that we hope to be able 

to get through what seems to be a fight with the administration 
16 

talk about wanting to be strong on security, when in fact this administration has allowed the influx of illegal immigrants coming to 

this country for many years now. 

So I introduced the SAVE Act. It had 44 Democrats, 46 Republicans as original co-sponsors. Now there are 243 Members of the 

Congress and 44 States represented on the bill. 

We realized that people are coming here for work and to better 

their families. I respect that people want to better lives and to better their families. That has been the American way. 

So many people who have gone through the right paths, who 

have waited their time, and gone through the path of citizenship— 

those are the people in my district who spoke out first about the 

time that they had stood in line in their country, waited in the line 

in order to become an American citizen and have the opportunity 

to come here. 

H.R. 48 increases Border Patrol agents by 8,000 Border Patrol 

agents, provides funding for new technology and infrastructure. It 

doubles the funding for the Tunnel Task Force, a special enforcement program to stop human and drug smuggling. 

It creates a blueprint. I know there has been so much money 

spent, but it is a blueprint on recruiting new agents, incentives, retention, and just to name a couple, relocation bonuses, student loan 

payoffs as some way to actually some of the better and more qualified folks to go to some of the desolate areas on our border. 

The second part, obviously, doesn’t pertain to this committee, but 

I think it is probably the most important thing. If you cut off the 

job magnet, you are going to stop the numbers of people who are 

coming here for jobs. 

E-verify would be a mandatory program. Take the liability off the 

employer. That way they don’t have to be document experts. Presently right now, one out of eight new hires in the United States— 

employees that go through that are newly hired—go through EVerify. 

Our entire staff—I don’t know if Members of Congress have gone 

through E-Verify. I have. I got clearance in less than 2 seconds. It 

took less than 3 minutes to fill out the form online. But all Federal 

employees go through E-Verify. 

For every 1,000 workers that go through, 942 instantly have 

verification by the system. Five successfully contest the dis-match, 

which basically is primarily when a woman is married, and her 

name is changed. Then the other, obviously, we have 53 who don’t 

contest. Fifty-three that do not contest, and typically where the research has found that they are here illegally. 

So we have interior enforcement. I know my time is up, but in 

my district we had two people who were here illegally for trafficking drugs. They were in Clay County, North Carolina, and they 

were arrested. They served their time. They called the ICE. The 

sheriff called the ICE agency in Charlotte and said, ‘‘I have two 

people that are here illegally, and they have been trafficking 

drugs.’’ 

They said simply, ‘‘When you get a busload, call me. We will 

come.’’ Out the door they were released. Three days later they were 

arrested again for methamphetamines in our district. 
17 

We have got problems. We have got issues. What is the cost of 

protecting our borders? 

Madam Chair, thank you for all your hard work, your dedication. 

To all my colleagues, all that they have done in trying to protect 

America and making sure our borders are secure, and to everyone 

involved, thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Shuler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HONORABLE HEATH SHULER

MAY 22, 2008 

Madam Chair, Members of the subcommittee, last November I introduced H.R. 

4088, the bipartisan SAVE Act, with 44 Democrats and 46 Republicans committed 

to stopping illegal immigration through improved border security, employment 

verification and increased interior enforcement. 

Today, 243 Members of Congress from 44 States have joined their constituents in 

calling for a debate and a vote on the SAVE Act in one form or another. 

All of us agree that illegal immigration is one of the most pressing issues facing 

America today and that we cannot continue ignoring this problem by passing it on 

to future Congresses and future Presidents. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimates that over 12 million people are currently here illegally and as many as 6,000 illegal aliens are breaching our borders 

every day. 

The vast majority of these individuals come to our country in good faith to find 

work and a better life for their families. 

The SAVE Act recognizes that America is a nation of immigrants and a nation 

of laws—Madam Chair, these are not opposing values. 

Yet while our country must have a welcome mat to those who come here legally, 

we must also consider the rules of entry, the costs illegal immigration place on local 

and State governments, and the effect on millions of American citizens who are unemployed. 

While the SAVE Act has a strong emphasis on border security and interior enforcement, the real thrust of my legislation deals with employment verification. 

Dishonest employers who seek to exploit low-skilled immigrant labor are the primary cause for the rapid increase in our illegal population. 

In most cases, the jobs they offer act as a magnet, drawing people over 20-foot 

walls and through inhumane desert conditions to find work. 

Two decades ago, our government sought to stop illegal hiring through the use 

of the Form I–9 for all new employees hired after November 1986. 

While employment verification is current law, Form I–9 compliance alone requires 

business owners to be document experts as they determine if an ID is valid—this 

places serious liability upon them if they make a mistake. 

To deal with these concerns, Congress created the Basic Pilot Program in 1996 

that is now known as E-VERIFY. 

The SAVE Act would expand this pilot program Nation-wide over a 4-year period, 

affecting 40,000 larger businesses in the first year and slowly including smaller 

businesses in the final 3 years. 

E-VERIFY is a Web-based system that electronically verifies whether or not an 

individual can legally work in the United States. 

E-VERIFY is free, easy to use, and it allows participating employers to successfully match 94 percent of new hires to DHS and SSA databases in less than 5 seconds. 

Of the remaining 6 percent that are not matched, less than 1 in 6 of those employees bother to contest the result. 

There are currently more than 65,000 employers representing 240,000 worksites 

using E-VERIFY. 

More than 1,000 employers are enrolling each week. 

The system has the capacity to process 25 million queries per year and is currently being updated and expanded. 

E-VERIFY outlines fair and proper methods of using the system in multiple languages to protect employees from discriminatory hiring practices. 

E-Verify gives employers the tools they need to follow our Nation’s immigration 

laws and to avoid the penalties that result from hiring illegal aliens. 

Madam Chair, I have the utmost confidence in this program, as does the Republican Secretary of Homeland Security and the Democratic Governor of Arizona, who 
18 

recently signed into law legislation making E-VERIFY mandatory for all employers 

in the State. 

Every Congressional staffer and employee of a Federal agency has passed through 

the E-VERIFY system over the past decade. 

E-VERIFY is required by law in varying degrees in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, 

Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and my home State of North Carolina. 

Prior to each State making this effort, several interest groups warned of impending disaster if E-VERIFY became law. 

Yet a spokeswoman for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, a group that opposed 

E-VERIFY in its State legislature last year recently said: 

• fewer problems have been reported than originally feared; 

• companies have not left the State in reaction to E-VERIFY; and, 

• employers have not reported major problems with the database. 

As of last week, DHS was unaware of one case since 1996 when a U.S. citizen 

was denied employment because of an error with the E-VERIFY system. 

It is my belief that Congress must find the necessary funds to enforce immigration laws, secure the border, protect American workers and provide for retirees and 

the disabled. 

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the SAVE Act today. 

I am pleased that your committee is taking on this vital issue with a common 

sense approach. 

I am happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Shuler. 

I thank all of the witnesses for your testimony. 

I will remind each member that he or she will have 5 minutes 

to question the panel. I now recognize myself for questions that I 

have. 

Mr. Reyes, your bill offers an increase in staffing for customs officers and improvements in infrastructure at ports of entry. I think 

these are needs that have been overlooked in almost any legislative 

piece that comes forward. 

How important is it to maintain operable infrastructure and 

proper staffing levels at our Nation’s ports of entry? 

Mr. REYES. Well, Madam Chair, I think it is critical and vital. 

We are seeing the results of not focusing on this aspect of border 

security by the long waiting lines that impact our communities and 

that impact our business and our trade and our commerce. 

I will give you an example. In El Paso, where Chairman Thompson held the field hearing, we are running consistently a vacancy 

ratio of Customs and Border Protection inspectors. Those are the 

ones that inspect vehicles coming back from Gaddes, from Mexico, 

of about 30 to 38 percent. That means three to four out of every 

10 positions are vacant. 

When we looked at the issue nationally, that is pretty consistent 

nationally. So I think it is critically important that we do the same 

thing for Customs and Border Protection at three ports that we 

have done for Customs and Border Protection in between the ports 

of entry. 

Let us not forget that a tremendous amount of our economy 

comes through those ports of entry, whether you are talking about 

the southern border or the northern border. A lot of these bills that 

I have been asked to co-sponsor seem to all focus on the southern 

border. 

From a national security perspective, we have to recognize that 

our northern border is left pretty much unprotected and untouched, 

even though it is critical for our trade and commerce as well. 
19 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I would agree with you on that northern border 

issue. We know that, for example, the millennium bomber who 

came to LAX was apprehended at the northern border, or the guy 

who had tuberculosis was coming through the northern border. We 

really haven’t had any of those issues at the southern border. 

So I think this committee is very cognizant, and we have held 

a couple of hearings up at the northern border, because they do 

need many, many resources. It is like a chain. Where the weakest 

link is is where—if I were a terrorist or I were a drug dealer, that 

is where I would pop in. So I think this committee is very cognizant of that, Mr. Reyes. 

I would like to say that—and Mr. Bilbray knows this—I am a 

Californian. I have homes and friends and family on the southern 

side of his district, and crossing that border, even though there are 

28 gates open at one time or whatever it is, sometimes can take 

you 2 or 3 hours. So I think we really do need to rethink and try 

to stock up for that. 

Mr. Shuler, beyond the staff increases that you propose for Border Patrol agents, what resources does your bill give to the customs 

officials and personnel that operate our ports of entry to ensure 

drugs and weapons of mass destruction do not enter the United 

States? 

Mr. SHULER. Well, obviously, the Tunnel Task Force—increase in 

the funding for that. Then we also, in the SAVE Act increases more 

than double the amount of northern Border Patrol agents to our 

northern border. So not only is it focused on the southern border, 

but also increases to our northern border as well. 

So the most of the focus has been on the infrastructure, the tools 

that are necessary, and a pilot program for the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Department of Defense so they can utilize some of the equipment that is not used in theater, and that 

may be retired, that can be utilized in homeland security on the 

border patrol—humvees, vehicles, drones and other uses of equipment. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. But doesn’t the Tunnel moneys—you don’t really 

have new resources or new thoughts on how to do weapons of mass 

destruction, those types of terrorist people coming across, whatever 

border it may be. 

By the way, aside from the border that we have on the north and 

the south, we have an incredible amount of coastland on both sides 

of the continental United States—Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Hawaii. We have Alaska. We have a lot of coast also to cover. 

Mr. SHULER. Yes, oh, absolutely, and I totally agree. I think 

there should be added funding. That is why, if you look at the 

funding that has been authorized from this committee, and we are 

hoping that the committee wins out and we get those budgets 

passed through, that we can have the security that we need. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Shuler. 

I see that my time is up, so I am going to defer to my ranking 

member for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. Souder of Indiana. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First I would like to 

point out for the record that all the bills that I read at the begin-
20 

ning in my opening statement from Members of this committee 

have been referred to this committee, as has Mr. Shuler’s. 

The 9/11 Commission blistered Congress—blistered Congress— 

for having too many committees and no central jurisdiction. Under 

Republicans, we didn’t get that done. Under Democrats, we didn’t 

get that done. It is important that this committee lead, and that 

we should be the first out of the box, if there are joint referrals. 

Some of these things are joint referrals. But this committee leads, 

because we are the No. 1 homeland security committee. 

I also want to share Chairman Reyes’ concern about ports of 

entry. I believe that has become the big problem, because an agent 

is having to make decisions about the commerce in America and 

how much time he takes, because we simply don’t have the resources and the infrastructure. Trucks get held up. It is on the 

north and the south border. 

It isn’t true to say that we haven’t had terrorist intercepts on the 

south border. We are intercepting on both borders, and we just had 

the U.S.-Canada Parliamentary session. 

We have one man who owns Ambassador Bridge, who quite 

frankly has been giving political contributions in both parties, that 

has held up infrastructure on the north border, and it is becoming—particularly at the Detroit area. 

This is another question. Should private companies hold the 

chokepoint and then refuse to participate when the Federal Government needs to have additional? This has to be investigated on 

what is going on in Detroit. We have had some problems up in Buffalo as well. 

I wanted to ask Congresswoman Brown-Waite. I have a problem 

in my district—not getting into whether people are getting arrested 

just for being illegal immigrants, but criminal. These have committed criminal acts. 

One hundred forty-four, as of 2 weeks ago in my biggest county, 

Allen County, have been called in and not picked up, according to 

Sheriff Fries. In Noble County, a smaller county in the north, 40 

have been called in and not picked up. These are people who have 

been arrested for other things. 

In your bill you address some of this, and what I am wondering 

is that some critics say that this puts local police in conflict with 

immigrant communities, that this is too expensive to do. How do 

you respond to that? 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I am beginning to think that you have the 

same problem that I have, and many other individuals who represent—senators and Congress have—and that is when ICE is 

called, they simply don’t show up. Or they wait until there are 

enough to show up to maybe fill a van. 

This clearly would have local law enforcement working, which— 

we can never have enough Federal officials. We need the cooperation of the local police, the sheriffs’ offices. We need to be working 

hand-in-hand. 

Many law enforcement officers want to help, but they also have 

strained budgets and want to be reimbursed. If they send their officers through the 287(g) program, obviously it is a couple of weeks 

that they are not working, but rather in training. That is a quest 

to a community. 
21 

They want to send them. My bill would actually have bonuses for 

those communities that are willing to step up and help the Federal 

Government in enforcing illegal immigration. 

I have the same problem, and not only that, but when I wrote 

the Department, because they closed the detention center in my 

area, which, of course, forced more people into the local jails, I was 

told, ‘‘Don’t worry, because we contracts with the local jails, and we 

are paying them.’’ 

The truth of the matter is the local jails had eliminated those 

contracts a long, long time ago, and I got misinformation. But I 

know my district. So I wrote back, and I challenged them. I said, 

‘‘I don’t know if you purposely lied to me, or you are just out of 

touch, or you got wrong information, but I am sorry. There are no 

contracts in my county to house illegal immigrants.’’ 

Mr. BILBRAY. Congressman, to reinforce your statement, though, 

if you go to ask the Border Patrol agents along the border, and you 

want to secure the border—and this is where it comes to Homeland 

Security—they will tell you, rather than sending us another Border 

Patrol agent we want, if it is a choice between an ICE agent in 

your neighborhood or a Border Patrol down in San Ysidro, they will 

say, ‘‘Send the ICE agent, because there is where you are addressing the problem that is not being looked at at this time.’’ 

Mr. SOUDER. One of our problems here is we need to adequately 

fund this. We need to pass the bills and adequately fund it, because 

right now even local law enforcement people who are asking for the 

training, it doesn’t do any good, if nobody picks up them up and 

there is no detention center. These are criminal aliens beyond immigration law. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Shuler’s bill increases by 1,200 the availability 

of ICE agents for your neighborhood. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I now recognize for 5 minutes the Chairman of the 

full committee, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Like 

you, I appreciate the interest of our colleagues in this matter. 

One of the issues for a lot of us here is whether or not we have 

put together a plan for border security. Every one of your bills is 

part of a border plan. 

We have tried to get the Department to come forward and 

produce a plan or strategy for border security that we can use as 

the framework to fund. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get 

such a strategy or plan from the Department. 

So what we end up with is just like what you have presented to 

us for consideration as a committee. It is your idea of how we can 

address part of the problem. They all have merit, and I applaud 

you for that. 

But the question is how can we successfully do it with a Department that first of all very rarely requests enough resources to do 

its job? Second, we give them resources to do the job. Then they 

either don’t do the job, or they do it in such a reduced manner that 

we have to carry it over to the next fiscal year. 

So my concern is if it is a matter of resources, can we provide 

the resources to a Department that is reluctant to train people? 

The record is clear that every time administration has requested 

individuals, Congress plussed-up the number to try to address it. 
22 

But when we look at who actually goes through the pipeline and 

actually gets into the field, the number is woefully inadequate. 

So I am concerned whether or not we can do it as a Department, 

even if we gave the resources. 

Mr. Reyes, could you tell the committee whether or not just giving more money to add personnel is the answer to part of what we 

are dealing with? Or what do you think, in your years of experience 

along the border, what your recommendation would be? 

Mr. REYES. Well, I don’t think money is the total answer. I hope 

in the next administration we start with a secretary of Department 

of Homeland Security that has experience or a basic understanding 

of what the challenge is. This is not a knock on any of the incumbent or the previous secretary. 

But I think you have got to have a comprehensive understanding 

of the challenge of border security and interior enforcement, as 

Congressman Bilbray mentioned. I think you have got to pay attention to working in partnership with our two neighbors, Canada on 

the northern border and Mexico on the southern border. 

I think we have got to get away from demonizing the southern 

border and ignoring the northern border. Mr. Shuler puts 80 percent of the Border Patrol agents on the southern border. 

He made a statement that he doubles the number of agents on 

the northern border. Well, doubling the number of agents, you go 

from maybe 300 to 600, or 700 to 1,400, for over 3,000 miles of 

some of the most desolate area on both borders. 

I think there is a fundamental responsibility of working in partnership between the administration and the Congress. Just giving 

money to an agency without proper oversight and accountability is 

not the answer. 

You and I, Mr. Chairman, at a meeting saw where the contractor 

that got the virtual fence funding was trying to load up the Border 

Patrol with stuff they didn’t need—overly complicated. All they 

need is a basic Chevrolet on the border, and they are being given 

a Cadillac or BMW or something else that really is not the answer. 

I think there has to be a fundamental strategy, as you have discussed many, many times, to our border security. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. Reyes, I just have a follow-up question. You and I both serve 

on the Armed Services Committee. Being part of this committee, of 

course, I am very close to my law enforcement up and down the 

State of California. 

One of the things we see is that we have a hard time finding new 

people who qualify, pass, get through the academy, even can enter 

the academy, these police academies we have. What we see is one 

department stealing from another, a lot of lateral transfers. 

What we see in the military is that we have lowered our standards in recruiting, whether it is we have some felons now in the 

military, whether it is drug addiction, whether it is broader age 

group, physical standards lowered, et cetera. 

They are also competing for the same type of person who would 

enter into the Border Patrol or my sky marshals or dozens of other 

law enforcement that we have got going around the country. 
23 

So are you seeing that also in Texas? Are you seeing that also, 

when you are looking at your intelligence work, and you are talking to law enforcement? Do you see the same thing I do, that how 

we find really new people to enter into law enforcement is one of 

the biggest problems we have versus just offering bonuses? 

What I see is the price being driven up between one local agency 

to the next, because they are offering bonuses to take people from 

one department to the other. 

Mr. REYES. That certainly is a challenge, maintaining the standards while at the same time—and I know you are going to have 

Chief Aguilar in the next panel, I believe—so I hope somebody asks 

him the question about the limitations to being able to shove X 

number of agents down the throats of any agency, because you 

have got to be careful and maintain a ratio of experience to trainee 

agents. 

These are some of the most challenging jobs in law enforcement, 

because they work independently in remote areas. But it is a recruitment issue. It is the ability of DHS putting together a task 

force that can go out to the different parts of the country and do 

the recruit for the Border Patrol, for CBP, for any effort like that. 

One solution that we are looking at and urging is to look at some 

of these wounded veterans coming out of the Iraqi and Afghanistan 

theater, who are very capable of doing support jobs that are able 

to dispatch agents and do the kinds of work that free up agents to 

actually work on the line. 

But there are solutions out there. It is not rocket science. We just 

need to get somebody that can focus and put together a strategy 

that will work. It is a huge country. This is a time where the economy is shrinking, and there ought to be plenty of people out there 

that would be interested in very good paying jobs in DHS in many 

different capacities. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. 

I now recognize my good friend from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

for leading the delegation, along with Chairwoman Jackson Lee 

and Chairman Carney, to the southwest border. Very informative, 

very productive. Thanks so much. 

I also want to congratulate Congressman Shuler for putting together a bipartisan border security bill that, in my opinion, will 

greatly improve both our frontline border defenses and interior enforcement, which I believe is a necessary prerequisite to gaining 

operational control over the borders. 

This question is for the entire panel, if they wish to answer. Do 

you believe that the failure to remove incentives for illegal immigration, such as birthright citizenship, the promise of jobs and the 

prospect for amnesty, undermine our border security efforts? 

Congressman Shuler, please. 

Mr. SHULER. I think we will continue to see an increase of 

illegals coming across the border, based upon, quite frankly, the 

three people who have been running for president of the United 

States. 

If you look at all their issues, whether it be McCain’s bill or how 

Obama or Clinton has stood on those issues, and then the lack 
24 

there of this Congress to actually promote something to actually 

have enforcement and security on our borders, I think we will continue to see an increase. 

We are at 6,000 people crossing our borders every day. I think 

it will continue to increase until we put a stop to it. I think the 

more opportunities that—the longer we wait, the more increase we 

are going to have. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Anyone else like to address that? 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I think until we get absolutely serious about 

doing something about illegal immigration, such as saying to cities 

that are sanctuary cities that they are going to have a cut in their 

DHS funding, along with taking away that attraction of the employer not verifying appropriately the status of the person applying 

for a job, those things, I think, will go a long way. 

I support Representative Shuler’s bill. I think it is a great, great 

bill. We also have a problem, because the verification system is 

about to expire in November, that is currently in this bill. So I 

know that there are some people who, like other pieces of legislation, have objections to it. Worst-case scenario, we don’t want to be 

without that verification system. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Congressman, we don’t want to continue to give tax 

deductions to employers who are hiring people illegally. Mr. 

Shuler’s bill just says, ‘‘From now on, we are not going to give you 

a tax deduction,’’ which some people have estimated to be $44 billion. 

This is the kind of thing that has got people with us not doing 

something here in Washington, while we are dedicating Watermelon Month. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Anyone want to address the issue of amnesty? 

Mr. SHULER. Madam Chairwoman, if I may—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Bilirakis, I remind you that this committee 

does not have jurisdiction with respect to—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Chairman, this bill has referred to our 

committee. We can discuss the bill. Ultimately, the legislative portion of the bill is subdivided between different committees, but this 

bill has been referred to our committee, and we can discuss the bill 

that has been referred to our committee. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. But amnesty was not discussed in this bill. 

Mr. Souder. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I will proceed with the next question. 

Congressman Bilbray, I want to thank you for your work as 

chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus and your commitment 

to stopping illegal immigration. 

Given your expertise in this area, do you believe that we can 

have an orderly and enforceable temporary worker guest program—several programs—in the absence of true border patrol and 

the ability to determine whether those entering our country are 

leaving when they are supposed to? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Sadly, no. I strongly support a true temporary 

work program, especially for ag. But the key is that you have got 

to stop illegal employment, or people are going to come here to pick 

our strawberries, take a look at the fact that drywall pays more, 

and shift over. 
25 

So it is essential that before we can put together a viable, true 

temporary work program that is not a formula for amnesty is the 

fact is that we can do it, but we have got to build on a foundation 

of true enforcement. That was part of the 1986 bill that never fulfilled its promise to the American people. 

But we can do this, and I look forward to working with both 

Democrats and Republicans, of having a program so people come 

here, work, and go home—what they want to do. We will build a 

middle class in Latin America, rather than draining their brightest 

and hardest working. 

We are able to cooperate with our neighbors to the north and the 

south, but it means we have to have employer verification. I 

strongly support Mr. Reyes’ upgrade of the Social Security card, 

which doesn’t even come up to the REAL ID standards that we set 

for States. But that has got to be the foundation, if we are going 

to make a temporary guest worker program work, Congressman. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

I know my time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. I think it is important that we establish that as a 

border committee deals with enforced borders and terrorism, that 

we are allowed to ask questions that we think impact the border, 

such as amnesty and other types of things, because clearly policy 

decisions of the United States impact our ability to control borders 

and port security. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I would say to the gentleman that we are trying 

to do as much as latitude as possible in this. However, as you 

know, this is our eleventh subcommittee hearing—— 

Mr. SOUDER. It is not appropriate for you to micromanage the 

questions of members. 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. With respect to the border. I think 

this issue of staffing, which is the focus of this hearing, is an important one. I think we agree on that. To the extent possible, I 

really don’t want to get bogged down in an amnesty discussion, 

quite frankly, in this committee, where it really doesn’t fall under 

our jurisdiction. 

I really would like to hear what the panelists have to say about 

that which we can work—I am trying to work toward a bill that 

would come out of this committee that would hopefully have some 

of these good ideas embodied in them. 

I yield to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, who, by 

the way, is a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has much 

of the jurisdiction you all are talking about. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate that. I did want to raise the point 

that the jurisdiction over the formulation of immigration laws is 

within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. We have been 

very careful on the Judiciary Committee not to wander into the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, and I appreciate your reciprocity on 

that point. 

In fact, there are very strong views on the Immigration Subcommittee. Mr. Steven King is the Ranking Member, and a member of Mr. Bilbray’s immigration caucus, so there is no need to 
26 

worry that viewpoints will not be adequately expressed in that subcommittee. 

I mention this now just because I am so eager—I obviously appreciate our colleagues being here. I don’t want to ask them a lot 

of questions. I am so eager to hear from the head of the Border Patrol, who is waiting in the audience. 

I am hoping that we can quickly get to him, because he obviously 

wants to talk to us, but he has a big job to do. We don’t want to 

keep him here all day. 

So I thank the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I recognize Ms. Harman for her 5 minutes. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. After the comment of Ms. Lofgren, I feel slightly guilty about taking a few minutes. But I do think it is important to interact with our colleagues, 

who have come well prepared to discuss border issues and are authoring important legislation and are taking questions from this 

committee. 

In my experience in seven terms in Congress, this is the first 

time I have been at a hearing where we could ask our own members questions. I applaud you for doing this. 

It showcases the fact that we have a lot of competence in Congress—sometimes that is overlooked—and that on a bipartisan 

basis, people care intensely about tough issues like this. So I applaud you for the format of this hearing. 

Let me agree with Chairman Thompson’s opening remarks. He 

says one size does not fit all. We need a comprehensive approach. 

It is certainly true that this committee does not have jurisdiction 

over a comprehensive approach, but I happen to support that, and 

I support the legislation that Ms. Lofgren has been pursuing in the 

Judiciary Committee. 

I would hope that the Judiciary Committee might have a panel 

of our colleagues, who would address some of the issues that members want answers to. Our colleagues should be active in this kind 

of format. I think it is good for Congress to do this. 

Let me make a couple of other points. As the daughter of immigrants whose parents were the first in their families to go to college, I surely understand, as I think most Members do, the value 

of immigration to our country. 

The point is to encourage immigration that is lawful. We want 

a diverse country. We benefit from it. Some of the Members on the 

committee and some of the members on the panel are immigrants 

or the children of immigrants themselves, and we value them as 

Members of Congress. 

So let us not lose sight of this. Let us not demagogue this issue. 

Let us solve some of the problems around immigration. We need 

to remind ourselves of that, because I think the message all of us 

want to send is that we welcome diversity in this country, and 

America is a land of immigrants. I hadn’t heard that mentioned 

this morning. 

Let me also say, as many members have said, that this is not 

just a southern border problem, and it is not just a northern border 

problem. It is a coastal border problem, too. 

As one who represents a coastal border in California, I know that 

the absence of adequate customs officers, for example, is creating 
27 

huge backlogs when people from foreign countries arrive at LAX, 

the international airport which my district surrounds. 

LAX has twice been an intended target of attacks by Al-Qaeda, 

and it surely is not a good thing to have huge lines of people trying 

to get through customs into the airport into Los Angeles, or to have 

aircraft on the airfield waiting to unload passengers. This is just 

an invitation for disaster. 

So I strongly support what Congressman Reyes is trying to do, 

which is to get more resources so that problems like this can be addressed. 

Let me say further, though, that when we think about this, we 

need a strategy. It is not just that everyone trying to cross the border illegally is an equal problem. 

I suggest we need a strategy, and this is my one question I want 

to ask, that prioritizes who we are looking for, that prioritizes people who are potential terrorists, people who are drug traffickers 

and are otherwise abusing other people. 

No one has mentioned that issue, and I would just like to ask 

the panel whether you agree that there is a strategy we have to 

apply here in making certain that we make our resources and our 

efforts as effective as possible along our borders. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Congresswoman, I think anybody who has worked 

at the border will understand. When somebody is crossing the border illegally, there is no way of really being able to differentiate 

those who are coming here just for illegal employment or those who 

are here just carrying a satchel full of drugs, which is a major 

problem—the cartels use illegals as their mules. 

Or that satchel may not be of drugs. It may be some kind of 

weapon of mass destruction—that ability to separate these, that a 

tunnel that is dug for illegal immigration is also used for drug 

smuggling and can be used for terrorism, so the problem—I understand your thread and the challenge—but it is tough at the border 

to separate those. 

Mr. REYES. If I can add, there should be a national strategy of 

border management. You cannot hope to seal the border, whether 

it is coastal, whether it is north or south. 

From my experience, if we can manage the border at 85 percent 

success, I think we are able to do exactly what your question asks, 

and that is better prioritize those that would be coming in here to 

do us harm or bringing in something, whether it is narcotics, WMD 

or anything else, that ultimately would be harmful to our country. 

That is why we have to cry out for a national strategy that gets 

us there, both in between the ports of entry and the ports of entry, 

the airports and the embassy ports, and, of course, the interior. 

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chair, my time has expired, and I don’t 

want to abuse the time of others. 

If anyone has an urgent comment, I would ask your—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Ms. Giffords for a few minutes. We are expecting 

a vote on the floor, so I am trying to get everybody in, hopefully, 

so that by the time we return from the floor, we can get to the second panel. 

So, Ms. Giffords, but if you would be quick. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Chair, Congresswoman Harman, briefly 

as I stated earlier, over 380,000 people were apprehended in the 
28 

Tucson sector of the Border Patrol in 1 year. From October 1 to 

about a month ago, we were at over 180,000 people. The vast majority—80 percent-plus—are coming here to work to feed their families. 

If we can take care of the visa situation to pull those people off 

from crossing through the deserts, through the tractor-trailers, the 

semis, it is going to be a huge dent into this problem. 

To figure out that guest worker program, get those people to 

work legally and safely and return back to their home country, it 

would free up the Border Patrol, free up Customs to do the work 

that they are really supposed to be doing. Thank you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I will now recognize for 5 minutes for questioning, 

Mr. Reichert of Washington State. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I appreciate all of you being here. I am anxious to ask some 

questions. I want to make a couple of quick comments. 

First, I hope—anyway, most of you know my previous life here 

before coming here was as a sheriff in Seattle, 33 years in law enforcement. I know the frustrations and the heartaches and the 

headaches of trying to recruit people. I agree with Mr. Reyes there 

needs to be a strong recruitment in place to attract great candidates. 

Sheriffs and police chiefs across the country are competing for 

the same pool as our men and women who serve in our armed 

forces. We don’t lower our standards to hire drug addicts and criminals into our sheriff’s office, and I don’t know of others that do 

that, and I am sure that the Border Patrol does not do that. 

The heart of a servant, really, is what we are looking for when 

we hire people into law enforcement fields—people who want to 

serve our country and know the dangers that they place themselves 

in, when they serve our country’s police departments and law enforcement agencies across this Nation. 

I salute the chief here, who is present today. 

Mr. Reyes, for your past service also, and thank you so much. 

I want to focus a little bit on the—also, I just want to make a 

quick comment, too. You are exactly right on the borders. We can 

manage them, but we are never going to seal them off. 

It is like preventing a burglar from getting into your house. We 

can do all we can to come and assess and give you advice on how 

you might want to secure you home, but guess what? If the crook 

wants in, the crook is going to get in. 

So we can only do the best that we can and know that some people are going to violate the law. 

I heard some concerns, Mr. Shuler, from employers that this 

SAVE Act will create some concerns around litigation against employers. Would you agree that the inclusion of a good liability protection language for employers, who are required to use government systems, should be a part of any electronic verification system? 

Mr. SHULER. Absolutely. That is why when we wrote the bill up, 

similarly the people that we talked to—the employers—had a very 

difficult time distinguishing between the documentation that they 

received and almost being document experts. If they received, and 
29 

they thought the information was correct, they could still have that 

liability placed upon them, if they hired someone illegally. 

So going through E-Verify totally takes the liability off the employer. Once they use the E-Verify program, they go through, and 

they get the match correctly, it is a printed out piece of paper. Or 

it is actually mailed in or sent in from E-Verify that they have a 

hard copy, so if they are then checked to see if that person is here 

legally—and the error rate is 0.5 percent error rate on E-Verify— 

so it does take out the liability concerns from the employer’s standpoint. 

Mr. REICHERT. Would you agree, too, if employers can’t verify, 

would that not then encourage people to continue to cross the border? 

Mr. SHULER. Absolutely. 

Mr. REICHERT. Would that not create more illegal immigrants in 

the United States? Would not that be some sort of form of amnesty 

and create a huge problem for the chief, as far as resources and 

managing those people then? 

Mr. SHULER. Absolutely. I think that, as so many people have indicated, 80 percent—and I think it is more than 80 percent—of the 

people here are coming for work. So we have to cut up the job magnet. If we cut the job magnet up—we are talking about how to secure the borders and all this—we have to start with the jobs first. 

So if you are having to deal with only 10 percent of the people 

coming across the border because of coming here for jobs, then we 

don’t have to spend the millions and billions of dollars that we are 

spending, and we may not have to spend the amount of time and 

resources to be able to hire the people that are protecting our—— 

Mr. REICHERT. So the E-Verify system, then, really is trying to 

address the amnesty issue, right? 

Mr. SHULER. Yes, it sure is. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, can I jump in for a second? 

I come from Arizona, the State that now requires 100 percent 

participation for E-Verify. We had a hearing last week in the Ways 

and Means Committee, where we had employers coming out from 

Arizona. We had a lot of testimony on that. 

This is not the place to get into it, but there are some real issues 

with E-Verify in the State of Arizona, when people are actually required to do it. So I want to make sure that you look at that testimony before—— 

Mr. REICHERT. One last question real quick here. My time is flying by, too. How can DHS ensure that employers will not illegally 

pre-screen workers? That has been a concern, too, that has been 

presented. 

Mr. SHULER. Well, because E-Verify under the mandate would 

actually be not used as a tool of hiring someone. After a person 

hired, then they go through the E-Verify system. At that point in 

time, they receive a match. If they do not receive a confirmation 

of a match, then they continue to still be employed, and over the 

time period, they actually request—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The gentleman’s time is up. 

Mr. REICHERT. Okay. 

Mr. SHULER. Doesn’t pertain to the committee. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Cuellar? No. 
30 

Mr. Rogers? No. 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I will try not to 

use 5 minutes. I just know that I appreciate every one of these 

Members being here. Clearly, they care very much about our country, have worked hard to put together what might be part of an answer. 

As was mentioned by our colleague from Washington, there are 

some problems. It is impossible, as he has noted, to seal off completely the entire borders of the United States. That includes both 

sea coasts, a very long land border with Canada, as well as the 

southern border. 

So I think it is important, as we discuss the subject that is important to the country, that we not lead the country to believe that 

anybody in any party could accomplish the impossible. What we 

need to do is have a management system that works much better 

than it does. 

I want to especially raise two issues, maybe three. First is the 

matter of priorities. 

I listened to you, Congressman Shuler, and we have talked about 

this before—the frustration that your citizens have, that you have 

got a meth dealer in the jail, and when we have a discussion about 

whether the busboy should be deported, nobody is arguing that the 

meth dealer should be deported. You can’t get ICE to pick them up. 

In the appropriations bill this year, the bill in December, we put 

together guidance for ICE, suggesting that there are priorities. We 

don’t have limitless resources, so the top priority for ICE ought to 

be going to the jails and picking up the people who have been convicted of serious crimes and booting those guys out. 

I think that is an area where we all agree, and yet we can’t make 

them do that, because the easy hit for them is to go round up some 

nursing mothers in a field. It is numbers, but we have still got the 

meth dealers sitting in your jail and maybe being released. 

We have already put the priority in the order in. I don’t know 

that it is a legislative problem. It is an administrative problem in 

that they are not doing the smart thing, and they are also not following the instructions of Congress. 

I want to talk about computer systems, and maybe I can ask Mr. 

Reyes. 

The 9/11 hijackers, for the most part, were not admissible to the 

United States when they came and presented themselves for entry. 

They were not admissible, except that the officer who interviewed 

them didn’t know that and could not know it, because the evidence 

of their inadmissibility was on a piece of microfiche in a bucket in 

Georgia, waiting to be input into a computer system. 

So I have been after both ICE and USCIS to upgrade. In your 

judgment, do any of these bills, or any of the efforts we have made, 

really move that effort forward? You are an expert in this, Mr. 

Reyes. 

Mr. REYES. Again, you have to go back to making sure we have 

got the leadership at DHS that fundamentally does two things: 

first, recognizes or assesses where we are, and second, where Con-
31 

gress wants them to be, and then is able to articulate if you want 

to be at Point X, this is what we are going to have to have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is a competence issue, really. 

Mr. REYES. I get so frustrated—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. So do I. 

Mr. REYES [continuing]. By so many experts that—you know, 

this is not rocket science. It just takes people that understand the 

system, understand the challenges, and are willing to put together 

a strategy. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I wanted to follow up just briefly the comment you 

made on hiring returning warriors, some who have now disabilities, 

but it doesn’t mean that they couldn’t monitor computer efforts and 

do the like. 

A big impediment I have heard—and you know better than me— 

to hiring in the Border Patrols, oftentimes these are remote locations. This is a hard job. Even if you are not out in the field with 

the harsh conditions, it involves relocating to a border community 

away from family and the like. 

We have call centers in Iowa for tech companies in California. 

There is no reason why you couldn’t have whole units to do the remote computer stuff. Would you suggest that we move in that direction, based on your experience, to just take some off the load off 

of the recruitment drag? 

Mr. REYES. You and I have discussed many times there is no excuse for the long waiting list of people that are trying to naturalize 

to become citizens. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. REYES. CIS has to do a better job. That is a perfect example 

of where wounded warriors would fit in perfectly, because they 

would be in the major cities. They would be in major processing 

centers that would require computer skills that can be taught to 

wounded warriors and would facilitate those huge backlogs. 

It is not a priority. It is not part of the strategy. It is part of 

what feeds the frustration against DHS. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired, even though I didn’t mean 

to use it all, Madam Chair. Thank you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. You are welcome, Ms. Lofgren. 

I now recognize Mr. Green for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I thank the Ranking Member as well. 

I thank my colleagues. 

I must confess that I am impressed with the depth and breadth 

of knowledge that has been shared with us today. 

I do have a caveat that I would like to share, and it is that we 

must be exceedingly careful, assuming that we do 100 percent of 

what we desire to do, we must be exceedingly careful—exceedingly 

so—such that we do not create a false sense of security, a false 

sense of security. 

We have to make sure that we don’t create in the minds of the 

public that this fence is going to secure this country. We have to 

understand that the southern border is really the Virgin Islands. 

We have to understand that the northern border poses challenges 

that we are not addressing. 
32 

We cannot create a false sense of security, as we construct or 

think along the southern border, the border with the United States 

and Mexico. 

I am concerned about the lack of a plan that addresses all of the 

issues associated with border security, as opposed to some of the 

issues associated with border security. I think that when we take 

a piecemeal approach, we will get a piecemeal result. 

Piecemeal results can have unintended consequences. An overall 

plan can address the consequences that we may not be considering. 

If we seal the border between the United States and Mexico— 

that we have some control over it, greater control—we have to ask 

ourselves how will this impact other points of entry into this country and be prepared to deal with the impact that it will have on 

other points of entry into the country. 

If we don’t prepare ourselves for those other points of entry into 

the country, we will find ourselves again trying to respond, as opposed to having acted timely. I would invite colleagues to respond 

tersely, if you would, to what I have stated. 

I see one colleague is ready, so I will yield to you, sir. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Congressman, I, for one, am going down to Mexico 

the first week of June. If there is something I can tell you about 

if you are waiting for the perfect answer, I worked on border pollution problems. Everybody kept saying, ‘‘But it won’t solve the whole 

problem to do this.’’ 

We have been able to make great leaps in the last 20 years of 

working on pollution and environmental problems at the border by 

doing what we can where we can when we can, and not finding excuses to walk around or to avoid addressing issues where you can. 

I am going south next month for a big reason. The border is so 

violent now, Congressman, people are being killed on both sides of 

the border. Law enforcement officers in Mexico are being slaughtered. There are gunfights going on. 

The degree of urgency in Washington, DC, both Republican and 

Democrats—and I will tell you, I am taking on my Republican colleagues about the fact that I hope they care enough about helping 

Mexico fight this problem and secure their border—— 

Mr. GREEN. Reclaiming my time, because I only have 34 seconds 

left, I concur with everything that you have said. But it does not 

cause me to conclude that we must not convey a message that this 

is going to secure the United States of America—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. We need to—— 

Ms. GIFFORDS [continuing]. And that, that—listen now; I am reclaiming my time—that is what you have to concern yourself with, 

too. We are talking about securing the United States of America. 

We are not talking about just the border between the United States 

and Mexico, and we don’t want to create a false of security in so 

doing. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank 

you for organizing this hearing. 

It certainly speaks to your commitment, as does it speak to the 

commitment of the Members who are testifying here today about 
33 

the importance they place on immigration reform and also 

strengthening our security, which will obviously have to be a part 

of any immigration reform bill. 

So thank you all for the work that you are doing. 

I have a couple of questions for Chairman Reyes and also for 

Representative Shuler. 

Chairman, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I know 

how hard you work every day, day in and day out, to make sure 

that we strengthen the national security of the United States. I am 

proud to serve with you on the Intelligence Committee. 

With respect to ports of entry, our ports of entry are grossly 

understaffed, which leads to longer wait times at our borders and 

affects the ability of our CBP officers to effectively carry out their 

border security mission. The ports actually require CBP to hire at 

least 5,000 CBP officers and 1,200 agriculture specialists over the 

next 5 years. 

What type of CBP staffing shortages have you seen at the El 

Paso ports of entry? What have been the consequences of understaffing at the El Paso ports of entry? How did you determine the 

staffing numbers required by the bill? 

Additionally, as a former Border Patrol sector chief, you are 

clearly in a very unique position to share with us your first-hand 

experience in securing America’s borders. 

Looking at the different border security programs that the administration has proposed and are involved with, and proposals in 

Congress, what should the next administration’s first priority be to 

get the border security right, such as E-Verify, sensing, virtual 

fencing, or worksite enforcement—if you could talk to those two? 

For Representative Shuler, in my role on the House Intelligence 

Committee, as well as the chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee on this committee, I spend a lot of time being concerned 

about terrorists smuggling in a nuclear device or weapons-grade 

nuclear material or radiological material. 

According to a recent GAO investigation that determined a crossborder violator would likely be able to bring radioactive materials 

or other contraband undetected into the United States by crossing 

the U.S.-Canada border, what I wanted to ask you is does the 

SAVE Act address any of the vulnerabilities that our Nation faces 

along the northern border? 

Do you agree that the northern border is equally susceptible to 

entry by terrorists and others wishing to do us harm? 

I know the time is short, so if I could start with Chairman Reyes, 

and then we will go to Representative Shuler. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you very much. I will answer your three questions quickly. 

First of all, in El Paso, as I commented earlier, there exists a vacancy ratio of between 30 and 38 percent, which leads to longer 

waiting times, morale problems and detrimental to the trade and 

commerce that has to come through those ports of entry. 

Second, the 5,000 figure of additional CBP officers and 1,200 agricultural specialists and 350 support positions were included in 

the first legislation as a result of about 9 months’ worth of work 

and consultation with DHS and my former colleagues to improve 

not just staffing, but the infrastructure system—and I might also 
34 

* The bill is publicly available and has been retained in committee files. 

add consultation with GSA, who has the responsibility for that infrastructure. 

Third, as to what should the next administration do? I think priority No. 1 in security, in terms of homeland security, is make sure 

that a DHS secretary has a clear understanding, and preferably experience, in the issues facing our country in homeland security and 

has to come up with a national strategy that addresses all of these 

issues that your committee has been working on and that we have 

all collectively been expressing our concerns about. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Chairman. 

Representative Shuler. 

Mr. SHULER. The SAVE Act, H.R. 4088, will increase northern 

Border Patrol agents from 800 to 2,000. 

But I think the most important thing to recognize is through the 

new technologies, and the funding through new technologies—the 

drones, the satellite surveillance because of the vast distance of our 

northern border, that distance—that is obviously be very, very porous, because we won’t have enough manpower. 

The reason why most of the Border Patrol agents increase has 

been to our southern border is because of the numbers of trafficking that is coming across our southern border. 

So, obviously, I think we all recognize the importance of being 

able to protect both our northern and our southern border. The 

SAVE Act was actually endorsed by the Northern Border Caucus, 

and Mr. Stupak as well. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I now recognize Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes. 

I will remind everybody that we have votes on the floor—three 

of them. We will take Ms. Jackson Lee’s 5 minutes, dismiss this 

panel, go and vote, and return thereafter from recess with the second panel. 

Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chairwoman, let me thank you very 

much. 

Let me thank the witnesses very much for their insight and interest in this very important issue. 

I would like to include in the record bill H.R. 4044, called the 

Rapid Response Border Protection Act of 2005. It is a bill that is 

being updated. I ask unanimous consent to submit that into the 

record. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Without objection.* 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Chairman Reyes, it was one that we joined together on, and let 

me thank you for the leadership on your legislation. 

But let me suggest that we took, for example, the large majority 

of the Members’ bills, and I will ask pointed questions, and then 

added a component that dealt with—outside the jurisdiction of this 

committee, but just say that we handled the security, but then 

handled the benefits. 
35 

Would that, from a Border Patrol officer’s perspective, be an effective tool in which to really handle some of the crisis issues at 

the border, which is human trafficking and narcotics? 

Mr. REYES. As it relates to your legislation that we discussed? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If we took some of the legislation that is being 

presented to us today that deal with security, but then added the 

benefits part, which is not in the jurisdiction of this committee, but 

gave access to legalization from a Border Patrol agent, since you 

have experience of being at the border, would that be an effective 

approach in security and another component? 

Mr. REYES. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So as a law officer, you are telling us that, for 

example, the barrier that is now at the Tucson border that we visited—I understand it cost $4.5 million per mile, and we have 7.5 

miles—that that barrier focus on, even if we passed your legislation 

that provides us a reinforcement at our ports of entry—very important; I have been through a good number of them—we still need 

another component. Is that accurate? 

Mr. REYES. Absolutely. I agree with the comments that Congressman Bilbray has made in terms of a comprehensive approach with 

interior enforcement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. How poorly staffed do you believe our ports 

of entry are? How much of a crisis do we face in not moving forward on your legislation dealing with infrastructure? 

Mr. REYES. Well, the lack of staffing is affecting efficiency and 

morale and our ability to promote trade and commerce through the 

ports of entry. On a national average, it is between 30 and 38 percent vacancy. 

Congresswoman Brown-Waite, I, too, would like to pose the question. You have a very stiff initiative, because I believe that what 

you might wind up doing is making 6-year-olds felons, teenagers 

felons. I understand the impact or the thought behind it. 

My question to you would be: Would you welcome a modification 

of your legislation, if it parallels—again, outside of our jurisdiction, 

because what you are talking about, you have a component in there 

that talks about individuals inside the country that relate to ICE 

internal enforcement. 

Would you be willing to have a component of a process of documentation for those who are here, and then the enactment of your 

bill thereafter? Or would your bill move immediately now, which 

means that teenagers who are in high school, who have been here 

all of their life, could be established as felons? 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Representative, I believe what you are talking about is amnesty for those who are here. Am I correct? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. What I am talking about is a pathway to 

legalization. But we can get into the—you might be opposed to amnesty. I just want to answer the specific question. I am not labeling 

it and wouldn’t want you to commit to that. 

But would you look to a process of legalization, and then to look 

to your legislation, which says anyone that didn’t get in line certainly is here unstatused and could be held as a felon? 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I would have to look at the language of it. I 

honestly cannot commit now. I would have to look at the language, 

because I can tell you that in not just my district, but so many dis-
36 

tricts, what they want is they want to make sure that illegal 

aliens—and as you know, right now it is not a felony, but rather 

a misdemeanor—they want to make sure that the law is tough. So 

I would have to look at the language. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I have never committed to anything without 

reading the language. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I appreciate it. 

Madam Chair, let me just end by thanking the Members and 

simply saying that border security, as you have offered today, is 

crucial, but we frankly cannot exist with a situation of making 

hard-working taxpaying individuals felons. So securing the border 

is crucial, but we must have another component of comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

I yield back. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee—also, obviously, a 

Member of the Judiciary Committee, because she has a lot of 

knowledge with respect to some of the issues which really don’t 

touch our committee. 

I would like to at this time dismiss the panel. Thank you for your 

testimony and for your answers to our questions. If there are more 

questions from our Members, or Members who weren’t able to, that 

will be submitted in writing. 

The committee stands in recess until about 15 minutes after the 

last vote. 

For those on the second panel, that would be about 30 minutes 

from now. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The committee is back in session, and I welcome 

the second panel of our witnesses. 

Our first witness, Mr. Thomas Winkowski, was appointed assistant commissioner, Office of Field Operations, at U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection in August 2007. In that capacity he directs the 

activities of 24,000 employees and oversees programs and operations at field offices, ports of entry, container security initiative 

ports and pre-clearance stations. 

Our second witness is Mr. David Aguilar, who became chief of 

the U.S. Border Patrol on July 1, 2004. Before his appointment, he 

was the chief patrol agent of Border Patrol’s Tucson sector. Chief 

Aguilar began his Border Patrol service in June, 1978 in Laredo, 

Texas. 

Our final witness, Major General Michael C. Kostelnik, USAF retired, is assistant commissioner of the Office of CBP Air and Marine. In that capacity he is responsible for approximately 550 pilots, 270 aircraft and 200 vessels. Before coming to CBP, the general served on active duty with the U.S. Air Force for 32 years. 

So without objection, we will put the full statements into the 

record. I am told that the three of you are going to sort of do a tag 

team here. 

We will start with Mr. Winkowski, please. 
37 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS S. WINKOWSKI, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman, 

Ranking Member Souder and other members of the committee. 

I am pleased to be here today with Chief David Aguilar and General Michael Kostelnik, representing the operation offices of U.S. 

Customs and Border protection. I am Tom Winkowski, and I am 

the assistant commissioner for the Office of Field Operations. 

CBP employees are highly trained and professional personnel, resources and law enforcement authorities to discharge our mission 

of enforcing the laws of the United States at our borders. This important work is primarily done at official ports of entry, where 

legal goods and people are admitted into the United States, and at 

the land borders between those ports of entry. 

We are responsible for protecting more than 5,000 miles of border with Canada, 1,900 miles of border with Mexico, and operating 

326 points of entry. We station nearly 19,000 officers at air, land 

and sea ports, and throughout the world. 

We deploy over 16,000 Border Patrol agents between ports of 

entry to prevent illegal entry. These forces are supplemented with 

air and marine officers, agriculture specialists and other professionals. 

On a typical day in fiscal year 2007, Customs and Border Protection processed over 1.1 million passengers and pedestrians, 70,000 

trucks, rail and sea containers, 251,000 incoming international air 

passengers, 304,000 incoming privately owned vehicles, and assessed over $88 million in fees, duties and tariffs. 

At the same time, we seized nearly 7,400 pounds of narcotics, 

made 70 arrests at the ports of entry, and 2,400 apprehensions between the ports of entry, and seized nearly 4,300 prohibited meat 

and plant materials. 

We deploy over 1,200 canine teams, 10,000 vehicles, 267 aircraft 

and 175 watercraft. 

In my capacity as the assistant commissioner for the Office of 

Field Operations, I represent the nearly 22,000 uniformed CBP officers, agriculture specialists and import specialists who work at our 

Nation’s 326 ports of entry. 

In fiscal year 2007, Field Operations processed more than 414 

million pedestrians and passengers, 124 million conveyance, 30 

million trade entries, and examined 5.6 million sea, rail and truck 

containers. 

I know this committee is very familiar with our layered approach, and for the sake of time, I will be more than happy to answer questions about it, but I am going to skip that part. 

But we are very happy to be here. We feel that this issue in securing our borders is extremely important, and we are looking forward to testifying today. Thank you. 

[The joint statement of Mr. Winkowski, Mr. Aguilar, and Major 

General Kostelnik follows:] 
38 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS WINKOWSKI, DAVID V. AGUILAR, AND

MICHAEL C. KOSTELNIK

MAY 22, 2008 

Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder, Members of the subcommittee, it 

is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss the work of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), specifically the tremendous dedication of our 

men and women in the field both at and between our ports of entry. 

We want to begin by expressing our gratitude to the subcommittee for the strong 

support you have shown CBP. Your support has enabled CBP to make significant 

progress in securing our borders and protecting our Nation against terrorist threats. 

Our testimony today focuses on border enforcement, and how the men and women 

on the front lines accomplish the goal of achieving control of our borders between 

the official ports of entry. We will also discuss our efforts to facilitate legitimate 

travel at our ports of entry. By way of background, CBP employs highly trained and 

professional personnel, resources, and law enforcement authorities to discharge our 

mission of enforcing the laws of the United States at our borders. This important 

work is primarily done at official ports of entry where legal goods and people are 

admitted into the United States and at the land borders between those ports of 

entry. CBP is the largest uniformed law enforcement agency in the country. We station over 19,000 officers at access points around the Nation—air, land, and sea 

ports—and around the world. We deploy over 16,000 Border Patrol agents between 

ports of entry to prevent illegal entry. These forces are supplemented with Air and 

Marine officers, agricultural specialists and other professionals. 

As we work toward gaining control of our borders, we must also continue to perform our traditional missions, which include stemming the flow of illegal drugs and 

contraband, protecting our agricultural and economic interests from harmful pests 

and diseases, protecting American businesses from theft of their intellectual property, violations of textile agreements, import safety violations, the economy from 

monopolistic practices, regulating and facilitating international trade, assessing and 

collecting import duties, and enforcing United States trade laws. In fiscal year 2007, 

CBP processed more than 417 million pedestrians and passengers, 124 million conveyances, and 30 million trade entries, examined 5.7 million sea, rail, and truck containers, intercepted 877,000 illegal aliens between our ports of entry, seized more 

than 3 million pounds of narcotics and collected over $33 billion in revenue. 

BORDER SECURITY BETWEEN THE PORTS OF ENTRY

On Wednesday, May 28, 2008, the U.S. Border Patrol will celebrate its eightyfourth anniversary. Initially the Border Patrol was within the Bureau of Immigration of the Department of Labor, then with the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service within the Department of Justice. With the creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security in 2003 the Border Patrol moved under U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Throughout our history, the Border Patrol Inspectors of the past and 

the Border Patrol Agents of today have served this Nation with honor and integrity. 

From an initial force of only a few Patrol Inspectors in El Paso, Texas, the Border 

Patrol has grown to over 16,000 Border Patrol Agents, stationed throughout this 

Nation’s southern, northern, and coastal borders. Our agents today perform this 

mission as they did in the past; on foot, in automobiles, by horse, and in watercraft. 

Over the decades we have incorporated new methods, learned different techniques, 

and created an evolution with the overarching mission focus on border security. 

A national strategy to establish and maintain effective control of our Nation’s borders has been brought to fruition. This strategy consists of five objectives: (1) Establish a substantial probability of apprehending terrorists attempting to illegally enter 

between ports of entry; (2) Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement; (3) 

Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs and other contraband; (4) 

Leverage ‘‘Smart Border’’ technology to multiply the effect of enforcement personnel; 

and (5) Reduce crime in border communities and consequently improve quality of 

life and economic vitality of targeted areas. The national strategy requires increasing our national security by augmenting enforcement resources along the northern 

and southern border. The proper balance in the deployment of personnel, equipment, intelligence, support, technology, and infrastructure is critical. Reducing our 

vulnerability to the entry of terrorists, illegal aliens and drugs by increasing personnel and resources, is the key to the successful implementation of this strategy. 

The Border Patrol is charged with the protection of the border between established Ports of Entry and is guided by our national Strategy, which seeks nothing 

less than operational control of the border. With the proper mix of personnel, equipment, intelligence, support, technology, and infrastructure, the Border Patrol is 
39 

dedicated to achieving this goal. In the past, agents had to rely on skills, such as 

sign cutting, to track people who had surreptitiously and illegally entered the 

United States. Over time the Border Patrol agents honed their skills and while the 

Patrol added new methodologies to aid them in their charge. Support from Air and 

Marine assets and personnel have been and continue to be essential to our mission. 

The Border Patrol then developed and adopted new technologies such as infrared 

cameras, remote video surveillance, and unattended ground sensors which further 

aided us in our mission. In today’s 21st century world, the Border Patrol has sought 

to further utilize technology to assist in border security. 

The SBI Tactical Infrastructure program is constructing a total of 370 miles of 

pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle fencing along the southwest border sectors by the end of calendar year 2008. This provides physical infrastructure to areas 

along the border where such infrastructure can be most effective. As of May 16, 

2008, 181 miles of pedestrian fencing have been built and 145 miles of vehicle fencing are now in place. 

We know these efforts to secure our borders are showing effectiveness. Apprehensions on the southwest border are down approximately 20 percent from the previous 

year. One important, if troubling, measure is the current trend in border violence. 

As we make progress in stemming the flow of illegal aliens, drugs and contraband, 

those who traffic in this illegal activity are becoming more aggressive in their efforts. Border Patrol has experienced a consistent increase in violence against agents. 

Fiscal Year 2007 saw the number of incidents of violence increase to the highest 

levels recorded since 2001. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2008, 300 assaults were 

perpetrated against Border Patrol agents, accounting for a 44 percent increase in 

violence over the same period in fiscal year 2007. We are extremely concerned about 

this persistently high level of attacks. 

While much of our initial focus is on the southwest border, DHS and CBP have 

taken many steps to improve security on the northern border. Additional Border Patrol agents have been deployed from the southwest border to the northern border, 

with 1,500 expected by September 2009 and more than 2,000 agents by 2010. Prior 

to September 11, 2001, the northern border was staffed with only 340 Border Patrol 

agents. We conduct joint operations with the Joint Task Force—North (JTF–N), continue pilot maritime technology projects incorporating ground-based radar and proof 

of concept multi-sensor systems, and seek increased liaisons with our Canadian 

partners through Project North Star and the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams 

(IBET). In addition, CBP is expanding Air and Marine operations on the northern 

border, including the deployment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) such as the 

Predator. 

To address known as well as potential threats at the northern border, we are creating a stronger, more proactive presence at and between ports of entry. Eight Border Patrol sectors encompassing 12 States stretch more than 4,000 miles from the 

Pacific, across the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, and the Great Lakes, to the Atlantic. To best support our efforts, CBP Air and Marine has developed a plan to increase security along the northern border through the accelerated startup of operations at five locations. By late summer of 2008, Air and Marine will have established the following five air wings on the northern border: Bellingham, Washington; 

Plattsburgh, New York; Great Falls, Montana; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Detroit, Michigan. Northern border locations were selected to provide an interdiction/ 

law enforcement response within 1 hour flight time. In addition, the North Dakota 

Air Branch in Grand Forks was chosen to provide a strategic, centrally located air 

branch at the northern border that will have an expanded role, and is currently 

under review to certify its operational readiness for Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(UAS) operations. 

With the advent of SBInet and the P–28 proof of concept, the Border Patrol took 

a significant leap forward in accomplishing its mission by integrating proven methods with technology and infrastructure. The same tracking methods from the past, 

the technological deployments over the years, and new technologies, such as ground 

surveillance radar, unmanned aerial vehicles, and improved sensor capabilities, are 

the future of border security. The paradigm shift today is a compilation of data from 

various sources and the future resides with the Common Operation Picture (COP). 

The COP will now integrate the disparate elements from our mission and provide 

a high-fidelity virtual picture of the border world. 

We have learned from the past and continue to improve upon our successes. A 

key element to this was allowing our ground agents to have full input into the next 

generation of border technology. Our agents’ ‘‘feedback,’’ which is their real-world 

and real-time input helps determine what is actually required, what will work, and 

most importantly what does not work. This ground-truth is being put to use today, 

building on P–28 with the next phases along Ajo–1 and Tucson–1. This new tech-
40 

nology will be deployed in the near future and we well evaluate each area to deploy 

the proper mix of technology and infrastructure to fill the capability gap. 

CBP has made significant progress in securing our borders between the ports of 

entry. Today, we are detaining 100 percent of Other Than Mexican (OTM) aliens 

apprehended along the southwest and northern borders that are subject to detention 

pending removal and are otherwise ineligible for release from custody under U.S. 

immigration law. This is a stark contrast to 2005, when only 34 percent were detained. The success of this effort has been primarily based on DHS enhancements 

in additional bed space and the streamlined process for removal of aliens, or ‘‘Expedited Removal.’’ 

Our agents continue to attend a rigorous training academy, currently located in 

Artesia, New Mexico, where they learn immigration, nationality and criminal law, 

and receive defensive techniques training, firearms training, and Spanish language 

training. The academy training was modified to better suit today’s operating environment. Intern Agents now attend a rigorous 55-day academy where they learn the 

basics of the law enforcement profession. Upon successful completion, the agents are 

again tested in the Spanish language. Those agents who satisfactorily pass return 

to their duty station to begin their field training and work as Border Patrol Agents. 

Agents requiring further training in Spanish then attend a 40-day, intensive, taskbased learning course in Spanish. Upon successful completion of this, these agents 

then return to their duty station to begin their field training. 

We continue to improve on the quality and caliber of our agents. All of our agents 

are border patrol agents first and are capable of performing the multiple tasks required of an agent. Upon successful completion of a few years in service our agents 

may elect to try out for a number of specialty positions. Our canine teams are 

trained to detect both humans and narcotics and are an effective tool at immigration 

checkpoints, as well as in daily operations. The Special Response Teams and Tactical Units are specially trained for domestic and international emergencies. Our 

Search, Trauma, and Rescue teams provide humanitarian and rescue capabilities, 

performing countless rescues every year. But the one underlying element is that 

they are agents first and any function performed beyond that of an agent requires 

specialized training. This interchangeability of workforce is essential for maintaining a united Federal law enforcement entity and is key to our defense in depth philosophy. 

The uniform nature of our training and work ethic are essential and as principles 

for our operations. Every agent from the upper management to the new agent on 

the line has had or will have similar experiences, leading to an understanding not 

well understood beyond our ranks. This is essential for the integrity of our organization. By having a workforce equally trained and broadly experienced, the Border Patrol will retain the necessary elements for national emergency call-outs and deployments. This was invaluable during the unified efforts with the deployment of agents 

to the relief efforts following the tornados of last year, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, 

the national emergency in 2001, the Olympic bombings in 1996, the Krome riots in 

the 1980’s, and the civil unrest of the 1960’s. 

This interchangeable capability is all the more important with the increase in violence we have seen over the past years. We have taken steps to mitigate this increase in violence and are better equipped to prepare our agents for it. We have deployed the FN–303, a less than lethal pepper-ball launcher system; expanded our 

international outreach with the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams on the northern border, whose mission is to enhance border integrity and security by identifying, 

investigating and interdicting persons or organizations that pose a threat to national security or are engaged in other organized criminal activity; expanded the 

International Liaison Units on the southern border, both to improve our diplomatic 

and international relations with Canada and Mexico; and improved our intelligence 

capabilities by detailing agents to the Air and Marine Operations Center and to 

NORAD. 

There is not an easy solution when it comes to border security and our agents 

are dedicated to performing our mission with honor and integrity. We will continue 

to explore new technologies and reassess our operational needs to appropriately address the vulnerability gaps. The border is a dynamic environment and we strive 

to meet the challenges of today, and tomorrow. 

SECURING OUR BORDERS WHILE FACILITATING LEGITIMATE TRAVEL AND TRADE

CBP welcomes more than 400 million travelers into the United States annually. 

While security will always be CBP’s primary mission—and key to maintaining travelers’ confidence—we strive to make the process of entering the United States more 

streamlined, user-friendly and understandable. 
41 

CBP has worked very hard to improve our process for clearing and welcoming 

travelers into our country. In April 2007 we launched the Nation’s first ‘‘Model 

Ports’’ at George Bush Houston Intercontinental and Washington Dulles International airports. Improved signage, multi-lingual explanatory videos and modernized procedures ease the process of arriving in the U.S. Both Houston and Dulles 

were chosen as initial model ports because they represent key gateway locations in 

the United States as major international hubs, and present unique infrastructure 

challenges and opportunities. In the coming years, the Model Ports Program will expand to a total of 20 airports and add 200 CBP officers. We believe this program 

helps to send the message that America remains a warm, welcoming nation. 

While CBP seeks programs and improves processes to make international travel 

more welcoming, security will always be CBP’s primary mission. An important aspect of CBP’s security mission involves extending security beyond our physical borders. The Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) is an important element in this 

strategy, enhancing security by preventing terrorists and other high-risk passengers 

from boarding aircraft destined for the United States. The goal of the IAP is to protect air travel and improve national security by reducing suspected overseas threats 

prior to a flight’s departure, thereby avoiding delaying, canceling, or diverting 

flights. Small CBP officer teams are deployed to work with foreign law enforcement 

and air carriers at key airports in host countries. The IAP program maintains deployment at nine foreign locations, adding a layer of enforcement and strengthening 

foreign partnerships while also providing financial savings for the U.S. Government 

and air carriers. 

One important aspect of facilitating legitimate travel involves monitoring wait 

times for travelers at our airports and land border ports of entry. CBP’s land border 

ports of entry processed just under 300 million people in 2007, spending an average 

of only 45–60 seconds with each person at the primary inspection booth. This process yielded approximately 20,000 arrests in fiscal year 2007. CBP created a Wait 

Time Advisory Committee that developed recommendations to address issues such 

as wait time measurement standards, processing times, facilities, staffing and community outreach. CBP facilities that were designed decades ago must house operations today and capacity is often exceeded. We continue to work with the General 

Services Administration (GSA) and local, State, and regional stakeholders to expand 

and upgrade port of entry sites and infrastructure to streamline processing times 

and better facilitate throughput. Our Trusted Traveler programs, including 

SENTRI, NEXUS and FAST, are being streamlined to increase enrollment among 

frequent travelers. However, CBP is limited by current facility restrictions that can 

inhibit the processing of legitimate trade and travel; thereby contributing to wait 

times. Although CBP has undertaken a number of initiatives to address wait times 

at our land border ports of entry, challenges still exist. 

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) requires that travelers possess 

standardized, secure documents to allow CBP to quickly and accurately identify a 

traveler and their citizenship while shortening the inspection process. With funds 

requested in fiscal year 2009, CBP will complete the deployment of the radio-frequency identification (RFID) sensor and license plate reader technologies started in 

2008 and add 89 new CBP Officers at our land border ports of entry. 

CBP’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) uses the Workload Staffing Model (WSM) 

to assist in requesting resources and aligning staffing levels at our ports of entry. 

The WSM was developed for CBP Officers focusing on all aspects of CBP processing 

for passengers and cargo in the air, land and sea environments. The model assesses 

staffing needs based on workload, processing times, complexity and threat levels, 

and provides an optimal level of staffing for each port of entry. The model is a decision support tool and is used as a guide in the allocation of available resources. It 

does not replace the judgment of experienced managers when making decisions on 

allocation of limited staff. 

Technologies deployed to our Nation’s sea, air, and land border ports of entry include non-intrusive imaging equipment, such as large-scale X-ray and gamma-imaging systems, as well as a variety of portable and hand-held technologies to include 

radiation detection technology. NII technologies play a key role in CBP’s layered 

strategy and are viewed as force multipliers that enable us to screen or examine 

a larger portion of the stream of commercial traffic quickly, while facilitating the 

flow of legitimate trade, cargo, and passengers. An integral part of CBP’s comprehensive strategy to combat nuclear and radiological terrorism is to scan all arriving sea containers with radiation detection equipment prior to release at domestic 

ports. Currently, CBP has 398 Radiation Portal Monitors (RPM) deployed at priority 

seaports in the United States, through which approximately 98 percent of all arriving sea-borne containerized cargo passes. CBP is forecasting the deployment of 93 

additional seaport RPMs by the end of fiscal year 2009. 
42 

Additionally, we currently have 246 RPMs on the northern border, which provides 

CBP with the capability to scan 91 percent of truck cargo and 81 percent of personal-owned vehicles (POVs) for illicit radiological/nuclear materials. The current 

forecast calls for the deployment of an additional 337 northern border RPMs. This 

will give CBP the capability to scan approximately 100 percent of truck cargo and 

100 percent of personal vehicles for illicit radiological/nuclear materials with RPMs. 

CBP will also increase the southern border RPM deployments (currently scanning 

100 percent of all truck cargo and 95 percent of POVs). By the end of fiscal year 

2009, CBP plans to deploy 51 additional southern border RPMs—providing CBP 

with the capability to scan approximately 100 percent of POVs. 

To further our priority mission of preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from 

entering the United States, CBP has partnered with other countries through our 

Container Security Initiative (CSI). Almost 32,000 seagoing containers arrive and 

are off loaded at United States seaports each day and under CSI, which is the first 

program of its kind, CBP partners with foreign governments to screen containers 

at foreign ports and then identify and inspect high-risk cargo containers at those 

foreign ports, before they are shipped to our seaports and pose a threat to the 

United States and to global trade. 

CANINES

CBP’s canine program is the largest and one of the most decorated and recognized 

canine programs throughout the law enforcement community. 

The CBP canine program is also one of the most diverse programs throughout law 

enforcement. CBP canine disciplines include human detection, narcotic detection, explosive detection and search and rescue. Some of these disciplines are crossedtrained to provide cadaver detection and track and trail abilities. Explosive detection canines cannot be trained in other disciplines due to the required operational 

response to a positive detection. In order to properly provide this essential diversity 

of the program, CBP maintains two separate training facilities, one in Front Royal, 

VA and one in El Paso, TX. The one thing all CBP Canines have in common is the 

100 percent detection rate as the standard by which they are tested. 

Border Patrol canines work in a variety of environments which include desert and 

mountainous areas, most of their duties require working outdoors. OFO canines 

work in more controlled areas of the designated POEs, be it at an airport, seaport, 

or land border crossing. OFO and OBP are trained for their specific mission as it 

relates to the laws in which they are governed. Both OFO and OBP operate are subject to the Fourth Amendment. When using canines OFO usually operates under the 

‘‘Border Search’’ exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and probable cause 

requirements, while OBP generally operates away from the border and thus under 

general Fourth Amendment rules. 

The CBP Canine Program was the first law enforcement agency in the United 

States to train and deploy explosive detector canine teams with the capability to detect trace amounts of explosive on humans as well as searching conveyances, cargo, 

luggage, and mail. CBP remains on the cutting edge in development and implementation of this aspect of explosive detection capability. 

Due to the legal requirements for canine law, CBP maintains the highest standards for their canines, handlers and the training curriculum. CBP Officers and Border Patrol Agents, who are to be Canine Team members, must successfully complete 

all training and certification with their canine partner, creating a bond and a trust 

that allows them to excel at their duties. 

Over its history, the CBP Canine Program has continually demonstrated its ability to train and deploy professional detector canine teams to meet the diverse and 

demanding requirements of our deployed locations and work environments. The 

CBP canine program will continue to consistently adapt to meet the DHS/CBP mission while providing a more mobile and rapid response in order to lead the way into 

the future. 

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairwoman, Members of the subcommittee, we have outlined several initiatives today that, with your assistance, will help CBP continue to protect America 

from the terrorist threat while fulfilling our other important traditional missions. 

While these initiatives are by no means the sum total of CBP’s work between the 

ports of entry on either border, we believe they highlight the significant accomplishments and ongoing work of our men and women on the front lines and provide a 

strong foundation for ensuring the proper balance in reducing our vulnerability to 

the entry of terrorists, illegal aliens and drugs. 
43 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. We will be happy to answer any 

of your questions. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. 

Chief Aguilar. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID V. AGUILAR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. AGUILAR. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Sanchez, and we appreciate that we can be here with you today. 

Ranking Member Souder and the rest of the committee Members, 

it is always a pleasure to be able to testify in front of this committee, to continue talking about some of the challenges that we 

face, and especially some of the achievements that we think we 

have accomplished over the last couple of years, since we have 

ramped up our efforts along our Nation’s southwest border, and, of 

course, also on the northern border. 

I would just like to cover a couple of things—and then pass it on 

to my partner here from Air and Marine, General Kostelnik—the 

things that I think are important at this point, and that is the following. 

We are coming up on the 84th birthday of the United States Border Patrol on the May 28, next week. We are going to celebrate it 

in El Paso, Texas. 

We have come a long way from where the Border Patrol originated—from riding horseback to continue riding horseback today, 

but using the technology that is out there, integrating some of 

those technologies, some of which Members of this committee saw 

last week on the ground in Tucson. 

That, plus the infrastructure that is being built, the personnel 

that is being added, the maturation of the organization, the added 

resources in the area of aerial platforms, has helped us dramatically. 

One of the things that I think has made a tremendous difference 

also has been Operation Jumpstart, which is coming up at midJuly on a drawdown. But the difference being between now and 

when Operation Jumpstart started, I will share some facts with 

you, some figures with you. 

When Operation Jumpstart started, we had about 11,581 Border 

Patrol agents on board. As of the 10th of this month, we have 

16,321 Border Patrol agents on board. We have built over 100 

miles of fence. We have built just under 100 miles of vehicle fence 

in addition to that also. 

Today, as we speak, we have about 1,266 Border Patrol agents 

going through the United States Border Patrol Academy. We are 

meeting our recruitment challenges. We are currently a little below 

target, but not by much. We are heading toward the 18,319 Border 

Patrol agents that we are shooting for at the end of the calendar 

year. 

Now, what does that translate to? It translates to a 39 percent 

reduction in apprehensions of illegal aliens, compared to fiscal year 

2006. It also speaks to 15 percent reduction of alien apprehensions 

year to date, compared to last year—in addition to that, 1.8 million 

pounds of narcotics apprehended last year also. 
44 

So the achievements and the expansion of our efforts are dramatic in fact. We have brought a higher level of operation total to 

the border. We have a long ways to go, but we are making and 

gaining ground on the border, thanks to the administration, this 

Congress and other things that you have given us to work and continue working along our Nation’s border. 

With that, I look forward to any questions that you might have 

of us, and I pass it on to General Kostelnik. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL C. KOSTELNIK, 

USAF (RETIRED), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF 

AIR AND MARINE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Major General KOSTELNIK. Thanks, Chief. 

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Souder, Congressmen, it is a 

very pleasure to be here with you and tell you a little bit about the 

least known of the three operational organizations that comprise 

the modern CBP. 

Border Patrol is 84 years old, and Mr. Winkowski’s heritage goes 

back 200 years to the original Customs Service. Air Marine is only 

2.5 years old in the transition, and I think you all realize it was 

the combination of a legacy Border Patrol air marine aviation asset 

and the legacy Customs assets working a wide variety of missions. 

While we are by far the smallest, the things we bring to the table 

are important elements and assets in the war on terror in the 

homeland and the various missions that we support. 

Not only do we support chief Aguilar and the sector chiefs and 

Border Patrol sectors across the northern and southwest borders, 

we support the ports of entry and those areas in the southeast 

coastal regions as well, and run proper missions not only in the 

coastal regions and approaches to the country in the Caribbean and 

the eastern Pacific, but deployments in South America focus heavily on narcotics activity in the transit zone. 

During the last 2 years, I think we have made tremendous 

progress in our transition. We have been working behind the scene 

to fit and fix important aviation assets that we have historically 

had—the P–3s. 

Ranking Member Souder, you will know what a big contributor 

they are in the transit zone, and we did have big issues with cracks 

in the wing sets. These are aircraft more than 40 years old. 

We have created a service life extension program with your help. 

That has gone very well. We are about to return most of our aircraft back to operational service this year. We went on contract for 

four new wing sets this year, so over the next decade we will rewing and re-tail and keep these aircraft in operational service for 

the next 40 years. 

We are actively recapitaling our air force. We are adding new 

helicopters. We added the EC–120 last year. We are adding new AStar law enforcement helicopters not only for border security missions, but the internal missions supporting ICE and their investigation activities within the country. 

We just ordered new Army Blackhawks with their contract, 

which will appear in Homeland Security in about the 2010 timeframe, and taken the existing 16 Blackhawks we have and updat-
45 

ing them through a similar service life extension program that we 

put the P–3s to. 

We have a lot of work to go. We probably do not have enough 

aircraft to meet all the expectations and the need, but I think our 

transition has come a very long way. 

Last month we opened our large training center at Oklahoma 

City. If any members happen to be traveling through Will Rogers 

and would like to see the new $21 million hangar with your help 

that we put in this year, that is the seat of our training. 

I know this was important in Congressman Shuler’s bill—training and moving ahead and all these kinds of things in preparation 

for the war ahead. We have made a lot of progress in this area. 

So I am pleased to be a supportive member. Our primary role in 

CBP is organize training and equipping for future missions. Like 

I say, we supported my colleagues here, but many other colleagues, 

not only ICE, internal to DHS, but also organizations like Secret 

Service, DEA and many other Federal and local agencies who ask 

us for help. 

So I am pleased to be here. I know there won’t be a lot of questions for A&M, but we are an important part of the supportive 

team, and I appreciate this opportunity to bring some of our Congressmen, over the past couple of years, to attention, and would 

welcome your questions. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, General. 

I will remind everybody that the testimony of the three gentlemen will be inserted into the record, and that each of my colleagues has 5 minutes to ask questions. 

By the way, we have another series of votes coming up on the 

floor, so I am hoping we can at least get one round in before we 

get called up. 

I think most people in the Congress have supported giving more 

assets, and particularly more border agents, in the last few years, 

up to a total—I think you mentioned—18,319, Chief Aguilar. 

But there are those concerns about the consequences of getting 

people in, a large number of new agents in, and what effect they 

have on the culture and supervision, and if people have enough 

time, enough seasoning, if you will, to fill the supervisory positions 

and to really make a career out of the whole structure. 

So my question to you is really what effect does a large number 

of relatively new people have on your organization? What are you 

doing, either through training or on the job or buddy system or supervising, to try to make sure that these new recruits are getting 

the culture and the real aspects of the job that only come through 

time? 

I guess I would also ask you about recruiting and what it looks 

like and how many recruits it takes in order to really get one person that is going to be wanting to be out in Sasabe or Ajo or one 

of the other places we went to recently. 

Mr. AGUILAR. All right. Yes, ma’am. 

Madam Chairwoman, the recruitment efforts that we are currently undergoing right now are, in fact, challenging, but we are 

meeting those challenges, and we are meeting the numbers. As I 

said, we are a little bit below our goal, but not by much. 
46 

In fact, right now as we speak, the entry into the hiring pipeline 

is actually higher than what we require in order to maintain that 

pipeline. By that I mean that we have estimated that we require 

putting people into the hiring and recruiting pipeline at a rate of 

about 3,500 per week. We are doing about 4,300 right now. 

The other challenge that we face is in fact what you spoke to, 

and that is the actual organizational integrity. When we refer to 

organizational integrity, we are taking many, many steps to ensure 

that we do everything that we can in order to ensure the proper 

ratio. 

The ratio we take a look at right now is one supervisor to every 

seven Border Patrol agents. I am pleased to say that at this point 

in time we are right on that cusp. We are pretty much on target 

with that. 

Now, we have changed the way that we train our people at the 

academy, which I think, and most of the chiefs, all of the chiefs believe, turns out a better trainee today than we were in the past, 

because of certain adjustments that we have made. 

We have also taken certain efforts to include, for example, a 

mentorship program within the United States Border Patrol. It 

didn’t exist before. What we are bringing back—we hired annuitants that did well in their careers, putting them into the sectors 

and using them to mentor the supervisors—first round supervisors—and the agents actually coming into the Border Patrol as 

we speak. 

We have implemented a new field training officer program that 

in the past existed, but it was not as tight, if you will, as it is 

today. It has been enhanced. It has been augmented with a 

mindset that this is a new organization that is growing at a tremendous pace. 

In addition to that, we have implemented a post-academy program. Both of those put together are about a 31⁄2-month-long program that basically didn’t exist to the degree that it exists today. 

So those are some of the things that we are doing—beside that, 

supervisory schools, journeymen schools, ethics training, which is 

very important to us. We have even included polygraphing at the 

hiring end in recruitment, and also to ensure that the quality of 

trainee that we are getting is at a higher level. 

But one thing we have not done is we have not in any way degraded the training of our people that are going through the United 

States Border Patrol Academy. 

The recruitment, as I have stated, remains a challenge. One of 

the areas that we are covering in recruitment is diversity. It is 

making sure that the United States Border Patrol, to the degree 

possible, ends up as an organization that is reflective of the makeup of this country. We are working very hard in that area also. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Two of the bills that my colleagues have before the 

Congress are to increase even more your ranks. Can you give us 

an indication over the last 4 years how many new agents you have 

taken on? 

What would you say to, for example, Mr. Shuler, who wants to 

augment another 8,000 people? Can you really take that pace? Or 

do you need time to sort of figure out where you are and what you 
47 

really need your people for, especially with the fact that we are still 

trying to get the fence and other things in place? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Right. Well, first of all, I would offer my appreciation and thanks to Congressman Shuler and everybody else on the 

committee here for their interest in making sure that we are getting what we need. 

I would start there. What we need at this current time is an opportunity to mature our organization. The reason I said that is I 

started early with Operation Jumpstart. When Operation 

Jumpstart started, we had about 1,321 Border Patrol agents. We 

are over now at 16,000. So it is that maturation process that is critical. 

But in addition to that, in order to make the agents that we have 

hired over the last couple of years, over the last little over 2 years, 

more efficient, more effective, we need to balance those out with 

the infrastructure that some of you saw in the field last week, and 

the technology that will make them more efficient and more effective. 

So I would urge a little bit of caution in adding too much of one 

thing—in this case we are talking about Border Patrol agents—before we balance out what the current Border Patrol agent cadre 

needs, and that is a balancing out by way of technology, infrastructure and maturation that has to occur. 

A quick figure. Approximately 30 to 40 percent of the United 

States Border Patrol as an organization will be at a maturity rate 

of 2 years and under by this time next year. 

It is an important figure, because when we take a look at the 

needs of the organization in order to move forward and properly 

equip those officers, that is our focus right now—maintaining the 

organizational integrity of the organization as a whole. 

We cannot skew it too far in any one direction—infrastructure 

without personnel, personnel without technology and so forth. It is 

that right mix that we need in order to be as effective as we can 

and expand to the degree that we need to. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Chief. 

I will ask Mr. Souder for his 5 minutes of questions. I think after 

we do that, we will probably break to go and vote. There are two 

votes on the floor. Then rush back, I hope, in order for the rest of 

our members to get in some questions. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

First, I want to say that it is—for those that don’t think it has 

dramatically changed on the border, because we complain and complain about it, but it has dramatically changed. There is no question about that. 

We are trying to accommodate trade the best we can, but there 

are more agents, we fence, we have electronic things that we never 

dreamed of having a few years ago. 

In my frustrations and others’ that it isn’t sealed—and I personally think we haven’t done this at a fast enough pace, which by the 

way, is a high degree of congressional funding hasn’t followed 

through, nor has the administration requested adequate funding— 

not the people who are in front of us problem—but I do think that 

we do need to acknowledge that every day we become safer as a 

country. 
48 

That doesn’t mean it is like we are one where we will be totally 

safe. I don’t think we will ever be totally safe, but every day we 

are becoming safer as a country, and I think that is important to 

acknowledge. 

I didn’t like the way Project 28 started out, but, hey, we are 

making progress with it, and it is going to be an addition to the 

system. The UAVs along the border are just unbelievable. I saw 

that for the first time down at Fort Huachuca. The ability that it 

gives along the border is tremendous. 

These hearings, however, aren’t just to pat each other on the 

back. They are to basically probe where we have some concerns. 

Let me just ask this first, because Congressman Cuellar and I 

aren’t sure on the chorizo cane. We have brought this up a number 

of times. 

Has anybody looked at the ranches around Laredo and seen the 

kind of grass they are doing? Are we doing anything to cut it down? 

Your agents can’t see. This invasive species—has anything been 

done since the last time we talked about this? 

Other than bees, I want to know are they cutting down cane, because bees are a 3-year project that we have reservations about. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I was just sharing earlier with some of the staff 

for Congressman Cuellar that this June we are going to start a 

four-pronged effort in a 1.6-mile area there in Laredo in order to 

basically test which one of those efforts is going to be the best approach, not only to immediately cut it down, but more importantly, 

to be able to maintain that chorizo cane to stay as low as possible. 

In addition to that, we are going to continue with the biological 

agent, which is the wasp that you mentioned. So it is going to be 

a two-fold approach that we are taking a look at. 

Once that first project takes off, and we determine which one of 

those four means is the best way to cut and maintain, we will start 

focusing on that in order to expand for the rest of the river. 

Mr. SOUDER. I have a couple of questions for General Kostelnik, 

but I want to put this into the record. We do studies all the time. 

You have at least two ranches that we saw on different sides that 

have already tested this. I don’t quite understand why past history 

can’t be included to expedite a test. But I will continue to bring 

that up. 

General Kostelnik, there are three questions I want to ask you. 

You probably won’t have time to field them all. 

But one, as you know, I have been concerned about tradeoffs that 

we make. One of the tradeoffs is the number of hours that are 

going to back up ICE now from CBP has dropped for 5 straight 

years. It was 10,349 before we merged. It is down to 3,761. 

Now, the problem that we have in Congress is I am not necessarily saying that supporting Border Patrol missions as opposed 

to ICE missions is the way we can go, but I don’t believe we have 

had it fully disclosed to us what tradeoffs are being made. 

Does this mean that drug investigations aren’t occurring? Does 

this mean we are not taking down networks? How did it get diverted, because your hours are up, but your total hours for ICE is 

dramatically dropping? 

There are two parts to this. One is the deterrent part that we 

need to fund—basically, a fence with a drop back in the check-
49 

points that the Border Patrol does to fend the investigations so 

that we can try to stop the flow in—if you can give a brief answer 

here. 

A second thing is FAA is looking to go from long-range radar system to GPS tracking of aircraft. What impact will this have on your 

division? Will you not be able to see the planes as well, or track 

it? 

How are we working on, because we know as we seal the land 

border, we are going to see more planes and boats coming in. We 

have to think what is the next step, in addition to the current step, 

which gets to Congressman Green’s questions about do we have an 

overall plan? 

The third is we have already heard we are having some trouble 

getting enough Border Patrol agents, yet it appears that we are 

spending a lot of time training Border Patrol how to fly, when in 

fact we may, as we drawdown in Iraq, get lots of pilots in, who are 

already trained to fly. 

Are you looking at spending time bringing in trained pilots, rather than the number of hours that we are spending training pilots 

right now? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, thanks for that. I will provide more coherent 

answers on the record for all three of those very good questions. I 

think you would be pleased with two of the scenarios you mentioned, the middle one being the more difficult one. 

First, the matter of ICE support is truly hours are down—probably less than half of what they were at their peak. It is a very 

sophisticated analysis when you look at that, because when you operate an airport, 30 to 40 percent of your total time really isn’t mission time anyway. It is overhead. It is training. It is test. It is evaluation. It is flight for a lot of different things. 

So if you look at that story, we are caught kind of in the middle 

between A&M. We support the Border Patrol. We support internal 

CBP missions. We support external ICE missions. But we support 

them just the same. In credit to both ICE and CBP, we have crafted a very careful prioritization method of how we support. 

In fact, if you looked at the ICE support statistic for 2007, you 

would find, depending on how you track the way, but in a fairly 

honest way, the support is very high. Somewhere between 75 to 80 

percent of all the formal ICE requests were honored. 

There were some ICE requests that were pulled back. Missions 

changed. Clearly, if you had ICE representation here, they would 

say some of their SACs or RACs just aren’t asking. Well, that is 

a problem, but it is an ICE problem that they have to get over, because by asking, it tells us where the real requirement is. 

So actually, if you look at those missions in ICE, which is the 

heart of your question, that were not supported, it is a matter of 

prioritization. In the last 2 years, there have only been three or 

four of those kinds of things. Prioritization issues over that mission 

actually come to the headquarter and are made at the top. 

So I think you will find, when you honestly look at the ICE support, it is very good. It could be better, and clearly there are places 

the RACs and SACs do not ask, because we don’t have a lot of infrastructure at key places within the country—places like Atlanta 

or Dallas. 
50 

We support those activities from the field, but as you know, 

many of those ICE missions require 1- or 3-hour response. But I 

would be pleased to provide our report from the last year on the 

record to give you a sense for that analysis. 

Quickly, on the long-range radar, that is going to be an issue, because when we go to a cooperative system with the national air 

space, we and the FAA will know who chooses to cooperate, so it 

will be problematic for those that do not. 

There is no technical solution to this, but we continue to work 

very closely with the FAA to maintain as long as we can until alternative technical means can be made available for the non-cooperative things to work that issue. That is a much bigger problem 

with a much longer-term solution. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank the gentleman. 

We have got two votes on the floor, 2 minutes left on this vote. 

We are going to go over and vote. 

I hope you gentlemen can stay. We will probably be back within 

10 to 15 minutes, and we will continue on with the questioning. 

We are now in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The subcommittee will now come back into session, and we will begin with 5-minute questioning from Ms. 

Lofgren of California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thanks for having this hearing. 

First, let me thank the three of you for your service to our country and your hard work. I do have some questions. 

I am going to hone in only one thing, Chief Aguilar, because I 

think it desperately needs clarification. I know that none of us can 

control in advance what each member of a large organization says. 

That is true for Members of Congress. Sometimes your colleagues 

say something, and you go, ‘‘How did they really say that?’’ That 

can happen in any large organization. 

But I was tremendously concerned by the comments made in the 

Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol about hurricane evacuation. 

For those who did not see the news articles, the report was that 

in evacuating for a hurricane, that people would be brought to bus 

points, loaded on buses to escape the coming disaster, and that, according to Dan Doty, the spokesperson for the valley sector, anyone 

who is not a citizen or legal resident would be held, he said, ‘‘in 

specially designed areas in the valley that are made to withstand 

hurricanes’’ and not evacuated. 

Well, I have got a couple of problems with this. No. 1, I am not 

aware of any structure that would restrain hurricanes, and if they 

are, let us build a bunch, and we don’t have to worry about evacuating anyone. I don’t think that exists. 

No. 2, a statement like that means that people who are at risk 

of their lives—let us say you are here without your papers, and you 

have got three U.S. citizen kids, if you know you are going to be 

picked up and pulled aside, you are likely to risk your life and the 

lives of your children not to evacuate. So really, just with that 

statement out there, you are putting lots of people at risk in the 

future. 
51 

Not just for the hurricane, but for fires, for natural disasters, 

anywhere where an evacuation is necessary, this statement puts 

people at risk. 

Now, I understand and I do appreciate the staff briefing that was 

held for us yesterday that my staff attended, and I think many others did. I understand that there has been a clarifying statement. 

I have got a copy of the clarifying statement that says, and I will 

quote again, ‘‘Our primary role in such events will be the safeguarding of life. No enforcement role will be undertaken that will 

in any way impede the safety and orderly evacuation.’’ 

But I don’t think it is strong enough, given the background. You 

are well aware of what happened with the fires in Southern California. 

For whatever reason, at a certain point—and they weren’t all 

Border Patrol agents; there were local law enforcement officials 

who went out and used the opportunity of that catastrophe for an 

immigration enforcement experience, and that experience itself is 

going to chill evacuations in the future. 

So I am asking you, Chief Aguilar. I know that you don’t want 

people to die in a disaster. I imagine that this is of concern to you. 

Can you tell me what further clarification you might be able to provide either today or in the future? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, the first clarification is that the statement 

that you have in front of you that we have raised to your staff is 

absolutely correct—that we would not in any way impede or interfere with any kind of evacuation, when and if we go to an evacuation mode. 

If anything, the United States Border Patrol, in an area such as 

South Texas, would in fact probably the largest law enforcement 

agency engaged in lifesaving and taking care of private property 

out there and assisting in the evacuation. 

What we have already done is everybody, from the secretary, myself, Chief Vitiello in Rio Grande Valley, has very aggressively and 

very assertively put out that these statements that were unfortunately in the media are not correct—that we would not take that 

posture that was described, that in fact our primary duty would be 

in fact to protect life and property of the population within the 

South Texas area. 

We would facilitate any kind of evacuation, and we would play 

the same role that the law enforcement community would be playing during that emerging type of situation. That message will continue to be going out. 

In addition to that, I have personally contacted, with the exception of Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, to whom we haven’t been able 

to connect, and assured the Congressman for that part of the country of what our true plans are and how we would actually respond 

to that kind of a situation. 

I have spoken to Senator Cornyn. I am not connected yet with 

Senator Hutchison. We have spoken to Steve McGraw, who is the 

Homeland Security director for the State of Texas, Jack Colley, 

who is his emergent operations individual. 

So we are very aggressively going out to clear the record on this, 

to make sure that the community understands that the Border Patrol has, will and will continue to do what it has done in the past 
52 

on so many occasions when the community requires that type of 

support. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Chief, if I could just follow up. I think my time 

is just about over. I appreciate the efforts you have taken, but I 

just would like to suggest we might need to do a little bit more, 

because—— 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. As you know, in a vulnerable population, people are here. Rumors travel like wildfire. So this statement, whether wrong or incorrect, is—I guarantee you—having an 

impact in Florida. It is having an impact in Georgia. It is having 

an impact in California. 

I think there is a time and place for everything. We are against 

people who don’t pay their child support, but we are not going to 

run something on the child support deadbeats—— 

Mr. AGUILAR. Right. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. And say, ‘‘Well, we are going to collect 

before you get on the bus and escape the wildfire.’’ There is a time 

and a place for everything, and as you are saying now, when it is 

that kind of emergency, the only thing we are looking at is saving 

lives, getting people out of there. But that statement needs to be 

everywhere. 

Mr. AGUILAR. We are going to very aggressively do that, because 

unfortunately, it is really ironic that the men and women of the 

United States Border Patrol, who dedicate so much time, effort and 

focus on supporting the community and being a part of the community, have now been painted with this kind of a situation. That is 

just absolutely incorrect. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank you, and I appreciate your efforts, and I 

would love to work further with you on it. 

I yield back. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank my colleague from California. 

We are going to try to get a second set of questions, and I know 

you have many more. We would like to do that for you. 

I do believe it is my colleague from Indiana’s turn for 5 minutes, 

if you have. Otherwise, we can—well, because you are the Republican. We can turn it over to—okay. 

Mr. CUELLAR. First set of questions, so but I go in the first line 

of questioning? Thank you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. This matter has to go back and forth, Mr. Cuellar, 

but please—5 minutes. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Souder. 

Yes, thank you. 

Let me just follow up on what Mark just mentioned a few minutes ago—and just one question to each. 

Mr. Winkowski, Commissioner, the famous letter that we have 

been talking about. I understand it is at the secretary’s office— 

could change this. Inform the secretary that I—and I am going to 

talk to Chairman Thompson also, because I think the last time he 

was before us he promised us that he was going to get that to us 

real quickly, and it has been literally months. 

This is the letter that we are asking about, what is the true 

number of staffing needs that we have for customs and the infra-
53 

structure needs. It is literally since last year that we have asked 

for this letter. 

It is almost getting bar stamped—big supported role, but I know 

that some of you all have done the work, but it is still up at the 

secretary. So you could have him call us or call me? I would be 

happy to give you my personal cell number at the end of the meeting—No. 1. 

No. 2, Major General, I appreciate it. I think I saw finally. We 

talked about bringing the Coast Guard down to the border, and the 

Coast Guard is talking about doing some patrol. It must have been 

coincident, but right after we made that announcement, the Laredo 

sector—and I was kidding Chief Carrillo about this—you all took 

a boat down there, actually one that I think could be very useful. 

Since the Coast Guard is part of this big agency, you all will be 

working together. There are no turf battles on this, if they do come 

to doing patrolling the Rio Grande? 

Major General KOSTELNIK. We are one of two aviation and maritime elements that provide a lot of assets for DHS, the Coast 

Guard being obviously the much older, better-known and more productive. Of course, it is up to them to determine the missions that 

they are best trained and equipped for. 

Now, we support aggressively the Border Patrol mission in the 

riverine environment, and particularly the Rio Grande. As a part 

of our recapitalization plan, not only are we recapitalizing our aircraft fleet, we are recapitalizing our maritime fleet as well. 

We have put a new generation of safe boats that were actually 

acquired from the U.S. Coast Guard into various Border Patrol sectors. This year we just designed and have acquired a new generation of airboats for specific use in the riverine environment and in 

shallow water, and have a wide variety of large and small boats 

that we continue to upgrade for Border Patrol missions from San 

Diego to McAllen, Texas. 

It is up to the Coast Guard to determine whether that is a credible area and a focus and a mission set for them. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that, but clearly we partner with 

the Coast Guard on many areas and many missions of support. 

But we think over time that we would be able to provide organically the maritime assets in the riverine environment. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Could I ask you to get together with the Coast 

Guard, because we did pass an amendment on the House floor over 

to the Senate, asking the Coast Guard to look at the needs for the 

Rio Grande needs. 

Could I ask you all to get together with the Coast Guard? I will 

be calling you and the Coast Guard admiral to get together so we 

can talk about doing a joint mission together. 

Major General KOSTELNIK. Okay. I would be happy to do that. 

In fact, in the small boat, the kind that would be riding the 

riverine, there has already a very wide-ranging cooperation set, 

both in training and acquisition and deployment in that same class 

of small boats between us and the U.S. Coast Guard. I think you 

will find it a pretty good story. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Yes, sir. Like I said, we will call your office and 

set up an appointment with the Coast Guard also. 
54 

Mr. Aguilar, the question that Mr. Souder was talking—let me 

just follow up. I got the white paper that I think was in the works 

for I don’t know how many months. It is one page and one paragraph—what I got. It is on the Laredo sector, the pilot program. 

I appreciate what you all are doing for selecting that area. 

I have a couple of questions. It is supposed to be five phases composed of 16.1 miles. According to this, I think you said it might be 

a little larger. 

It is supposed to be five phases, one phase per year starting 

2008. If we go at this rate, to cover 1,250 miles, that might be over 

100 years. I am sure we are not talking about 100 years going at 

this particular pace. 

But the cost also does concern me. It is $3.5 million, and I keep 

the getting folks down there in Texas, and surely one of the conservation folks and some of the other folks that Mr. Souder also 

talked to, and they are saying they can do this a lot cheaper. This 

is only $3.5 million for 2.7 miles. 

Are you all willing to sit down, and we can get some folks to 

come up here? But I don’t want you to send me somebody that 

doesn’t have the authority. I would love to sit down with you, and 

I would love to sit down with Mr. Souder also, and bring you some 

folks. 

They keep saying they can do this cheaper and faster. I understand that there are certain hoops that you have all got to go 

through, but are you all willing to sit down, Mr. Aguilar and Chief? 

But I don’t want to meet with anybody. I really would like to 

meet with you or somebody who has some authority, so we can talk 

about some decisions where we can hopefully do this quicker, and 

hopefully we can do this cheaper also to the taxpayers. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. As a taxpayer, I would appreciate that 

opportunity, but more importantly for me and my 16,000 agents, 

we would jump on that opportunity. If there is a faster, easier way 

to do this, yes. 

We did get some clarification on the pilot project up there. One 

of the reasons that it will take 4 years—it is what I am being 

told—is because of the requirement still for us to do an environmental impact statement. That still takes that amount of time. 

Now, those are some of the additional built-in costs that may add 

up to the $3.5 million cost. I will take that for the record, and I 

will come back to you with a full delineation of what those costs 

include. But, yes, I would absolutely look forward to a meeting. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. 

I will not go to a second round, and I will ask my Ranking Member to go ahead for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. 

I wasn’t going to, but I want to follow up briefly on the cane, because it is pronounced at Laredo, but it is the whole border has a 

big percentage of it. It has salt cedar or other invasive species in 

it that anybody who thinks any fencing can be seen or any Border 

Patrol can see—as I have said before, we were at Laredo. One of 

your agents came with a dog, and there were two people standing 
55 

right next to your sector chief, and we didn’t even see them in the 

brush. 

Now, the question is if it is going to take environmental analysis, 

why can’t they analyze some of the areas that have already done 

this? Why, then, if it is going to take so long to get it cleared, can’t 

we clear for a bigger amount, so we are not held up and then have 

to go to the next area with it? It seems to me history can get then 

some, too. 

Last, as a big believer that you can’t incarcerate everybody— 

there should be work release programs—why can’t some of the 

work release people cut the cane? 

The key challenge we have had is how to keep the cane from 

coming back. That has been the biggest reason we don’t cut it. We 

think that grass will work. But the key thing then is we have all 

this stuff along the border. 

We are not going to be able to take trained Border Patrol agents 

and cut all this stuff. It might not take 100 years, but we are probably talking 10 or 15. We need some creative ways to accelerate 

this process. 

But I have two additional comments, and then a couple of questions. 

I am thankful for the P–3s. At one point we hardly had any of 

them flying. They are a critical part of our structure, and we need 

to continually upgrade. 

My earlier concerns about ICE coverage—because I do believe 

from talking to people all along almost every sector, requests aren’t 

coming in. There is a certain fatalism to it, concerns about it. I 

wasn’t necessarily criticizing how resources are being used. I don’t 

think you have enough resources. 

I was alluding to before the hearing started—and I want to put 

this on the record—we have a short-term opportunity at Big Bend 

Amistad Lake. The National Park Service has funds. They are willing to work with that. They are trying to make decisions. They 

have been meeting to put Border Patrol housing on National Park 

land. 

To have a joint operating center at Lake Amistad requires chaos, 

in political terms. It is two different agencies. There are funding 

streams in each agency. We have got to get clearance in appropriations. I have talked to Congressman Dicks, who is on both appropriations and this committee and works with National Parks in 

particular. 

This is ridiculous that we can’t get these kinds of things worked 

out, and it is the classic thing that the 9/11 Commission bashed us 

for. In the government there is this jurisdictional thing that seems 

to be slowing us down. I hope you will look into that and see, because it particularly is important to the Border Patrol, because we 

have huge sectors there. 

One other thing related to Texas and the Border Patrol. It is outrageous in the Marfa sector that where you have a checkpoint that 

the State of Texas will not lower the speed limit before that checkpoint, endangering our Border Patrol agents. 

Somewhere here we are going to have to some accommodation of 

what national security needs are in relationship to local authority 
56 

to put people trying to protect national security at risk. There has 

to be some way to address these questions. 

I wanted to ask a few questions about the port entrance. You 

have been spared so far. These questions are actually—one is related to infrastructure. How do you prioritize? What are your current prioritizations for port of entry? What are some things that we 

should maybe looking at? 

I know, for example, at Sault Ste. Marie, which is not a big 

crossing in the north border, there nobody is really saying, ‘‘Oh, we 

are going to build another bridge’’ or anything like Detroit or Buffalo, but is that because our truck area is jammed? The trucks go 

halfway over the bridge. They have enough to handle the cars, but 

the trucks are holding them up. 

Another question is related to your staffing. We heard from 

Chairman Reyes that he is proposing 5,000 to 6,000 more people 

at the ports of entry. How would that help you, and where would 

you use them? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, thank you very much for the question. 

On infrastructure, this is extremely critical for us. Just by way 

of some facts here, our average facility is 42 years old. Twentyseven of our land ports of entry inspection facilities were built before 1960, have never had major renovations or replacement. 

Fifty-seven percent of our sites are over capacity, have no expansion options, or have site configurations that constrict or limit the 

flow of traffic, and 67 percent of our buildings are at or beyond capacity. This is a very, very critical issue for us. 

I think it was Chairman Reyes that said this is not brain surgery, and I agree with him. To me there are three issues here. One 

is the technology piece. The other piece is the staffing piece, and 

then the infrastructure piece. 

To me those are the three issues that we have got to get our 

arms around. Now, from the standpoint of infrastructure, I think 

this is extremely critical for us. But I believe what we need to do 

is move kind of off just the ports of entry. It is very, very critical 

that we remodel and renovate the ports of entry. They need it very, 

very badly. 

However, Congressman, we also have to look at the roads going 

into the ports of entry and exiting the ports of entry. So in other 

words, if I still have a two-lane road coming into a port of entry 

that has five booths, and we built 10, I still have a two-lane road 

coming in. 

When you look at it from the standpoint of cycle times and the 

issue of wait times, in field operations we have a balance, as you 

know. We are dealing with legitimate trade and travel, of which 

most of it is legitimate trade and travel. 

We are also dealing with the violator. So it makes the job for our 

officers extremely critical. So on the infrastructure piece, just very, 

very big for us. 

From the standpoint of our staffing, certainly if we received additional staffing, we can put them to work. There is no doubt about 

that. I think there are things that we are not doing that we need 

to do. 

No. 1, we need to be able to staff all the booths. We do staff the 

booths during peak time, but often times what happens is that is 
57 

done on overtime. We have increased the overtime this year by 

over $35 million to give our port directors the flexibility to deal 

with these peaking issues. 

But also, you have got to be very, very careful here, because you 

start burning people out. People are on duty for too long. So we 

need that plus-up from the standpoint of staffing. Right now, we 

have 18,800 CBO that are on, and my target is about 20,000. So 

I am down about 1,100. 

Now, we have made a lot of inroads, but we do have attrition 

rate issues here. So when we look at that total package here, additional positions certainly would assist us, but we need to come up 

with a better way of retaining people. 

We are looking at about a 9 percent attrition rate. I believe the 

new retirement enhancement that was passed by Congress and 

signed into law that is going to be taking effect on July 6 will help 

us tremendously in retaining our officers. 

Our officers will be receiving law enforcement retirement benefits. This is something that in my 33 years is one of the most important things that is happened in our career, because it is so critical that our officers who are out there enforcing laws and in 

harm’s way have the right protection. 

So I think that is going to help us from the standpoint of retention. Last year we lost 405 officers strictly to other agencies that 

had that special law enforcement retirement package. 

So the infrastructure piece, but we have to think of the technology side of it as well, and certainly the staffing. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I know you were here this morning to hear our discussion with 

the first panel, and I have two questions for either you, chief, or 

whoever else can answer it. 

First, we know that it is tough to recruit, train and retain officers. We had a discussion about taking a new approach with special outreach to our returning wounded warriors, people who might 

not be in a situation, because of their injuries, where they could go 

out and patrol, but they would be ready to computer monitoring 

and activities of that sort. 

So, No. 1, do you think that is viable? If you do think it is viable, 

how could we help you accomplish it? 

Then question No. 2. I have actually talked to people who have 

an interest in the agency, but if you live in San Jose, the concept 

of having to pull up stakes and move to South Texas is not necessarily an appealing one. 

If you were able to do something on a remote basis through computers—we have got call centers all over the world servicing with 

technology. You don’t need to be onsite, if you are doing that kind 

of job. 

Do you think there is a potential to expand your workforce without the barrier of people having to relocate by utilizing technology? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Let me begin here. The positions that I think you 

are referring to, Congresswoman, are what we call mission support 

positions—mission support positions that are absolutely critical to 

operations. 
58 

Within the Border Patrol, those mission support positions translate to the following: the mechanics, law enforcement communication positions that actually man cameras and things of that nature, 

HR specialists and things of that nature. 

Within that universe there may be, and there probably could be, 

some positions that would lend themselves to that remote offsite 

type of support. We would welcome the opportunity to actually employ and work with our wounded warriors—absolutely. 

In fact, right now here at the Ronald Reagan Building, we are 

going through that process of trying to engage as many of them as 

we can. We can do better, and we need to do better in that area. 

But yes, there are in fact probably some positions that would 

lend themselves to that through technology connecting them to 

supporting our Border Patrol operations. 

The area of living in South Texas and New Mexico—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t mean to be dismissive about it, because 

those are wonderful places—— 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is just pulling up stakes is hard for people 

sometimes. 

Mr. AGUILAR. For the most part—and again, I refer for the most 

part—in the Border Patrol, the majority of those positions are probably going to require that they be onsite because of the nature of 

the work. But those positions that could lend themselves to remote 

offsite, I think we would welcome the opportunity. We will do the 

research. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. From the field operations standpoint, Congresswoman, I really embrace this idea. I think we have some more 

flexibility from the standpoint of where our field offices and where 

our ports of entry are located. 

We have ports of entry down on the southwest border, but as you 

know, we have 326, and 20 field offices scattered throughout the 

country. So I think I have some flexibility there. So I want to try 

and take that on. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Good. If there is anything I can do, I am sure, or 

any of the committee members could, to assist, I would be eager 

to do so. 

Just one quick follow-up question. Attrition rate now is running 

at what percent? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. For the CBPOs it is 8.9 percent. It was 8.9 percent last year. 

Mr. AGUILAR. For the Border Patrol, once they reach the journeyman level, it is about 4.5 to 5 percent. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So that is considerably lower than in past years. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, actually it is maintained pretty steady for the 

journeyman level. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see. 

Mr. AGUILAR. The reason I use that is because from entry into 

the Border Patrol, entering on duty to the time they get out of the 

academy and get past their journeyman, it can vary between 18 

and 20 percent. That takes into account the academy, living in 

some of these places, and things of that nature. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So once you have made it all the way through, you 

are going to have under 10 percent, but you are going to have a 
59 

fifth of them who are going to wash out to get to that point, pretty 

much. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. You can go ahead and say something. 

Mr. SOUDER. About South Texas being beautiful—the commutes 

are really shorter to work, I understand, than some of various Californians. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Certainly, Mrs. Lofgren’s does. Everybody wants to 

live there. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I can drive from one end of my district to another 

without traffic in 10 minutes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Yes, and when there is traffic? 

Ms. LOFGREN. An hour. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I am trying to get from your airport just to your 

downtown, which isn’t very far, and it can take hours. 

Anyway, Mr. Winkowski, some of the legislation presented today 

only addresses the Border Patrol needs. What are your priorities 

for the resources that you need at your ports of entry and to secure 

our borders from your standpoint? 

Can you give the subcommittee an update on your current staff 

levels, with an indication of whether you are on track for this year 

with respect to staffing? Do you need more? Are you on track? 

What are you doing right now? What are you trying to accomplish? 

Do you have enough? Do you need more? What does the future look 

like? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. As I had mentioned, currently as of the end of 

April, we had 18,834 CBP officers on board, and our target number, the number that we believe we can afford, is 20,009. So we are 

off about—we have about 1,100 vacancies that we are working 

through. 

We certainly have a pipeline. We have 1,800 people that are on 

the list. We had 3,024 training seats at the academy. So we are 

working toward filling those positions. 

As I mentioned earlier, one of the challenges that we have is attrition rates. Nine percent is very high. In some locations like 

Calexico, for example, it is higher. It is 18 to 20 percent. People 

don’t want to live there. 

We have taken some measures in there. We are working with 

OPM and modifying location codes so, for example, if we want you 

to go to Calexico, you put in for San Diego and Tecate and Calexico 

under that code, and then we call you up and say, ‘‘You got 

Calexico.’’ People say, ‘‘I don’t really want to go to Calexico. I want 

to go to San Diego.’’ 

So we are looking at a code that just addresses Calexico, so when 

a person says, ‘‘I want that code. I will go to Calexico,’’ we don’t 

get all the refusals that we have now. 

That is the challenge. I think the other challenge that we have 

had is not having the law enforcement retirement package. Now 

that we have that, and it is effective July 6, we believe that we will 

slow down the attrition rates. 

Last year, for example, 405 officers left Customs and Border Protection and moved on to ICE and other organizations that have the 
60 

6c law enforcement coverage. Some of these officers went from GS– 

12 to GS–7s to get it. 

So that legislation was extremely important to us from the 

standpoint of retaining the best and brightest. It all fits into a border strategy. You need consistency. You need that well-seasoned individual, that veteran that is going to be out there safeguarding 

the homeland. 

It is very hard when you have a high attrition rate, and you keep 

bringing people on. It is a revolving door. I think we are going to 

make some inroads here. 

We have more challenges. Congresswoman, I know you have 

been down to El Paso and on the southwest border, and it is a 

tough job. It is a very, very difficult job, as you know, and it fits 

right into our whole issue of infrastructure. 

We see some of the conditions that our officers work in, and we 

patch it together. But from the standpoint of infrastructure, and I 

had mentioned some facts there, we have got a real problem brewing. We are heading down a very, very dangerous path. 

Think about it. The chief over here is hardening between the 

ports of entry. What is going to happen? They are not going to stop 

coming in and stop smuggling. They are going to start coming in 

through the ports of entry more than they are now. They are going 

to start blitzing the ports of entry. We have had those problems 

back earlier down in San Ysidro. 

Our infrastructure is not prepared for that. It is inevitable. That 

balloon is going to go the other direction into the ports of entry. So 

the focus in on infrastructure is extremely, extremely critical for 

us. 

From the standpoint of staffing, I was able to hand out additional overtime to help out port directors as we enter the summer 

peak periods. But there are things that we don’t do as much as we 

should—outbound operations, for example, looking for ammunition 

and weapons going out, a big concern to the Mexican government. 

Being able to address some staffing scheduling issues, being 

more creative in our ability to schedule. We have a whole different 

work force now. When I came in 33 years ago, I knew this was my 

career. I had a pension. No one has that anymore. You only have 

401s. 

These kids move on. They go on to other organizations. That is 

good, but we have got to be able to have the right package for them 

to retain them. 

I think the enhanced retirement is a great step forward, but organizationally, we need to look at things—more creative scheduling, more 4/10’s—but in order to do that, you have got to have 

the flexibility from the standpoint of staffing, because I can’t leave 

those booths empty. 

I am dealing with legitimate trade and travel, and I am dealing 

with the violators. Legitimate trade and travel—people don’t want 

to wait in line. I don’t blame them. I don’t want to wait in line either. 

So I think from the standpoint of the infrastructure piece, extremely critical; certainly from the standpoint of the staffing, having the best and brightest out there, having an attractive package. 

I believe we are on our way. I really appreciate the 6c coverage, 
61 

the enhancement retirement that these officers got, as well as the 

technology piece. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I don’t think Calexico is such a bad place. Right 

across the way is Mexicali, where they have the best Chinese food 

in the world. It is just unbelievable. 

We have read recent articles about the low morale, for example, 

of El Paso ports of entry. I think you have talked about how the 

new package is hopefully going to help with some of that. 

But some of it seems to be the whole issue of being overworked. 

When you are overworked, sometimes things can slip through more 

easily than not. Certainly, we have seen that the Congress can 

make mistakes when we are pushing things a little too fast. 

So how do we take care of this overtime problem that so many 

seem to have to do, especially in these land ports where it is not 

that much fun to live? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, and I think this is getting to the whole 

area of resources. I did listen to Chairman Reyes testify today, and 

I verified some numbers. For example, in the port of El Paso, they 

have 766. That is their target—766 officers—and they have 55 vacancies. 

This is a very, very difficult issue for us. We have got to staff 

the booths. We have got to provide the trade community with services. One of the things that management was attempting to do in 

El Paso that brought on some of the picketing was looking at some 

different scheduling. 

You get into some real quality of life issues for people. Working 

the midnights-to-eights and the different shift work, some like it, 

some don’t like it. In our business as a CBP officer, it comes with 

the territory. 

I personally spoke to the director of field operations, Gene Garza, 

about exactly what changes they were making, and a lot of the 

changes were workforce alignment changes and getting the right 

schedules in place. I think we are able to streamline, eliminate 

some of our what is being called free doubles, but not all of them. 

It really comes down to having the right staffing numbers in 

place to be able to come up with some of these more creative scheduling. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. My last question of the day is for the General. You 

have, I think, three unmanned aerial drones right now. Do you 

plan to get any more? Do you plan to get any more? 

Don’t you have the three down in the south, and you are putting 

one to the north? Can you explain a little bit about what you are 

doing there and what your future expansion plans, if any, would 

be? 

Major General KOSTELNIK. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to 

do that, and I left that out of my introductory statements. We 

spent a lot of time recapitalizing the existing resources we have. 

Clearly, that effort was necessary, given the aircraft we have and 

their age, but really not sufficient for forward-thinking strategy. 

The UAV program has been one of our major areas of investment, and it clearly is a technology push that, if you look at the 

way the military has used UAV systems—UASs—overseas, there is 

clearly a high performance. 
62 

In fact, in these unmanned aircraft that we fly, which is a Predator B—it is the same aircraft that the United States Air Force, 

Navy and several other countries around the world fly—this single 

aircraft can do things that none of my manned aircraft can do. In 

that lies the charm. 

We currently have four operational aircraft in service today, as 

we speak. Those aircraft are all today located in Arizona. One is 

a dedicated training asset. We are currently and have been for the 

last couple of months actively training our own agents to operate 

these things. 

You may or may not realize that most of the operators of these 

things that are flown overseas are actually flown by contractors, 

and then the military fly them up and away, but the contractors 

do the take-off and landing. 

We are moving out to fly all of these assets ourselves to give us 

maximum flexibility, so they will be flown by law enforcement 

agents. We have funds in hand, or are in the process of finalizing 

a contract, for two additional aircraft that have identified tail numbers at the factory and will enter operational service with us this 

year. 

So by the end of this calendar year, U.S. Customs will have six 

of these aircraft operational. One of those is a dedicated training 

asset and will probably be a test asset to support follow-on secure 

border technology developments in Yuma and in Tucson. 

One aircraft is a dedicated northern border aircraft. That will deploy in the next month to Grand Forks, North Dakota. It will be 

hosted out of the Air Force base, where the North Dakota National 

Guard actually flies and has pilots to fly Predator–A models, and 

that will begin the first northern border deployment. 

We have just completed, in concert with United States Air Force 

and with U.S. Coast guard, a maritime demonstration. There is not 

a variant of the Predator–B aircraft that does maritime surveillance. 

In the transit zone, augmenting the P–3s, the DASH–8s and the 

U.S. Coast Guard C–130’s—and clearly, with the large amounts of 

drug traffic we are seeing with these self-propelled semisubmersibles, we clearly need more surveillance capability in the 

transit zone. 

So we conducted in the month of March a 3-week demonstration 

using aircraft prototype Predator–B with the developmental maritime radar on it, and we are proposing with the Coast Guard. We 

are having a joint requirements summit this summer in Miami. 

From that, if our requirements for a variant are aligned—and we 

think that they will be, up for really the commandant and the 

Coast Guard to speak for themselves—we have money in hand in 

the 2009 budget and a plan to buy an additional system, and that 

aircraft would be the prototype to develop a joint maritime aircraft 

for us and the U.S. Coast Guard to operate simultaneously. 

We have this year moved into flying through the satellite infrastructure, realizing that a couple of years ago our aircraft were 

flown line-of-sight. Today, we have procured two KU-band satellite 

systems with the control systems, and one is deployed to the 

AMOC in Riverside, California, and one is currently deployed in Sierra Vista. 
63 

From those two control sets, we can fly our six aircraft literally 

anywhere in the world. Clearly, our mission is in the continental 

United States and in the transit zone, but we will be able to fly 

missions anywhere in the country from those remote sites. 

In fact, during our maritime demonstration a couple of months 

ago, with the test team and two UAVs deployed to Florida at Tyndall Air Force Base in the Gulf, and three aircraft remaining in Sierra Vista, the test team and A&M assets flew the mission in Arizona from Florida simultaneously with the test team and other air 

agents in Arizona flying the mission in Key West, Florida, from Arizona. 

These systems can fly 35 hours. They carry EO optics. They 

carry forward-looking infrared. They carry Synthetic Aperture 

Radar and the Lanbury maritime surveillance radars with the AIF 

tracking system in the maritime domain. They carry laser designators, and they carry all the configuration to fly in the national airspace. This is indeed a very unique asset that is going to pay a big 

dividend. 

I was talking to the Congressman earlier about North Dakota— 

why would we go to North Dakota?—and potential concerns the Canadians might have. North Dakota is a good place, not because it 

is perhaps the highest for that area, but because of the remoteness. 

Governor Hogan supports it. Both of the senators from that State 

support. You talk to the aviators in that State, and they are supportive. There are wide ranges of remote area with a lot of areas 

where we really honestly don’t know what is going on. 

A North Dakota deployment is an opportunity to learn more 

about what these systems can do. They can fly in these remote 

areas for extended periods of time, doing very area risky things for 

manned aviation. 

They offer a unique local law enforcement aid, or humanitarian. 

You may recall last year or the year before when the people were 

lost in the mountains in Washington State. You could put this aircraft with a server sensor on station for 30 hours, looking for something. Or think about somebody in the water somewhere. 

So this is a tremendous technology push that has kind of been 

going on behind the scenes, while we are still evolving. By the end 

of this year, the sixth operational aircraft in two co-located sites, 

and a full complement of Federal agents to fly these things—this 

will be a very unique asset for the border security mission. 

Last year for the stand over North Dakota, we actually partnered 

with the Coast Guard to take one of our assets, box it up and 

transport it on real time with U.S. Coast Guard C–130’s to North 

Dakota with a control set. 

The plan was that today we have an agile Falcon capability within Department of Homeland Security, that if there was an issue 

somewhere in the country—natural or terrorist-related—today we 

could fly one of our aircraft and have the Coast Guard C–130 move 

a control set and fly overhead missions anywhere in the continental 

United States, same day with 30 hours overhead coverage from this 

vehicle, supporting assets on the ground. 

Thinking about Katrina and other type scenarios, this is clearly 

a capability you would like to have. So there has not been a lot of 

talk about it. The secretary has been out and looked at these 
64 

things. We had the president out in Yuma last year to take a look 

at these things. 

I think, Congressman, you have been out there. 

I know that you have, too. 

It is a great opportunity, and I would encourage members of this 

committee to come out to Sierra Vista or in your next visit to the 

AMOC to observe real time operations. It is a very important asset. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, General. 

My colleague from Indiana has one quick question before I gavel 

this over. 

Mr. SOUDER. We all have time pressures here, and we appreciate 

how long you have been here. This is just two quick yes and no, 

and if you want to submit additional for the record, for Chief 

Winkowski and Chief Aguilar. 

Do you have the legal ability now in these tough—you are having 

people who don’t want to stay there as long, or more turnover—do 

you have the ability to pay bonuses to get hard-to-cover sites? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, we have the ability to issue some bonuses, 

pay off college loans, things of that nature. 

Mr. SOUDER. Chief Aguilar. 

Mr. AGUILAR. There are some incentives there, yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. So you answered my second one, which is you are 

using them, because that is what I would think the private sector 

would do—also for the shifts. If you are having trouble getting 12 

to 8, then you pay a little bonus on the 12 to 8. 

I also know in remote locations, you are looking at going four to 

three on some days. But we need some creative ways to look at 

this, because it is obviously a structural problem. If there are any 

things that we need to do, let us know. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I appreciate that. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Good. I appreciate you gentlemen before us giving 

your testimony. Thank you so much. I am sure there will be more 

questions, especially from the Members who were not able to attend today and will submit those in writing to you, and hope that 

you will get back to us in a rather quick manner with the answers 

to that. 

We thank you. 

The subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ