U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

22–411 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–65

THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION

REFORM: STRENGTHENING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER 

SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY AND 

HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 17, 2005

Serial No. J–109–20

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

DAVID BROG, Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JAMES HO, Majority Chief Counsel 

JIM FLUG, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY AND HOMELAND SECURITY

JON KYL, Arizona, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

STEPHEN HIGGINS, Majority Chief Counsel 

STEVEN CASH, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ........................ 17

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 43

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 15

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 13

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 4

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 55

WITNESSES 

Hutchinson, Asa, Chair of the Homeland Security Practice, Venable, LLP, 

former Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. ................................................. 6

McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona ........................... 14

Reed, Mark K., Border Management Strategies, LLC, Tucson, Arizona ............ 11

Stock, Margaret D., American Immigration Lawyers Association, Associate 

Professor of Law, Department of Law, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, 

New York .............................................................................................................. 9

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hutchinson, Asa, Chair of the Homeland Security Practice, Venable, LLP, 

former Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., prepared statement .............. 45

McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, prepared 

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

McNary, Gene, Doris Meissner, and James W. Ziglar, Sr., former Commissioners of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C., 

joint letter ............................................................................................................. 60

Reed, Mark K., Border Management Strategies, LLC, Tucson, Arizona, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 62

Stock, Margaret D., American Immigration Lawyers Association, Associate 

Professor of Law, Department of Law, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, 

New York, prepared statement ........................................................................... 66

(1)

THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: STRENGTHENING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND

CITIZENSHIP, AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

TECHNOLOGY AND HOMELAND SECURITY, OF THE COMMITTEE

ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m., in 

room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security 

and Citizenship, and Hon. Jon Kyl, Chairman of the Subcommittee 

on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cornyn, Kyl, Sessions, Coburn, Kennedy, and 

Feinstein. 

Also Present: Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Chairman CORNYN. This joint hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship and 

the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security will come to order. 

Let me please first advise our witnesses and everyone present 

who is interested in the hearing that we have a little bit of an erratic schedule because of votes, and so we may have to get started 

and then take a recess. So if you will just bear with us, we will 

plow on ahead, and we do want to hear what you have to say and 

be able to ask questions and get your responses to those questions 

on the subject matter of the hearing. 

First let me say how much I appreciate Senator Specter for 

scheduling today’s hearing. This is the first in a series of hearings 

to examine the need for comprehensive reform of our immigration 

system. I want to thank Senator Kyl, who chairs the Terrorism 

Subcommittee, for his hard work and leadership on these issues as 

well. 

We announced a few weeks ago that he and I are working to 

identify and develop solutions for the critical problems that confront our immigration system. I want to also thank the Ranking 

Member of this Subcommittee, Senator Kennedy, as well as Senator Feinstein, the Ranking Member of the Terrorism SubVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:36 Dec 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22411.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
2

committee, as well as their respective staffs for working with our 

offices to make this hearing possible. 

Any effort to reform and strengthen enforcement of our immigration system, to be successful in the Senate, must be bipartisan, and 

I look forward to working with both of them and all of our colleagues to that end. 

Our Nation’s immigration and border security system is badly 

broken. It leaves our borders unprotected, threatens our national 

security, and makes a mockery of the rule of law. The system, notwithstanding the efforts recently to try to improve the situation, 

has suffered unfortunately from years of neglect, and in a post-9/

11 world, we cannot tolerate this situation any longer. 

National security demands a comprehensive solution to our immigration system, and that means both a stronger enforcement and 

reasonable reform of our immigration laws. We must solve this 

problem, and we must solve it now. 

For too long, the debate over immigration has divided Americans 

of good will into two camps: those who are angry and frustrated by 

our failure to enforce the rule of law, and those who are angry and 

frustrated that our immigration laws do not reflect reality. But 

both camps, in my view, are right. This is not an either/or proposition. We need stronger enforcement and reasonable reform of our 

immigration laws. 

First, we must recognize that in the past we have simply not devoted adequate funds, resources, or manpower to enforce our immigration laws and to protect our borders. That must change and it 

will change. No discussion of comprehensive immigration reform is 

possible without a clear commitment to and a substantial and dramatic escalation of our efforts to enforce the law. That is why these 

two subcommittees have embarked on this series of hearings over 

the last 2 months devoted exclusively to the topic of strengthening 

enforcement of our Nation’s immigration system, at the border, between the ports of entry, and in the interior of our Nation. These 

hearings have shown that the men and women who operate our immigration system work hard and do their best, and we appreciate 

their dedication. 

But our border inspection and security system at the ports of 

entry is still full of holes. Our deployment of manpower and the 

use of technology to secure the border between the ports of entry 

is inadequate. And our deportation process is overlitigated and 

underequipped. 

So we need stronger enforcement, but enforcement alone will not, 

in my view, get the job done. Nor will our immigration system be 

fixed by merely throwing money at the problem. Our laws must be 

reformed as well as enforced. 

Any reform proposal must serve both our national security and 

our national economy. It must be both capable of securing our 

country and compatible with growing our economy. Our current 

broken system provides badly needed sources of labor but through 

illegal channels, posing a substantial and unacceptable risk to our 

national security. Yet simply closing our borders would secure our 

Nation only at the expense of our economy. Any comprehensive solution must, in my view, address both concerns. 

3

Our hearing today will examine the national security justifications for immigration reforms. Of the more than 10 million people 

currently in our country without legal status and of the hundreds 

of thousands who enter each year undetected, some fraction of the 

population may harbor evil impulses toward our country. Yet it is 

a practical impossibility to separate the well-meaning from the illintentioned. We must focus our scarce resources on the highest 

risks. 

Law enforcement and border security officials should focus their 

greatest energies on those who wish to do us harm, not those who 

wish only to help themselves and to provide for their families by 

working. We cannot have a population of more than 10 million people within which terrorists and their supporters can easily hide. 

And we cannot have that population afraid to cooperate with law 

enforcement and anti-terrorism efforts. 

Next week, the Senate will examine the economic justifications 

for immigration reform. Our economy would badly suffer if we removed millions of workers from our national workforce, just as it 

would suffer if we eliminated entire stocks of natural resources 

from our national inventory. Our economy would be strengthened 

if all workers would simply come out of the shadows, register, pay 

taxes, and fully participate in our economy. 

President Bush has taken the lead and articulated a vision for 

the comprehensive reform of our Nation’s immigration laws in the 

interest of our Nation, our national security, our national economy, 

and the rule of law. I am heartened that in recent months we have 

seen growing recognition and consensus across the political spectrum that a comprehensive immigration solution is long overdue. 

Along these lines, Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy have introduced an immigration reform measure. I also understand that 

Senator Hagel will be introducing his proposal in the near future 

as well. And Senator Kyl and I recently announced on the Senate 

floor that we will introduce comprehensive legislation that will 

strengthen enforcement, control our borders, and reform our Nation’s immigration laws. 

I look forward to the critical role that these Subcommittees will 

play in the coming congressional debate on these various proposals, 

and as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I will work with the disparate voices together to attempt to craft a comprehensive consensus solution. This is a complex problem, and no one has a monopoly on good ideas. 

I want to reiterate that solving our immigration and border security problems should not be an either/or proposition. We are a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants. We need an immigration 

system that serves our national security and our national economy 

as well as our national commitment to the rule of law. We must 

strengthen enforcement of the law, but we must also enact laws 

that are capable of that strong enforcement. 

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

With that, I want to turn the floor over to Senator Kyl. Senator 

Kyl, I explained that we are in a series of votes here, so we are 

doing the best we can to move the hearing along. But we will, I 

am sure, have some coming and going, maybe a short recess. But 

4

I will turn the floor over to Senator Kyl at this time, then to Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein when they arrive, for any introductory remarks they may have. 

Senator Kyl? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn. 

The two Subcommittees that you see here represented of the Judiciary Committee are the two that primarily are concerned with 

the border security issues, the homeland security issues, terrorism 

as it might be associated with it, and generally immigration policy. 

The subject of the hearing today—The Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Strengthening Our National Security—really 

could focus entirely on the national security requirements of good 

immigration laws. 

Let me just mention one aspect that has not been fully reported 

on that illustrates the need for that, but I gather from the list of 

witnesses here that there will not be a great deal of discussion on 

that, except perhaps to some extent by Asa Hutchinson, but that 

we will be discussing different elements of an immigration policy. 

In my State of Arizona, on the Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery 

Range, there is today a significant degradation of our military capability in especially the training missions of the Marine Corps and 

the Air Force because of illegal immigration. That range is the premier range for training of pilots—and I might mention all of our 

pilots in Afghanistan and Iraq today trained over that range—because of its similarity in terrain to much of the Middle East and 

also because it has wide open spaces for these aircraft to do their 

training missions. 

Despite the Marine Corps’ best efforts at controlling the western 

part of that gunnery range, going in to move out illegal immigrants 

who they detect in the area, over 1,100 hours last year of training 

time was lost, over 400 missions had to be aborted just on that part 

of the range because of the later discovery of illegal immigrants in 

the vicinity. Obviously, nobody wanted to pursue the mission with 

the possibility that someone could be injured. 

That is very expensive when you have got planes gassed and 

loaded on the runways getting ready to perform their mission, or 

in the case of—there is actually film footage of planes going down 

to perform their mission, only to have the camera detect people 

running in the vicinity of where they are going to perform their 

missions, and the planes, of course, have to pull up and go around 

or simply go back to base. 

Our ability to train our pilots that we are putting in harm’s way 

in Iraq and Afghanistan is, therefore, being adversely impacted by 

illegal immigration. This is just one of the many ways in which illegal immigration imposes burdens upon our society. This cannot be 

allowed to stand, and it is one of the reasons why, I believe, that 

the first effort to move toward a broader immigration reform must 

be to gaining control of our borders. And this means a comprehensive effort to fund the personnel and technology on the border, putting more immigration investigators in the interior, funding their 

efforts as well, providing greater detention capacity, more legal 

5

staff to represent the United States in administrative and judicial 

immigration proceedings, allocations to investigate and prosecute 

those that have engaged in fraud, funding to speed the immigration 

process of persons who have obeyed the law legally and want to 

enter the country. And I think that the experts have testified, and 

I am very interested to hear Mark Reed as an expert testify about 

this as well. 

The Border Patrol Chief in the Tucson sector where over half of 

the illegal immigration in the country is occurring today has said 

that the border—he said, ‘‘Leave no doubt, the border can be controlled. It simply requires the allocation of resources to get the job 

done.’’ And he said there is no magic bullet. We know what works. 

We simply need more of that in order to get the job done. 

So I reject the notion that the border cannot be controlled, and 

we have simply got to live with the idea of inhibitions on military 

training, the possibility of terrorists, the 80,000 or so serious criminals that enter the country each year—well, those are the number 

apprehended. The number that enter may be well above that. 

But we can create legal mechanisms to allow the labor in this 

country that we need and cannot fulfill from American citizens or 

other legal residents without doing damage to the rule of law. Indeed, we have got to do whatever hiring is done within the rule of 

law so we can benefit the American economy without harming U.S. 

workers, I believe, to provide opportunities for guest workers to do 

work in the United States that needs to be done. But I think there 

will only be an open mind to considering such legislation if the 

American people know that we are committed to enforcing the 

law—and that means all of the law—and I think it also means a 

greater effort on the part of the countries from whom these laborers will come to work with us in developing the processes for adequately documenting the people from their countries who come 

here to work and agreeing to the prompt return to those countries 

of people who have completed their temporary work in the United 

States. 

That is a tall order, but, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that 

this is something we have got to do before the end of this year. We 

have got to tackle it. There is much that can be done, and like you, 

I am interested in hearing the views of our witnesses here today. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Kyl. 

We are pleased to have a distinguished panel with us today. I 

will introduce the panel, and I will ask each of them to give their 

opening statements. 

Asa Hutchinson joins us today. Mr. Hutchinson is currently a 

partner at the Venable law firm here in Washington, D.C. Of 

course, prior to that, Mr. Hutchinson was confirmed as the Under 

Secretary of Homeland Security in January 2003, shortly after the 

Department was created. 

At the Department of Homeland Security, he was responsible for 

managing and coordinating the overall security of U.S. borders and 

transportation systems, setting immigration enforcement policies 

and priorities, and developing and implementing visa security programs. 

Before that, he headed the Drug Enforcement Administration 

and before that was elected to the United States Congress and beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:36 Dec 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22411.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
6

fore that served as a U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. He brings a 

wealth of experience to this hearing, and we are thankful for his 

appearance here today. 

Joining Secretary Hutchinson is Professor Margaret Stock. Professor Stock is an assistant professor at the United States Military 

Academy at West Point, New York. Before joining the faculty there, 

she was in private practice where she specialized in the field of immigration law. She is also a member of the American Immigration 

Lawyers Association and a frequent speaker and consultant in the 

field of constitutional, military, national security, and comparative 

law. We welcome you as well, Professor. 

Also joining us today is Mark Reed. Mr. Reed is founder of the 

consulting firm Border Management Strategies. Before creating 

this firm, Mr. Reed retired from the Immigration and Naturalization Service after a distinguished 27-year career. During his career 

he had the distinction of serving as the regional director in Dallas, 

Texas, supervising all districts and Border Patrol sector operations 

in 18 States. Before that, he held a number, of executive positions, 

including serving as a district director, a San Diego, California, 

deputy director of the El Paso Intelligence Center, and the regional 

director for anti-smuggling at San Pedro, California. 

Welcome to all of you. We are privileged to have such a distinguished panel that brings such a broad base of practical experience 

in these issues. We would be happy now to hear your statements, 

and if you would please limit your statements to 5 minutes, then 

we will continue in a question-and-answer format and hopefully get 

to all the material. 

With that, let me recognize Asa Hutchinson for his opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF ASA HUTCHINSON, CHAIR OF THE HOMELAND 

SECURITY PRACTICE, VENABLE, LLP, FORMER UNDER SECRETARY FOR BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kyl. Thank 

you for your opening statements. 

From the standpoint of someone who has worked on border 

issues over the last two decades, I cannot recall any time that our 

Nation has been so focused on border security. I think this is the 

result of the concerns raised by the 9/11 Commission, a continuous 

flow of medical reports on our borders, and, of course, the devastating attack on 9/11 itself. In addition, the President raising the 

level of debate by initiating his proposal has resulted in a national 

debate that is timely, that is very passionate, but it is also very 

necessary. The decisions we make now will have an impact on our 

border security for years to come. 

You have to start with the proposition that in order to be effective in the war against terrorism, our Nation must be able to secure its borders. In fact, this proposition is the foundation of the 

Department of Homeland Security, and it is also the key founding 

principle of President Bush’s reform proposal. Congress has appropriated over $1 billion in developing an effective entry-exit system 

for our foreign visitors in the last 3 years. This program is US–

VISIT. Upon completion, it will be the most effective border system 

7

in our history guarding against illegal entry at our ports of entry. 

But that investment will be undermined if we do not develop complementary strategies for controlling the illegal flow across our vast 

land borders. To do so would be similar to posting a watchman on 

the gangplank of a ship but ignoring those coming over the side of 

the ship. 

The necessary elements to tackle this enormous problem effectively are: first of all, increasing the funding of technology and security personnel along the border; secondly, making it more difficult for illegal aliens to get jobs in this country; and, thirdly, providing a workable and practical means for migrant workers to have 

access to job opportunities in this country when these jobs cannot 

be filled otherwise. When and only when these security measures 

are established, then it is appropriate to have a conversation on 

providing a temporary legal status to the 8 million plus illegal 

workers already in this country. It is a significant vulnerability to 

allow such a large population to live and work anonymously in our 

communities, with no legal identities or other common connections 

to society. In fact, it is a terrorist’s dream. Moreover, any legal status should be a temporary work permit with a point of return to 

the alien’s home country. 

So we must examine our immigration policy from a comprehensive perspective, as this Committee is doing. Without a credible enforcement plan along with the funding necessary to execute that 

plan, any temporary workforce initiative is bound to send the 

wrong message. 

Let me elaborate on these elements. 

It is impractical to discuss border security without putting an 

emphasis on emerging technologies. The Department of Homeland 

Security, for example, has emphasized and developed the America 

Shield Initiative that integrates new technologies with increased 

numbers of Border Patrol agents. This initiative is the right strategy for border security, and it is built upon the Arizona Border 

Control Initiative that resulted in a combination of unmanned aerial vehicles to sophisticated ground sensors, resulted in increased 

apprehension rates of 47 percent. 

The Department is continuing to build on this successful strategy. Presently the 2005 budget provides $64 million for the America Shield Initiative, and the war supplemental provides additional 

agents. This is a good start, but in the long term it will have to 

be substantially increased. To make this effort successful in controlling our borders, there needs to be accelerated funding of the 

technologies and specific funding of an oversight program office 

within DHS similar to the US–VISIT program office that oversees 

the taxpayer’s investment. Congress has acted with a sense of urgency in funding additional Border Patrol agents, but the technology tools for these agents are essential for accomplishing a longterm, cost-effective strategy. 

The effort at border security must look beyond our borders. It 

does little good to apprehend illegal aliens if there is no sufficient 

detention space, and the detention costs will be excessive if there 

are not judges and attorneys to process the cases. And pressure 

needs to be applied to other nations to streamline the repatriation 

of the aliens. The opportunity for jobs in the United States is a 

8

great incentive for those who consider illegal entry. If the economic 

opportunity is combined with ineffective enforcement and removal, 

then the magnet for illegal entry almost becomes too powerful to 

resist. A chief objective of any border control strategy must be to 

reduce the power of the magnet that draws illegal workers. 

Any immigration reform proposal must include a greater investment in workplace enforcement. Employers must be abe to verify 

the legal status of job applicants; they should report to the Government the temporary workers they hire and advise the Government 

of any who leave employment. This system would allow a closer 

tracking of individuals in the system and will result in better enforcement of immigration laws. There are a number of existing systems that serve as a useful model that can be implemented in this 

fashion. 

Another critical tool in border security is expanding the use of 

expedited removal in the circumstances where there are no issues 

of asylum or similar exceptional circumstances. This administration should be complimented and recognized for using expedited removal in the Tucson and Laredo sectors along the Southwest border, but more needs to be done. Budgetary constraints have limited 

the expansion of expedited removal along the border. 

Let me conclude by just saying that the following factors have to 

be in place to be successful in reducing illegal entry. 

First of all, the chance of apprehension has to be greater than 

two-thirds. There are indications that we are approaching this goal 

in some areas of the border. 

Secondly, if apprehended, the removal to country of origin must 

be speedy with little chance of release pending a court hearing. 

Thirdly, if the alien avoids apprehension and removal, then the 

chance of finding an employer that will accept your illegal status 

must be unlikely. 

And, fourthly, there has to be a meaningful way to legally apply 

for temporary work authorization in the United States and for the 

family to go back and forth during that time of employment. 

I have emphasized the need during my testimony of effective immigration enforcement, but obviously we have to continue the opportunity for immigrants in our society. 

In Arkansas, I was fortunate as a Member of Congress to watch 

the growth of the immigrant population in our State. They have 

added greatly to the culture, economic growth, and values of my 

State. I was able to encourage the former INS to add an office in 

Fort Smith to better serve the immigrant population, but also an 

enforcement office in Fayetteville to more quickly respond to the 

needs of law enforcement. It takes both, and I am grateful for this 

Committee trying to achieve the right balance. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchinson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson. We appreciate 

your testimony as well as your service to the country in this important area, and we look forward to your continued assistance to us 

as we try to craft the right solutions to the problems. 

Professor Stock, we would be glad to hear your opening statement. 

9

STATEMENT OF MARGARET D. STOCK, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF 

LAW, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY, WEST 

POINT, NEW YORK 

Ms. STOCK. Senator Cornyn, my name is Margaret Stock, and as 

you know, I am an associate professor in the Department of Law 

at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. 

However, the opinions I am expressing today are my own and not 

the opinions of the Department of the Army, the United States 

Military Academy, or the Department of Defense. 

These hearings are long overdue and much needed. Today’s hearing could not be more important nor timely. We must acknowledge 

the connection between comprehensive immigration reform and our 

national security, and the fact that our national security depends 

on comprehensively reforming our immigration laws. Until now, we 

have focused on border and interior enforcement, but we simply 

cannot effectively reform our immigration laws or enhance our security with an enforcement-only approach. Neither can we ensure 

our security by focusing solely on a guest worker program. A guest 

worker approach by itself inadequately addresses the systemic 

problems with our immigration laws, and an enforcement-only approach is doomed to failure because it is unworkable and far too 

expensive for too little in return. 

My testimony will emphasize the three things that are important 

and critical for necessary immigration reform. First, we need comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the situation of people living and working here by allowing them to earn the opportunity to obtain permanent status. The estimates vary on how 

many illegal immigrants there are present in the United States, 

but the figures run from 8 to 20 million. The vast majority are relatives of U.S. citizens or lawful residents or workers holding jobs 

that Americans do not want. Those people need an opportunity to 

come out of the shadows and regularize their status. 

Second, immigration reform must include a break-the-mold worker program. Current laws do not meet the needs of our economy or 

workers. A break-the-mold program would allow the diminishment 

of illegal immigration by creating a legal avenue for people to enter 

the U.S. and return, as many wish, to their countries, communities, 

and families. 

Immigration reform, third, must reunify families. Legal permanent residents often wait up to 20 years to reunite with their family members. Such long separations make no sense in our pro-family Nation. 

Neither a simple guest worker program that includes an option 

to adjust nor a work and return program in and of themselves can 

be considered comprehensive reform. Both programs ignore the significant problems in the current system, namely, those who are residing now inside the United States but do not have lawful status, 

and families who must endure lengthy separations. It is unrealistic 

to assume that significant numbers of undocumented people, illegal 

immigrants, will step forward and register for a program with at 

the end of the day would force them to leave their families and 

their jobs and go back to a country for a very long and unknown 

period of time. A program that includes no real possibility for peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:36 Dec 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22411.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
10

ple to earn permanent resident status will not generate full participation. People will simply choose not to participate or take the risk 

and go back into the shadows if the laws do not change before the 

time period of the program expires. 

It is also unrealistic to assume that families will endure separation. To enhance our security, we need immigration laws that acknowledge the needs of American business, reunite families, and 

allow us to find out who is living in the United States. Both the 

guest worker program alone, with the possibility of adjustment, 

and a work and return type approach fail on those counts. Immigration reform that legalizes hard-working people already here and 

that creates a new worker program will help the U.S. Government 

focus resources on enhancing security, not on detaining hard-working people who are filling vacancies in the U.S. labor market or trying to reunite with close family members. 

In addition, an earned adjustment program will encourage people 

to come out of the shadows and be scrutinized by our Government. 

A new worker visa program will create a legal flow through which 

people can enter and leave the United States. The legality that results from these initiatives will contribute to our national security 

by helping to focus resources on those who mean to do us harm. 

Such legality also will facilitate enforcement efforts. Enforcing a 

dysfunctional system only has led to more dysfunction, not better 

enforcement. 

As I believe you are aware, a recent survey of likely voters in 

March 2005 showed that 75 percent of likely voters favor a proposal that includes the things I have just talked about. 

The recently introduced Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act is a bipartisan comprehensive reform bill that would take 

a giant step toward reforming our immigration laws and enhancing 

our security. 

Given the complexity of the law in this area, the broken status 

quo, and the fact that whatever reforms are enacted will impact on 

our security, proposals that are introduced in the future must reflect the kind of reform I have discussed. 

In closing, I would like to emphasize a couple of things. In my 

written testimony, Senator, I have said there are a number of particular issues that should be looked at in legislation that shall be 

proposed. Our focus should be not merely on keeping people out—

that is the wrong approach—but, rather, on letting the right people 

in. That is the key to our national security. If we do not have comprehensive reform, we will not be able to enhance our security and 

our enforcement initiatives will fail. 

I want to end completely by focusing on one issue where we went 

the wrong way. The REAL ID Act recently enacted has ruled out 

the possibility of using State Department of Motor Vehicle databases as a source of information about the illegal or undocumented 

migrant population in the United States. Thus, REAL ID will make 

it harder to enforce our immigration laws, not easier, and I point 

out that the DMV databases have been enormously useful to ICE 

and other enforcement agencies in their efforts to enforce immigration law. 

Comprehensive immigration reform that allows illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows and be identified will enhance 

11

our security and improve the data on those who are present in the 

United States. 

Thank you very much. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much, Professor Stock. 

Mr. Reed, we will be glad to hear your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARK K. REED, BORDER MANAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES, LLC, TUCSON, ARIZONA 

Mr. REED. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to share some 

of my experiences over the past 30 years. I am here today to embrace the concept that comprehensive immigration enforcement 

strategy must be an essential component of our national—

Chairman CORNYN. Mr. Reed, I cannot tell whether your microphone is on. Is the light on? 

Mr. REED. How about now? 

Chairman CORNYN. Excellent. Thank you. 

Mr. REED. I am here today to embrace the concept that a comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy must be an essential 

component of our national and economic security strategies. For 

the record, I believe that our borders can be secured with existing 

technology and resources. I am not talking about using the military. I am talking about integrating current capability and initiatives into a comprehensive and cohesive plan. Continued efforts to 

showcase a piece of the solution while ignoring other essential components of the problem will not work, is inherently dishonest, and 

in today’s world, dangerous. 

Over the decades, our border strategies, exacerbated by inadequate funding and conflicted policy, now provide great cover for 

anyone to unlawfully enter this country, remain here, and do us 

harm. The border is porous. Alien-smuggling networks are well established and prospering. Millions of people are in this country illegally with false identities. Identity fraud has exploded with the 

proliferation of document vendors in virtually every community. It 

is easy to enter this country unlawfully, gain a false identity, and 

move openly among us without threat of detection. It took us a long 

time to dig this hole, so let me drop back for a moment in time. 

Almost 20 years ago, our first President Bush declared a war on 

drugs. I was present at a high-level strategy meeting regarding the 

urgency of sealing the Mexican border to stop drug smuggling by 

sending the military to the border. When DOD stated that they 

were capable of detecting and interdicting any intrusion but could 

not distinguish between groups of migrants from drug smugglers 

until interdiction, the dialogue became difficult. When DOD refused 

to entertain the idea that they should only detain drug smugglers 

upon interdiction and let everybody else go, the meeting was 

abruptly terminated. The safety valve that illegal immigration provided toward the stability of Mexico seemed to be a more compelling national security priority than drug smuggling. 

This event clearly points to larger binational issues with our 

neighbors in Mexico and Canada. It also contains two other important messages about our Nation’s historical lack of commitment toward border enforcement as part of the solution. 

12

First, DOD said that they could provide the technology and resources to detect any intrusion along the Mexican border. Almost 

two decades later, the Border Patrol still cannot ‘‘see’’ most of the 

border. Detection is fundamental to any border security strategy. 

Second, this call to arms to secure the borders occurred shortly 

after sweeping legislation to legalize millions of undocumented 

workers, coupled with a ‘‘strong’’ enforcement package that was not 

funded and not comprehensive. 

Our current border strategy is based on terrain denial tactics. 

This strategy was designed to gain control of one part of the border 

at a time, adjust resources to maintain control, and then expand 

to another segment of the border. 

Purportedly, the Government’s original intent was a measured 

march from one end of the Mexican border to the other, one step 

at a time until the entire border was secure. The strategy also ha 

depth. It was supposed to be backed up by parallel efforts to attack 

alien-smuggling corridors and an aggressive worksite enforcement 

effort to attack the magnet of jobs. But it turned out to be a piecemeal effort. Resources to attack the corridor never materialized, 

and worksite enforcement resources dwindled into virtual non-existence. The marching strategy was abandoned. The strategy was 

modified to focus on quality-of-life issues at border communities 

and border safety without resources to address the gaps and flanks 

within and around existing operations. As a result, border crossers 

were forced into the clutches of alien smugglers because easy and 

safe passage through border communities had become difficult. 

Alien smugglers, as part of a continuing enterprise, criminal enterprise, often pass smuggled aliens over to document vendors who 

are prepared to create false identities for the purpose of defeating 

employer verification procedures, which brings us to worksite enforcement, a key to our success. The great majority of people illegally entering this country are coming for jobs. When we remove 

the incentive to enter the country illegally, the overwhelming number of people crossing the border will drop. Enforcement capabilities will soar. Pressure on schools and hospitals will be relieved. 

And criminal populations in our jails will diminish. 

But the Nation is conflicted. I refer you back to Operation Vanguard that was launched against the meat-packing plants in Nebraska a few years ago. The Government demonstrated the absolute ability to effectively bar employment of unauthorized workers 

in any sector in the country with minimal resources. Using the border strategy model of terrain denial, intent was declared to engage 

one entire industry every year until unauthorized employment was 

barred nationwide. Vanguard was shut down after 3,500 people 

fled the meat-packing industry during the first 30 days of the operation. 

Similar accounts of detention and criminal alien enforcement 

vendors that would work but are not allowed to work, as well as 

conceptually valid models like Basic Pilot that could work but have 

never worked, are many and are provided in my written statement 

for the record. They are included because those programs are also 

an essential component of a comprehensive strategy. 

Thank you. 

13

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reed appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Reed. 

We have been joined by a number of our colleagues, and as I explained, our voting schedule may require some of us to come and 

go. But let me please give an opportunity to Senator Kennedy, as 

the Ranking Member of the Immigration Subcommittee, and then 

to Senator Feinstein, as Ranking Member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, to make any opening remarks they would like to make. 

I have also invited Senator McCain, who expressed an interest 

in joining us today, to join our Subcommittee panel and participate 

to the extent he has time and an interest in doing so, and we are 

also glad we have Senator Coburn here. 

Senator Kennedy, I will turn it to you. 

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

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank you for the continuation of the series of hearings that 

you have been holding. They have been very comprehensive, looking at a variety of different kinds of challenges that we have been 

facing, the criminality issues which we had in the last set of hearings, other issues that are enormously important that we have to 

deal with. And I want to thank all of our witnesses, and I look forward to hearing from our colleagues. 

I want to welcome back Asa Hutchinson. The last time I saw Asa 

Hutchinson, I revealed that I had been on the no-fly list. I had 

been on it in January. I think our hearing was in April. And I got 

more attention with that little kind of jewel and nugget from Massachusetts and around the country. I had more letters asking me 

why I wanted a special privilege, and that is, not to be on the list. 

Eventually I got off the no-fly list, but I want you to know that 

we are still working on this issue for a number of our constituents. 

I know that you were involved and interested in it, but I came 

down yesterday from Boston with one of our leading researchers 

out at Mitre that has gotten on the list and is working his way 

through. And I have become sort of an expert in working that 

through. But it is nice to see you. I have always enjoyed being on 

the Human Resource Committee with your brother. 

Let me just very quickly say I think for most of us what we are 

hearing time and again is that the system is broken and that we 

have to look at a new way of looking at our border that combines 

the latest in technology. I know Asa Hutchinson was interested in 

the latest technology. Others have spoken to it. But we have to try 

to, I think, come to grips with a system that is broken. I don’t 

think there are enough resources in this country to put a fence all 

the way across the Southern border, 1,880 miles, or across the 

4,200 miles of border with Canada or enough troops or enough 

money to be able to do it. And we have spent now $20 billion over 

the last 10 years in terms of constant expansion, and the numbers 

are still around 400,000, give or take. 

I do believe that if we try—we have 5,000 legitimate individuals 

that could come under the immigration laws and enormous kinds 

14

of demands economically. And we are facing serious kinds of questions of enforcement. 

The idea that you have the best trained people, the border guard 

out there chasing gardeners and parking lot attendants when our 

borders are open in terms of real national security issues, smugglers, drug issues, I think is just a lesson we have to learn. 

And I think it is a combination of tough and strict enforcement 

as well as regularizing the immigration provisions in ways that are 

responsive to our economic challenges, consistent with our immigration history, and also recognizing that we are not going to have 

an amnesty program, but we are going to try and find ways of regularizing our system. And this combination I think is at least 

worth a way of giving a different kind of approach, and this is 

something that Senator McCain has been a leader, and others have 

been enormously interested in it. And at some time after maybe 

Senator Feinstein makes her comment—I know Senator McCain—

I will withhold my questions, but I appreciate the chance to say a 

brief word on it. 

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

Chairman KYL. [Presiding.] In case Senator Cornyn did not mention it, the vote on the final passage of the highway bill is taking 

place right now, and I gather all the members here have voted on 

that. 

I would like to call on Senator McCain, but, Senator Feinstein, 

you are up next. Would you like to go next or defer to Senator 

McCain? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If he has a time problem, I would be happy 

to defer. 

Chairman KYL. If you could do that, I would appreciate that, and 

then I would call on you next. 

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

THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

you for the courtesy of my friend from California. I would like to 

be very brief because there are important witnesses before this 

hearing. 

I first of all would like to thank Asa Hutchinson for the outstanding job that he performed as the deputy head of Homeland 

Security, but I would also like to associate my remarks with Mr. 

Reed that the system is broken, it has to be fixed. And I would like 

to relate one brief vignette that Senator Kyl is very familiar with. 

When then-Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge came to 

visit our border to see up close our problems, we went to Fort 

Huachuca, the Army base in Arizona, and we saw the UAVs that 

were in operation there. They are a tremendous force multiplier. 

Everybody was praising to the skies how important and valuable 

this was. Much to the astonishment of myself and Senator Kyl and 

everybody else, it was cancelled. It was cancelled for some budgetary conflict. And now we may have some ability to acquire a decision by next December. 

We have to use high-tech equipment on the border. We must use 

high-tech equipment on the border. We will never have enough peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:36 Dec 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22411.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
15

ple if we took the whole United States Army and stationed them 

across the 347-mile border of Arizona and Mexico. We need to have 

force multipliers, and we need high-tech equipment. And it is broken, and it needs to be fixed. 

I would finally say, Mr. Chairman, I am glad that you and Senator Cornyn are heavily involved in this debate. It is understandable. But I think every Senator from every State in America has 

got to be concerned with this issue because they are not staying on 

the border or in the Southwest anymore. They are going to Massachusetts, they are going to New York. The largest increase in population in America in the South today is Hispanic people. And they 

are living in shadows. There are labor laws and other laws that are 

applicable to citizens and they are deprived of, and they are being 

abused as we speak. And it is a national security issue. Director 

Mueller has said that more people of ‘‘countries of interest’’ are 

crossing our Southern border than ever before. 

But I would also suggest, sir, that we have two other problems. 

Very quickly, one is the 10 to 11 million people who are here illegally. That problem has to be addressed and it has to be addressed 

in a humane fashion—in a humane fashion, but one that does not 

mean amnesty nor does it mean reward for anybody who came here 

breaking our laws. 

And, finally, of course, as the President has spoken in such articulate fashion, we need to match willing workers with willing employers. And I believe Senator Kennedy and I have come up with 

a proposal that it should be, I hope, a basis for us to all work together and come up with a reasonable solution. 

And, finally, I suggest that Senator Kennedy be kept on the nofly list as long as possible. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much. 

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

Chairman KYL. Except for the last comment, we welcome your 

statement, Senator McCain. Thank you very much. 

Senator Feinstein? 

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

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much. Mr. Chairman, it has 

been my pleasure to work with you and with others on this Committee on the terrorism aspect of this. And I certainly agree that 

our system is broken. I also believe we can enforce our borders if 

we have the political will to do so and we should. 

According to the 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, in 

2000 along the Southwest border there was a record high of about 

a million six detained, yet in fiscal year 2003 that dropped to 

905,000 people. At the same time, in 2000 the Border Patrol processed a record number of persons, a million six, but in 2003 processed only 900,000 people. 

Now, could this be that we are seeing a decrease in the number 

of individuals seeking to enter the country legally and illegally? I 

don’t think so. Since 2000 we have seen a drop in the number of 

aliens apprehended, while the number of aliens seeking to come 

16

here has actually increased, where we have put more money, more 

resources, more Border Patrol. 

In fiscal year 2003, the United States admitted a total of 27.8 

million persons in non-immigrant admissions. Those are temporary 

admissions to work here, to attend school, or to visit as a tourist. 

And along our borders, nearly a million people, as I just said, were 

caught attempting to enter the country illegally. It is estimated 

that for every one person seeking to enter the United States illegally that is caught, three others are not caught. Therefore, the 

numbers could be as high as 3 to 4 million a year. 

And while we know that we have in the United States 10 to 12 

million illegal aliens, during fiscal year 1986 to 2003, the Border 

Patrol accounted for 90 to 97 percent of total apprehensions while 

interior agents accounted for only 3 to 10 percent of apprehensions. 

I know there has been a change in emphasis. To some extent, I 

really question that change. 

This number to me also appears rather skewed, and it makes me 

question where our resources are going and why the number of apprehensions are going down while the numbers of illegals are increasing. 

Now, one of my concerns has been the category of other than 

Mexicans, given the appellation OTMs, in the catch and release 

program. Along the Southwest border, in 2003 there were 30,147 

other than Mexican intrusions. The following year, in 2004, there 

were 44,617. That is a 48-percent increase of those, again, caught. 

In February of 2004, during a Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee hearing, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation 

Security Asa Hutchinson—who looks strangely like that gentleman 

sitting at the table—responded to questions by Senator Grassley 

regarding the catch and release policy for other than Mexicans as 

follows: His response, and I quote—and I think I have done this before, but I want to get his answer to this today—was, ‘‘At present, 

DHS has no specific policy regarding OTMs apprehended at the 

Southern border. While OTMs as well as Mexicans are permitted 

to withdraw their applications for admission and can be returned 

voluntarily to their country of nationality, as a practical matter 

this option is not readily available as it is for Mexicans whose government will accept them back. Thus, when apprehended, OTMs 

are routinely placed in removal proceedings under the Immigration 

and Nationality Act Section 240. It is not practical to detain all 

non-criminal OTMs during immigration proceedings and, thus, 

most are released.’’

I think that is a real problem, and I want to know if that problem still exists today. 

It is also my understanding that a majority of OTMs later fail 

to appear for their immigration proceedings and simply disappear 

into the United States. We have looked at the statistics for each 

country and the so-called countries of concern—Syria, Iran, and 

Iraq. The number of penetrations by nationals of these countries 

throughout our Southwest border are rising. Clearly we are deficient in a mechanism to deal with these. Thus, it seems to me—

and I have said this before, but if I were a terrorist, this is how 

I would look to come to the United States. 

17

So I believe that we have much work ahead of us, and we need 

to address some of these serious issues. I look forward to the testimony, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much. 

Senator Coburn? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator COBURN. Well, thank you, Senator Kyl and Senator 

Cornyn and our Ranking Members, for this Committee hearing. It 

is interesting. This past week I got a letter from a sheriff in 

Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. Oklahoma has a pseudoephedrine 

law where it is all placed behind the counter. Seventy-five percent 

of all the drug labs have been shut down in Oklahoma, yet the utilization of methamphetamine now is higher than what it was before, and it is higher because it is all coming in from Mexico. So 

it is not just our schools and our hospitals that are being impacted. 

It is our children that are being impacted by illegal drugs that are 

the most addictive, the cheapest, and yet we are harboring the very 

people through our policies that allow that process to continue. 

This is the third hearing that the co-Chairmen have had on immigration, and we have heard what is not working. What we have 

not heard oftentimes is what do you need to make it work. Your 

testimonies today are excellent, and I will have several questions 

for you. But I think that Senator Feinstein mentioned probably one 

of the most important things. It seems to me that the political will 

has not been there to do what is necessary to have a humane immigration policy and at the same time enforce our laws, enforce our 

borders, and protect our families. And it is a national security 

issue. But it may not be terrorist in relationship. It may be the undermining of our very institutions because they are going to collapse under the weight of illegal aliens who are in this country. 

We also had testimony that there are 450,000 convicted felons 

that are running free in this country today because we cannot 

house them in detention beds. We have 19,000 beds at $30,000 a 

year. We need 30,000 or 40,000 more beds just to keep up with 

what the flow is. That problem is only there because we are not 

enforcing our border. 

And so I look forward to your testimony. I thank you for having 

the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I await the opportunity to ask 

questions. 

Chairman CORNYN. [Presiding.] Well, thank you, Senator 

Coburn. 

We will now start a 5-minute round of questions, going back and 

forth. And, again, we appreciate your presence in this important 

hearing. 

Your opening statements have been very helpful. I want to say, 

Mr. Hutchinson, as I acknowledged your great public service at the 

Department of Homeland Security, I know sometimes when you 

hear the criticisms that everyone has of where we are now, it is 

hard not to take them personally. But I assure you that we know 

it is people like you and others who have worked at the Department that have made things much better than they would be without your efforts. But we still have a long way to go. 

18

One of the questions I have for you is: Should the U.S. Government as a condition of participation in a guest worker program require that participating countries agree to certain terms and conditions? In other words, we know, for example, that the second largest source of annual revenue to Mexico comes from remittances of 

the immigrants who work here in the United States and send 

money home. We also know that they are eager for us to address 

this migration problem, as they call it, which we call immigration 

reform, in a way that does allow more of their people to work legally in the United States. But given the fact that due to Federal 

mandate any hospital emergency room in America must open up to 

any person who comes in, regardless of ability to pay, and regardless of citizenship, that children born of people who are not lawfully present in the United States are American citizens and obviously entitled to be educated in our schools and the like, what kind 

of commitments should we expect from countries who would like to 

participate in some sort of guest worker or temporary worker program with regard to some of these expenses for, let’s say, medical 

care the like? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, first of all, I 

think we should use access to the temporary worker program as leverage to accomplish our broader objectives and to solicit their cooperation in reducing the illegal flow into our country. 

I do believe the Government of Mexico needs to take a greater 

responsibility in discouraging a very dangerous trek across the border. I think they have taken some important steps, but still, the 

fundamental belief in Mexico seems to be that this is a right that 

they have to cross the border and enter the United States, with or 

without legal permission. And that needs to be discouraged. That 

message needs to go out. 

Secondly, in the Central American countries particularly, we 

need to have greater cooperation in terms of the process of removing those that we apprehend coming across our border illegally. 

The paperwork, before we can send them back, they have to agree 

to receive those. They fly back. We have to have the paperwork 

processed. The consular offices have to appear. They have got to 

put more personnel, and we need to use the leverage to get that 

done more quickly. 

Chairman CORNYN. Professor Stock, you mentioned in your comments, which I thought were very thoughtful, the problems with an 

enforcement-only approach. Some people would argue that we have 

not tried that yet, which is an overstatement. But there is a lot of 

frustration at our unwillingness, either lack of political will or lack 

of willingness to invest in the resources necessary to provide border 

security and interior enforcement. But would you agree that—and 

I think you said this, but let me just ask you to confirm what I 

think I heard—it is that we need both? We need both laws that can 

be enforced and the political will to enforce those laws, but then 

we also need to deal with the issues that you addressed, that is, 

how do we get people to identify themselves and come forward and 

to sign up for any program that might be available without dealing 

with their desire not to be deported once they report? 

19

Ms. STOCK. That is correct, Senator. You have summarized my 

testimony very nicely, and I fully agree with everything that you 

have said. 

I do want to emphasize that one of the big problems right now 

is our dysfunctional laws. Most Americans think that illegal migrants should go and apply for status and get legal. The problem 

is they cannot. There are millions of people in the United States 

right now who are married to Americans, working for American 

companies, doing things that benefit our economy, who cannot get 

legal. There are even young people who would like to join our military services right now who cannot do so because they do not have 

papers. Even though they have lived in the United States since 

they were small children, they are physically fit, they speak 

English perfectly, and they would make great members of our 

armed forces, they cannot join because they are not legal. And I 

have seen an estimate of 780,000 of those folks floating around in 

the United States. 

It would be of tremendous benefit to our national security if 

many of these folks could come out of the shadows and participate 

openly in our communities. They would not be exploited. We would 

not be empowering some of the criminal gangs who make it a business now to get these folks in and out of the country on a regular 

basis. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

We are going to be able to have several rounds, I anticipate, so 

I will turn the floor over to Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. On that issue, Professor Stock, I find that my 

office in Boston is just overrun now with trying to adjust papers 

by the recruiting officers that are going through a number of the 

different communities, in Lowell and Lawrence, and getting many 

of these young people in order to meet their particular needs. I 

don’t know if you are aware whether this is increasingly a phenomenon. Do you know? Are you familiar with this sort of effort? 

Ms. STOCK. Yes, Senator. I cannot speak—of course, I am speaking of my personal opinion only and not on behalf of the Department of Defense, but I know that folks who have come to the 

United States from other countries and have adopted this country 

as their own often feel very patriotic and have a sense that they 

need to serve their adopted country, particularly in wartime. And 

many of them are legal and are able to openly go and join the military services, and they have signed up, and we have had a number 

of them. Some who are illegal have managed to get into the military and have served honorably and have earned their citizenship 

and even died in combat fighting for the United States. But there 

are hundreds of thousands of young people who are out there potentially available to serve the country that they have lived in 

since they have been small children. They have been educated 

here. Many of them are terrific recruits but for the fact that they 

don’t have papers. 

Senator KENNEDY. Let me just get the reaction of the panel to 

this point that the Chairman raised about other countries doing 

their bit. I think this is—we are never going to get this right—if 

we can get it right, it is enormously complex—unless we are going 

20

to get Mexico to do its share, and the other countries in Central 

America. And we have been sort of an outlet for Mexico in terms 

of, I think—this is my personal view—trying to deal with some of 

the social dynamite in terms of its society. But we have to expect 

that they are going to do a good deal more. 

Part of the remittances, as I understand, are being used to provide some initiatives in terms of development. I don’t know whether you are familiar with those efforts. Is this is an area that can 

be expanded? Should we expect that this is an area that at least 

we can try—if we are trying to get them to do more, what do you 

suggest that we ask them to do besides just probably a tougher border patrols, tougher policing? Since we know, as all of you have 

pointed out, this is the economic magnet in terms of employment, 

what can we get them to do? And what suggestions do you have? 

Professor Stock, do you want to take a crack at that? 

Ms. STOCK. Sure, I would be happy to, Senator. First, I want to 

emphasize that it is very beneficial to the United States that we 

have Mexican citizens sending remittances home because that 

money helps to stabilize Mexico, which is of benefit to us. If the 

folks are coming here legally, though, we also gain the added benefit of having potentially fee income to the United States Government, more taxes collected, the possibility of people paying for 

health insurance, which will relieve the problems with hospitals 

have to pay for illegal migrant health care. If people are buying 

health insurance, that is less of a problem. 

With regard to cooperation with Mexico, I think there are enormous opportunities there. We could have cross-border cooperation 

with law enforcement. We could have cross-border cooperation on 

checking the backgrounds of people who are coming in, checking 

the validity of documentation, identifying people. 

Senator KENNEDY. Those are not in process now to the extent 

that—

Ms. STOCK. They are in process now, but I suspect that if we 

have a program that benefits Mexico and ourselves that allows for 

the legal and orderly migration of people back and forth—and a lot 

of the folks from Mexico do not want to live here permanently. 

They just want to come here, earn money, go back eventually to 

Michoacan or wherever they came from in Mexico, having earned 

enough money to support themselves back in Mexico again. So we 

need to recognize that there is a cyclical flow as well. 

Some of those programs are in place, but I expect they will be 

enforced or they will be stronger and better if the flow is legalized. 

Senator KENNEDY. I have just two final questions. My time is 

running out. One is for Asa Hutchinson who has supported a temporary program, but also supported that at the end of the time 

these individuals would be required to return to their home of origin, whether he thinks that that requirement of returning home, 

whether that—these individuals know it, whether that would serve 

as a disincentive. And then I would like to ask Mr. Reed, and any 

of you could comment, in terms of the newer kinds of technologies, 

one of the things we have heard from Senator McCain, at least one 

particular program that was cancelled that might have been from 

a technological point of view advantageous. But do you have other 

suggestions that we ought to be thinking about? 

21

Mr. HUTCHINSON. First, Senator, I do think that there would be 

an incentive for those living here illegally to get a temporary worker status because they don’t like the shadowy lives that they have. 

There would be a percent that would have no desire to return, and 

that would be an impediment, and they would not pursue that temporary worker permit because of that. I hope that that would be 

a smaller percent. But if you have 8 million illegals in the country 

at the present time and a temporary worker status would decrease 

that number by two-thirds, well, that is a huge security benefit because of that effort. 

In reference to technology, there is a lot you look at. You mentioned Mexico. They need to invest in better criminal databases. 

They have people arrested in Mexico that we cannot verify through 

our background checks just because they do not have the capacity 

to give us a record of all of the criminals that have been convicted 

in Mexico with any sense of accuracy. On the United States side, 

we have to invest in technology through workers that can actually 

online identify the workers here in this country who are here under 

visas or work permits and know when they move or are out of status. 

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Reed, would you make any comments? Do 

you have anything to add? 

Mr. REED. I think we can ask a lot of Mexico, but I think we 

need to construct our dialogue with them so that it is something 

that they have a vested interest in pursuing. I think we can ask 

Mexico to control their southern border. I think we can ask Mexico 

to work hard to not be a transit country for people trying to go 

from a third country through their country to our borders. I think 

that is something that they could embrace. I think that is something that we could help them develop. And I think that is something that would help us out tremendously in terms of dealing with 

the real threat of terrorists entering the country through Mexico. 

In terms of some of the other dialogue, I think that a lot of the 

things that we want to legislate are not legislative issues. With 

Mexico, the dialogue should be how do we create an environment 

where as people, labor is working temporarily in the United States, 

we are actually developing incentives, not necessarily a law or legislation but incentives for people to work here and leave their family home and to build their homes in Mexico, to invest in Mexico, 

build streets, schools, and hospitals in Mexico while a principal 

worker may be up here in a temporary status. 

I think those are the kinds of things that we should be talking 

to Mexico about, and I think a lot of these things are set forth in, 

I think, a 22-point plan that was set up as a binational dialogue 

quite some time ago. 

But in terms of technology on the border, there is so much technology out there that could detect anything coming across. I do not 

think it is a question of—that is there. It is available. It is a matter 

of reaching out and grabbing it and putting it there and using it. 

Chairman CORNYN. Senator Coburn? 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator. 

Colonel, I want to thank you for your service at West Point. I appreciate that. I have a question. One of your statements troubles 

me, and I am somewhat curious about it. In your statement you 

22

claim that people who are already living here, who work hard and 

pay taxes, should be allowed the opportunity to earn their permanent residence. Why should they be allowed to earn the opportunity for permanent residence if they came here illegally? And 

what does that say to the people who came here legally who are 

working hard and paying taxes? 

Ms. STOCK. Thank you, Senator. That is a very good question. 

I think what has gone on here since 1996, when we attempted 

to reform the immigration laws, is we have actually created a 

worse situation than we expected. We have trapped many people 

here in the United States. It has become apparent now that there 

are hundreds of thousands of folks who are here in the United 

States who cannot leave because if they leave, they will never be 

able to get back in. This is because of the 3-year bar, the 10-year 

bar, the permanent bar. 

It is important to allow folks who have established families here, 

partially as a result of our laws, to have the opportunity to stay 

here in the United States with their families. 

Now, Mr. Reed correctly mentioned that there is a cyclical flow 

and that is what we want to encourage, but since 1996 we have actually gone the opposite direction. We have encouraged people to 

stay here because of our laws. They have not been able to leave to 

go back home because it has become more difficult to come back in, 

so they are trapped here in the United States due to a combination 

of laws and stronger border enforcement. 

Because many of these folks have been here so long, they have 

established families and ties in the community. And while it 

sounds good to enforce the laws, on the one hand, we are enforcing 

laws that make no sense when you are talking about a family unit. 

We say let’s enforce the laws, but enforcing the law may involve 

the breadwinner of the family going back to a foreign country for 

10 years, 20 years, leaving the family that is part of the United 

States community, the American citizen spouse and kids, here to 

apply for welfare. That does not help our security. 

It sounds good to enforce, but it makes more sense in the long 

run to let those folks stay here. 

Senator COBURN. But what percentage of people are you talking 

about? Are you talking about somebody that overstays a visa, who 

has a legal visa, and then because they have overstayed it they 

have a penalty not to come back in? Or are you talking about people who came here illegally and never had a visa in the first place? 

Ms. STOCK. Well, we do not have good numbers on that, Senator, 

that is the problem. 

Senator COBURN. But we do know the people who are here on 

visas who have not gone home. We have a list of them. We just 

cannot find them. So which laws are you talking about changing? 

Are you talking about changing the visa laws, the immigration 

laws? What specifically arcane laws are you recommending that we 

change so that we do not entrap people here? 

Ms. STOCK. One very specific recommendation I have would be 

to get rid of the 3-year, 10-year and permanent bars which are currently trapping the spouses of American citizens and their kids 

here in the country. They cannot leave because if they leave they 

do not get back in, they do not get a waiver to come back in. And 

23

people know that because they know other people who have left 

and tried to apply for a visa overseas in order to fix their status, 

and they have been told, ‘‘You cannot come back in. We are not letting you back in.’’

Senator COBURN. So I want to follow this logic for a minute. Because people have broken the law, violated our immigration laws, 

and because they have now established a family under that illegal 

act, we are going to change the laws to benefit them rather than 

to benefit the people who came here legally under our laws and followed our laws? Is that what you are telling me? 

Ms. STOCK. Senator, I think, obviously, the people who have 

managed to follow our laws, I have actually run into very few of 

them. Because our immigration laws are so complicated, I am willing to place a bet here that I can find an immigration violation in 

just about any person who is here in the United States. We have 

laws that are so complicated even the Department of Homeland Security does not understand them. They call them a mystery and a 

mastery of obfuscation. 

Senator COBURN. I understand that, but I want to get an answer 

to my logical question. What you are proposing is that regardless 

of the laws that we have today, that if somebody came here illegally and established a family, and because it is important to get 

them to travel back and forth, we should get rid of all the sanctions 

on those people who are violating—who may have even come here 

legally under a visa. You are proposing to me to rationalize those 

laws? And what laws would you put forward that would change 

that? How would you change that specifically and still have enforcement in terms of any meaningful enforcement on a visa application to coming into our country? 

Ms. STOCK. I think what you have to do is have a combination 

of things. You have to have some kind of guest worker program 

that allows the people who want to go back cyclically—and there 

are a lot of them—to do that, without establishing ties here so that 

they can contribute to their home community, maybe move back 

there eventually, buy the soccer field in Michoacan. 

However, you have to recognize that we have a substantial population of people who have now set down roots. It does not make 

sense to keep them in the shadows. If you say we are simply going 

to enforce, enforce, enforce, those millions of people are going to remain in the shadows, they are not going to be benefitting our country, they are not going to come forward. 

I am not in favor of legalizing everybody in America. I am sure 

there are going to be some people who come forward who turn out 

to have very serious criminal records. One of the benefits of having 

people come forward is they get fingerprinted, we get to check them 

through our system, we get to figure out whether they have to pay 

a fine or not for having overstayed a visa. We get to make a judgment call as to whether this is somebody who should be allowed 

to contribute to our community or somebody who should be deported. That is a potential benefit of a program that allows for legalization. 

I do not think anybody is proposing allowing everybody who is 

here in the United States to suddenly one day get legal. They are 

talking about an orderly process for people to apply, to come forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:36 Dec 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22411.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
24

ward, to show their character, their criminal background, get their 

fingerprints checked, and the Government of the United States 

making a decision whether to let them stay or not. 

Senator COBURN. I think we did that in 1986. 

Chairman CORNYN. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask, Mr. Hutchinson, a couple of questions if I might. 

I recall talking to you on the subject of waiver of deportation sometime ago, when you have someone who is here illegally, who works 

hard, who has not broken the law, who has American children who 

are doing very well. And I have submitted a few private bills to try 

to reconcile these people, and increasingly, I found in California 

that the Immigration Service was going out to pick them up and 

deport them. And then when I looked at the numbers on the waiver 

of deportation, I think there were 10,000 people that are eligible 

a year for a waiver of deportation, and only 4,000 had been filled. 

Do you have any recollection as to why that was the case? Because I was going to expand it. And then I found, haven’t come to 

the halfway point of fulfilling the allotment that is in the law already. Do you know why that is? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would assume there would be some criteria 

for obtaining that waiver of deportation, and I know that—and I 

am not saying it would apply in the circumstances that you mention, but there are certain requirements that if they have criminal 

offenses, that under the immigration reform bills that could not be 

waived, so that might be a factor in some of the individuals that 

are considered and request waivers. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, maybe one thing we might do, and I 

am going to take a look at it, is look at the criteria and lay them 

out more clearly in law so that everybody knows who is eligible for 

that and who is not. I think that is one thing. 

Last month the Chairman had a dialogue with Mr. Cerda. Mr. 

Cerda—let me see, who is he—

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Victor Cerda? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Cerda, was the Acting Director of Detention and Removal Operations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And one of the things that came out of that dialogue 

was that there are 465,000 fugitives today from the catch and release program, of which 80,000 are criminal absconders. 

I was wondering if you can shed any—I think the Chairman 

probably remembers that discussion, I have the transcript—and to 

me this is an unacceptable figure. I guess my question is, what do 

we do about this? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is totally an unacceptable figure. You are 

absolutely correct. I think it comes down to a couple of things. One 

of them is particularly detention space. Whenever you look at apprehensions and the, for example, the war supplemental increase, 

I think it was 500 border patrol agents, and I think you all did increase some the detention space as well, but the detention space 

is the key ingredient to avoiding the release—you mentioned the 

OTMs—other than Mexican nationals, it is a key to discouraging 

immigration, someone from packing up their bags in El Salvador 

and coming to the United States, first to evaluate what is the 

chance of getting caught? Secondly, if I get caught what is the 

25

chance of being incarcerated, quickly removed, or am I going to get 

released in the United States? Right now they are evaluating that 

and saying the chances are, I will get released. 

So the detention space is the key to discouraging that flow, that 

person in El Salvador not picking up their bags and coming to the 

United States. That is obviously the reason we have over 400,000 

absconders here in the United States. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think you have made a very good point. I 

think it is very clear that we need more detention space and that 

we really should address it. 

Senator KENNEDY. Could the Senator yield just for a quick comment? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, certainly. 

Senator KENNEDY. Do you have or does anybody have the countries? I mean if we cannot send the criminals back to the countries, 

do we have a list of those countries? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have them all right here with the numbers 

and the increases. 

Senator KENNEDY. Okay, thank you. The ones that do not permit 

us to repatriate? I do not want to take up your time. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. These are other than Mexicans by country as 

of June 30th of ’03, but I cannot comment on repatriation. 

Senator KENNEDY. My question is the countries that will not accept repatriation. Maybe we have that. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is very important information though because when they do not accept repatriation, we either have to release them or we keep them incarcerated which fills up the detention space. 

Chairman CORNYN. Mr. Reed, I believe you indicated you had a 

response to Senator Feinstein’s question? 

Mr. REED. Yes. I was chomping at the bit to try to get in here. 

This detention space issue is much larger than just beds. I had the 

misfortune of testifying before another subcommittee a few years 

ago, where the central region had set up a program that was going 

to expedite the removal of a lot of people so that we could free up 

beds. The other misfortune is we decided to call it the Hub Site 

Program, which had some sort of a connotation that was not acceptable to the community. 

But at any rate, what we had done was decided that detaining 

people all over the countryside and trying to figure out how to get 

them the counsel and everything else was the major factor why 

people were not getting to hearings and were not getting an order. 

So we decided we would put them all in the same place where you 

had immediate access to counsel, to consulates, to transportation, 

to detention space, everything you needed to have a process go real 

quickly because—and I bet it is still ongoing today although I do 

not know—the number of continuances that take place before a 

person actually gets a decision from an administrative judge is extraordinary. And during that time the detention space becomes so 

critical that you have to release people in order to take people in 

the front room. So the agency cannot win. 

But the other piece of that which I really found that really struck 

me, and the lesson learned on that, is if we went out and picked 

up all those criminals that we are so concerned about right now 

26

and sent them home, from an international global strategy we end 

up with a bigger problem. A lot of these countries it is not just the 

people who will not accept people, it is do the countries have the 

ability to absorb that increase in the criminal element coming back 

in to a country that may destabilize the country? 

I am certain in my mind that the reason the Hub Site Program 

was shut down is because we were about to send thousands of 

criminals back to countries that were not in a position to absorb 

that impact. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think that is a very good point. One of the 

problems for my State, California, is that murderers, people who 

have killed deputy sheriffs, law enforcement officers, go over the 

border to Mexico and Mexico will not extradite back to California. 

My view, very frankly is, Mexico also will not cooperate in enforcing the northern border, despite all of the problems we may have. 

It is hard for me to feel sympathetic under those conditions. 

It seems to me that Mexico ought to help us enforce the northern 

border, particularly if Mexico wants a more liberal acceptance policy of people that cross the border. It is as if there is no real understanding for the American dilemma of such large numbers coming 

across the border at a given time, that there is not the infrastructure to accommodate them. What has worried me, and particularly 

in California, this is what develops a backlash, and this is what develop propositions that go on the ballot that pass overwhelmingly. 

So there has to be structure in this, and there has to be numbers 

that are absorbable in everything we do. It seems to me that the 

lack of cooperation of Mexico to achieve that goal is really a significant one. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Kyl.

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

At least two of you testified in your written statement—incidentally, I forgot to include in the record the statement that Senator 

McCain made, if I could make that request. 

Chairman CORNYN. Certainly, without objection. 

Senator KENNEDY. Could I just include also Senators Leahy and 

Feingold? 

Chairman CORNYN. Without objection. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KYL. For example, Mr. Reed, you talked about worksite enforcement and you harken it back to the enforcement initiative called Vanguard, which when implemented became so successful that—well, it was too successful and therefore was disbanded 

because it was identifying too many people who were employed illegally. Then you noted another program that I gather is not working 

as well, the Basic Pilot for employers, part of it dealing with lack 

of funding, part data integrity issues. And then Asa Hutchinson, 

you also talked about the greater investment workplace enforcement as a requirement for a new program that employers have to 

verify the legal status of job applicants and so on. 

My question is this. What kind of employer verification system 

would you envisage as both necessary and workable, which would 

provide good documentation and verification of the appropriate status for employment that could be easily used by employers? And 

27

how would it tie into Social Security? Would it apply to all Americans as opposed to just different categories of temporary workers? 

And if so, how would you make that work? Let me leave it at that 

for right now. And identify, if you could, what you think such kinds 

of systems would cost and what time it would take to put them into 

effect. That has to do with the comment that one of you made 

about past amnesties not working, and I think, Mr. Reed, you 

made that point. 

I am a little concerned about providing a temporary worker program until we have the capability of clearly enforcing the program, 

which would include having in place not only the people but also 

the machinery that might be necessary for that. 

Mr. REED. A couple of things. Regarding the temporary worker 

program, I think there is all sorts of things that could happen beyond the Government infrastructure to make that work. Basic 

Pilot, you should know that besides working on technology and trying to help DHS figure out better ways of doing business, I am also 

engaged by the private sector. One of my very best and favorite clients is Tyson Foods, who went through a very troubling time, and 

basically brought us in because they never wanted to go through 

it again, and I have worked with other employers in similar situations. I now see what the employer sees from the other side. 

I was very concerned about Basic Pilot when I was on the inside 

because many times the people, the very people that we wanted to 

go after and prosecute, were enrolled in Basic Pilot. So I had a 

heck of a time trying to sort out how somebody on Basic Pilot could 

be the people that we are going after because they have got all the 

undocumented workers. 

So we launched Vanguard. I do not mean to hark back on that, 

but I think Vanguard shows that with very little money, less resources really, you can do a much, much better job. All we did with 

Vanguard was make Basic Pilot work. We looked at the document 

statement were submitted from the I9 information. We subpoenaed 

that information and said, let us take a look at it, and then we 

compared it against databases to figure out if there were other 

Mark Reeds working at other places, and were there inconsistencies in that information? 

That is something that Social Security is doing now with no 

match letters. It is a very tepid type of approach, but they could 

do much better. Social Security could tell you very quickly as to 

whether there is two people out there using that same Social Security card or not. They do not. 

I can tell you that when I go into Tyson Foods and suggest that 

they may have a problem with unauthorized workers, they do a lot 

of staring at me, asking me how to explain how it is that I think 

that they have got unauthorized workers, when the Government, 

through Basic Pilot, has provided them a document stating that 

that person is authorized to work in the United States. 

Somehow Basic Pilot is being beat. I suspect it is because it was 

designed to be beat, but I probably just went over the board a little 

bit with that statement. But it can be fixed and it does not take 

a lot. I had 10 agents in a room who fixed it for Vanguard. We are 

not talking about a major increase in resources. We are just talking 

about making things work that should work. 

28

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me just add, one, I think in reference to 

a temporary worker program, a prerequisite for that is to satisfy 

the American public we are capable of securing our border, and it 

will not be in this fix again. So that is sort of a criteria that we 

have to reach before we move forward on that. 

In terms of the Basic Pilot program, and I appreciate Mr. Reed’s 

comments, because that is sort of the ground floor analysis of it 

from a policymaking standpoint. One, the problem with the Basic 

Pilot program is that it is voluntary, it is not mandatory, and it 

needs to be expanded so that it could be used in problem industry 

particularly. Secondly, it is dependent upon the information that is 

in the system. If you are going to verify Social Security status—

and our Social Security Commissioner, I have met with her, and 

really is security minded, so I think she is willing to take steps 

that can improve the system. 

The other side is the immigration status. I do not know that they 

are verifying that they are here legally as much as there is not any 

adverse information in the system. But my information is that it 

would be very expensive to expand that program because I ask 

about, you know, how can we have a program to expand Basic Pilot 

into a more mandatory system, and the costs were very, very significant, primarily in the response capability of the Government for 

the multiple inquiries that come in. Mr. Reed might have different 

information on that. 

Then finally, I just think that you look at our SEVIS program 

that monitors international students that come in, it is a very effective program online, technology driven, confirming attendance in 

class. This is the kind of system that we have to develop for employers. Whenever you are looking at temporary workers or workers with a visa that is coming in, obviously not U.S. citizens, but 

the temporary workers. That is the type of system we do not have 

now, we have got to move toward. 

Mr. REED. I agree very much. In terms of expense I agree that 

it will take a significant amount of money to expand it. I would 

suggest that I believe that most employers would contribute towards helping build that system that would work so that they 

could get a response back that they could believe in that would reduce their vulnerability. So I do believe the Government’s got a responsibility to move forward with it. I do also believe that private 

industry would like to partner with the Government to help build 

a system that would work. 

Chairman CORNYN. Senator Sessions, I know you have been otherwise occupied and were just able to join us. We have each had 

a chance to ask a couple of rounds, and Senator Feinstein has graciously agreed to let us do two questions on our side before we go 

back to the other side of the aisle. If you have any questions, go 

ahead. 

Senator SESSIONS. I do, and I thank you for having this hearing, 

and I apologize for not being here. You have a good panel on a very 

important subject. I once described this effort of being successful, 

and immigration enforcement is like building a bridge that was 8 

feet long to get across a 10-foot gap, and if we just do a little more 

and really get our minds straight, this thing could begin to work. 

29

Mr. Reed, Mr. Hutchinson, do you think with existing resources 

there may be a little more—we are really not as far away as most 

people think in making this system work? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I do not think a little more will do it. I think 

it has to be substantially more. 

Senator SESSIONS. How much substantial in a percentage basis 

maybe? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. My judgment is that in terms of the personnel 

you are moving at a fairly substantial rate. I think it was 500 new 

border patrol agents in the War Supplemental. I think it is on the 

technology side that we are creeping along too slowly. For example, 

US VISIT—

Senator SESSIONS. Technology is sort of a one-time expense. Yes, 

it will be expensive and it will be somewhat expensive to operate, 

but once you are successful in breaking what you suggest is a twothirds certainty of being apprehended, once you get over that, all 

of a sudden people start complying with the law, do they not? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Absolutely. It is a dynamic out there that we 

can reach. I fundamentally agree with you that we can do it. It is 

going to take a significant investment in detention space, some 

court personnel, as well as some of the technology. We can get 

there very quickly with an increased investment. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Reed, would you comment on that? Based 

on your experience—a witness at the last panel, Mr. Chairman, if 

you remember, I think his last comment was—he had been with 

INS for sometime—he said: I am not sure that our people understand what the policy of the Government is. I think that was a 

honest, low-key stated statement of a real problem. 

If the Government had as its policy, clearly to enforce the laws 

and stop the illegal crossings and entries, and to therefore move 

people to the legal system of entry into the country, how far are 

we from getting that done, Mr. Reed? Is that impossible? 

Mr. REED. I have to be careful with terms like ‘‘little’’ and ‘‘a lot.’’ 

I believe this can be solved, and it can be solved on the back of 

what we already have in place. It is going to take some significant 

investments in some technology. But if you compare that to the 

monies that are actually going to be saved in the long run, I regard 

that as a small investment for a great return. I think that part of 

it is very solvable. I think we have off-the-shelf technology that is 

available out there. You have some very smart people in the right 

positions in DHS right now. The Government is poised to move forward. 

I am not sure I could say the same for the politics, and that is 

going to take a major, a lot of increase or investment. 

Senator SESSIONS. One reason we have a political problem, I am 

going to tell you, is that I believe a large percentage of our Senators think it is pretty hopeless to create a system, a legal entry 

and exit system that actually works, but it is not in my view. 

You mentioned, Mr. Hutchinson, in your four suggestions, just 

wonderful simple suggestions, your first one is that the chance of 

apprehension must be greater than two-thirds. As a former prosecutor myself like you were, I think there is a lot of truth in that. 

Would you explain—is that the tipping point you are looking for? 

30

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I believe it is. And of course, we are talking 

about mass migration. Two-thirds is not enough when you are dealing with terrorists, but if you can reduce the mass migration you 

can concentrate on those who pose a risk to our country. But if I 

think about the individual in Costa Rica thinking about coming to 

the United States. What is the risk of getting caught? Two-thirds 

is pretty substantial. If you get caught, then what are the chances 

that you are going to be immediately returned back to Costa Rica 

or sit in custody for some time? That is a factor they are going to 

consider. And then even if somehow you, by the slimmest of margins, snuck through and got out, what are the chances of an employer hiring you because of your illegal status? 

All of those, if they are going to sit there and say minimal chance 

in all of those categories, they are not going to come because it is 

not going to be worth the investment of paying $5,000 to a smuggler when the chances are not very good. 

Senator SESSIONS. How would you evaluate that, Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. I think that is fairly accurate. I am not smart enough 

to understand two-thirds versus three-quarters. I think that there 

should be an absolute certainty of detection. I think there should 

absolutely be consequential deterrence in place that discourages 

people from behaving inappropriately. It is fundamental, straightforward law enforcement, and when you lose that, you really do not 

have anything to work with. And we have lost it. 

Senator SESSIONS. I spent a lot of years in law enforcement and 

I absolutely believe that the professionals statements that it is the 

likelihood of getting caught, more than the amount of punishment, 

that deters criminal activity. I have always believed that to be an 

accurate thing. If we could, with a strong will and some new technology and new expenditures, creating a system that would actually work, I believe you could—all of a sudden you would see a drop 

in the people trying to come illegally, an increase in the number 

of people coming legally, and all of a sudden the cost of the system 

could actually begin to go down. 

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, you have given such thoughtful leadership to this, I can tell you how much I appreciate it. It is not always a task that is filled with glory and appreciation, but it is important, and thank you for your working at it. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Feinstein.

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

to just have an informal discussion. I have been on this Subcommittee now for 12 years, and we go round and round and 

round, and we all know the system is broken, and we do not know 

what to do to fix it. We know that our country is the largest immigration magnet in the world. And people want to come here from 

everywhere in large numbers all of the time, year in, year out. So 

we know there has to be some system of order. 

We know that as a country we take more people legally than all 

of the other industrialized countries together do in a given year. 

We have been a very open and—I do not want to use the word 

‘‘generous’’ because I do not think that is the right word—but we 

have been a Nation of immigrants and we have always respected 

31

newcomers coming to this country. We also know that employer 

sanctions do not really work. The use has dropped. 

So it seems to me that there is only one way to go. we have to 

enforce the borders and we have to have a logical system. Whether 

it means taking a look at the quotas for legal immigration, making 

some adjustments in them, because I believe, for example, Mexico, 

people have to wait a very long time to come in legally. Maybe we 

should look at the quota system and see if it really meets the need 

the way it is. I think we have to finish the border fence. I think 

we have to staff the border. I think we have to have it technically 

as advanced as possible. 

And I think we have got to have a real disincentive to illegal immigration. I think that amnesties create an incentive, so that is not 

the answer as far as I am concerned. 

I also do not believe guest worker programs are the answer either, because the people who come to California—and we do not 

have a big H2A program—but people who come for other kinds of 

labor do not go home. They bring their families and they stay. 

Let me begin with you, Asa, because you know, now you have 

hindsight, which is much better. How would you change the system? Specifically what would you do? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, I me an I think first of all, you are right 

that the border enforcement is critical. I also agree in terms of having to look at where we are allowing people, our quotas, and I 

think that is a fair debate to have. 

I do think that the employer side is very, very critical to reducing 

the power of that magnet, and it is not just a matter of sanctions, 

although the enforcement side is important, but it is also the tools 

that you give the employers that we have talked about today. 

So I went in and I did focus on the border side, did not have all 

of the tools that we needed, moved forward as quickly as we can, 

but I also recognize that that employer part of the equation is critical to success overall. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you believe we should keep employer 

sanctions but do what? Because they are not working now. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think you have to give them tools, expand 

the Basic Pilot program, make it more comprehensive so they can 

verify—they have to be able to verify they are not hiring an illegal 

worker. You have to give them the tools to do that. Secondly, once 

you do that, you have to be able to have enforcement there. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can I understand something? You mean the 

A9 number? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The I9s, yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Excuse me, I9 number. When you say they 

cannot verify it, what exactly do you mean? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, the employer is required to take certain 

documents, but unless they are a part of the Basic Pilot program, 

there is not any requirement for them to verify the authenticity of 

those documents, whether it is a valid Social Security number or 

a valid driver’s license, or that they really have a citizenship in this 

country. So the employers are in compliance—

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can they not verify by the I9 number? 

32

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, they could, but there is not any requirement to do so, and that is the problem. There is not any requirement to do so. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Then maybe we ought to make it a requirement that they take that I9 number on a card and verify it, and 

set up a system to be able to do the verification. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is the direction that I believe we need to 

go. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Anybody else on this point? 

Mr. REED. Yes. I work with a company that is on Basic Pilot. 

What you will see that will happen when you take an employer 

that moves from non-Basic Pilot to Basic Pilot, and before they had 

a workforce that was traditionally immigrants, when you go to 

Basic Pilot all of a sudden everybody turns into a United States citizen. The reason that happens is because they will go out and buy 

an identity that will defeat the checks that Basic Pilot runs in 

terms of determining as to whether or not those people are actually 

lawfully entitled to work in the United States. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am not thinking of a pilot. I am thinking 

if, you know, you have these documents that people present. It 

seems to me there is a way of verifying whether the documents are 

real or not. 

Mr. REED. I was not clear in my response. This program that we 

are talking about actually requires people to collect document and 

to collect information, and send that information to the Government so the Government can make a determination as to whether 

or not that person is authorized to work in the United States. Once 

the Government makes that determination they send back a notice 

to the employer indicating either the employment is authorized or 

there needs to be further inquiry made. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can you not just do that with a phone call? 

I mean if it is a fraudulent document it is going to have a madeup I9 number. 

Mr. REED. I totally agree. Let me back up a little bit. I believe 

that there is an answer to this. If there is a legal worker in every 

job the incentives to enter this country are going to go away. So 

if there is a way to approach this in terms of a comprehensive program, once we put a legal worker in every job that is available in 

the United States, the masses of people entering the country is 

going to dry up, and that makes everything else work. All of a sudden all the numbers become manageable. 

But the problem that we have right now is we have set up a system to check that type of information that does not work. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It is paper based. 

Mr. REED. I think it could work. Pardon me? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If we change it from paper based to providing 

a service where people call—

Mr. REED. I think it can be done electronically. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Or electronically. 

Mr. REED. I think this can all work, and I do not think—this is 

not rocket science. Social Security, I believe if they ran more than 

just a cursory review of the numbers, that they would be able to 

detect if there was some sort of a discrepancy with the information 

33

that that worker provide to that employer, especially if it was 

based upon fraudulent documents. I think that this can happen. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. See, that is way of carrying out the employer 

sanction. In other words, we require that they would have to check 

the documents if they could do it electronically, and if they do not 

do that and they hire somebody that is not valid, then you have 

got—it seems to me you have it right there. Am I wrong? 

Mr. REED. Well, there are all sorts of issues surrounding this in 

terms of—I think the Government needs to accept that responsibility. What you say has great merit, and I think it would require 

a little bit more dialogue. It is ironic that the employers are afraid 

of this because there is also a law out there that says you can only 

ask a couple of questions, and if you ask one too many questions, 

there is another element of the Government that will come out and 

hurt you. 

So I think it goes back to the Government needs to make this 

a coherent system. They can do it. I think the employers are ready 

to accept it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Very interesting. Thank you. 

Chairman CORNYN. This has been great. I know that I have at 

least one more round, and maybe a couple more if you all will hang 

in there with us. 

I am struck, Professor Stock, the more I look into immigrationrelated issues, at what bad information we have about the size of 

the problem. I think you mentioned between 8 and 20 million people, and the Congressional Research Service told us last year it was 

about 10, with about 6 million in the workforce, but here again it 

may be just about anybody’s guess. And then we make blanket 

statements about the characteristics of this immigrant worker population as if they were all the same, they all had the same intentions and motives. Some people say, well, if you create a temporary 

worker program, no one will come forward, or no one will ever 

leave once here, all of which strike me as overstatements because 

we just do not know and we are making blanket statements without really having good data to back it up. 

But one thing that your testimony discusses is something I wanted to focus on, and that is circularity of worker flow. You indicated 

earlier that we may have actually done ourselves a disservice by 

erecting stricter border enforcement without doing other things, because people who were here, who would like to go home are afraid 

to go back home because they might not be able to get back. Based 

on that statement, it strikes me that we perhaps overstate the case 

when we say that everyone wants to stay here. 

My point is that people who are immigrating do so for a number 

of reasons, including economic reasons. People who have no hope 

and no opportunity where they live want to come where they can 

provide for their family. We all understand on a very basic human 

level why that is so, and presumably each of us would do the same 

thing under similar circumstances. 

But do you see the possibility of enacting what I would call a 

work and return program as part of this solution that would in fact 

take advantage of this characteristic of circularity of worker flow 

that would be perhaps one piece of a solution to this problem? 

34

Ms. STOCK. Yes, Senator Cornyn, I definitely think that part of 

the solution is to have a program that makes it relatively easy for 

people who would like to come work here temporarily, who have an 

employer who is willing to hire them, no American willing to take 

the job, just as President Bush has discussed, that should be part 

of the program. It cannot be the whole program though because 

there are other pieces of it necessary to have a full and comprehensive program, and we have not tried this before. That is important 

to point out. 

In the 1980s, the amnesty that took place in the 1980s, this was 

not a comprehensive reform that tackled the cyclical issue, the 

issues of circularity. It was kind of a one-time program with specific data cutoffs, and that does not address the problem of the historical flows from Mexico back and forth. 

Chairman CORNYN. Again, looking at immigration-related issues, 

it seems like every time you address one issue you kick over a 

stone, revealing another problem. But when I think about our trade 

policies, I recall that I was struck when I went to Guatemala about 

a year ago, a gentleman I had lunch with, arguing in favor of our 

ratification of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. He 

said, ‘‘We want to export goods and services, not people,’’ which to 

me very concisely made the case that it is in our best interest to 

help Central American countries, Mexico, and other countries that 

do not have the opportunity that is available here, to create that 

opportunity back home for immigrants, or else what else would we 

expect but they would leave and come here to work. 

So that helped nail the case for me on CAFTA, which we will debate here before long. 

But how do we deal with the issue of bad information or inadequate information when we say to people who are here, who have 

been here for a while, that they can only work temporarily and 

have to go home, that they are not going to come forward? Asa 

Hutchinson mentioned, well, some people will just so they will not 

have to work in the shadows, so they will self identify. It strikes 

me that there are some single workers who do not have the family 

and community ties that might be willing to take advantage of 

that, and I believe you made the case that if we could eliminate 

a large percentage of people, that would make our job a lot easier. 

I wonder how do we deal with that lack of good solid information 

in making general laws that apply to everybody? Mr. Hutchinson, 

do you have a comment or a response to that? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. To me the rule probably is let us improve the 

present circumstances, not make it worse. You make it worse by 

not doing anything. You make it better by reducing, one, making 

sure we secure the borders, but secondly, addressing the problem 

of the illegal population here in the United States, and if you can 

decrease that by providing some incentives for them to return 

home, that is a good thing. 

I know that it is hard to get good data, but the information that 

I have, and belief, is that when someone first comes here, you 

know, they have their family ties back. That is why they do the 

going back, they go back for the holidays. It has been more difficult 

because we have tightened the borders, but they have that desire 

to go back. The longer they stay here in the United States, the ties 

35

get deeper, and so that is where you are not going to have them 

probably come forward, but those that have been here fewer years 

I think it would be likely that they would come forward. 

Chairman CORNYN. Mr. Reed, did you have a comment on that? 

Mr. REED. I think there is a way to deal with this. If the Government chooses, they can engage in industry—I do not think this 

should ever be across the board type stuff, it needs to be a major 

balanced approach—but from an enforcement standpoint the Government does have the capability to go into an industry and bar 

employment of unauthorized workers. So when it comes down to a 

decision point for the worker as to whether or not they want to 

come forward, their decision is based on, do I want to keep my job 

here, or do I want to leave this job and go find a job someplace else, 

and knowing that in due time they are coming to that industry too. 

So the Government—the enforcement has got to be a key in 

terms of putting the right kind of motivation in place. The Government can do it. If you want to stay here, come forward. If you do 

not, you had better move on someplace else. 

Chairman CORNYN. Let me just ask one last question and have 

each of you comment briefly on it, and then we will turn to Senator 

Kyl. We have a number of proposals that have already been made, 

including a bill that I filed last year. Senator Kyl and I are working 

on something that we view as comprehensive immigration reform. 

I would just like for you to comment on whether you believe that 

comprehensive immigration reform should include these four elements. The first would be enhanced border security. The second 

would be improved interior enforcement. The third would be employer accountability. And the fourth would be some guest worker 

program that would allow employers to hire people now for the jobs 

that they cannot find American workers to fill, and for which there 

seems to be an endless supply. 

Mr. Hutchinson? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would agree with those four principles. I 

think the order is important. I do not think you can start with a 

guest worker program and get to border security last. I think you 

have to get to border security and then move through each of those, 

and I agree with those principles. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you. 

Professor Stock? 

Ms. STOCK. Senator, I think you have to add some kind of earned 

adjustment for the people that are here in the United States and 

something to reunify the families. So I think that is the big barrier 

to getting this problem under control right now. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. I would embrace those principles. I would probably rephrase them just a little bit. One is to encourage lawful entry, lawful immigration in the country. Second is discourage it, and I think 

we are starting talking about packages, but that is definitely a border-oriented type thing. And the other thing is put a lawful worker 

in every job. And I think if you do that, I think you end up with 

a very comprehensive, workable and manageable plan. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kyl.

36

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are so many things I want to ask here, but I am going to 

go back to something that I talked about just a little bit before to 

see if I can get a little bit more detail. 

Would all of the panelists agree with the proposition that for a 

guest worker program to work, it is critical that the documentation 

of the guest worker both clearly identify the individual properly, 

and demonstrate the work status of the individual, and that it not 

be counterfeitable easily? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes. 

Mr. REED. Yes. 

Chairman KYL. So none of the panelists disagree with that proposition. Now, one suggestion has been a so-called biometric identifier, which can be fingerprints, a digital facial scan, an iris scan. 

Would you all agree that that is a form of identification that is not 

easily counterfeited and might be workable in this kind of a situation? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I do, and I think biometrics should be a part 

of the identification requirements. 

Chairman KYL. Professor Stock? 

Ms. STOCK. I think some form of biometric is typically said to be 

a good way to identify anybody. 

Chairman KYL. Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. I agree with that and I think that that should be incorporated into the US VISIT program. 

Chairman KYL. Okay. With respect to the documentation, it 

could be of course a new Social Security card, it could be some 

other kind of identification. It could be a status card like, for example, people are aware of the green card today for legal permanent 

residents. Perhaps there could be a different color card for temporary residents or whatever. 

Let me ask you each about the process for verifying the breeder 

documents or the data that goes into this document, and how concerned you might be that without valid data in, what you are likely 

to get out is an invalid status, but now with the imprimatur of authority because it has been granted as a legal document. Could you 

address that issue? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Of course we are looking at a temporary worker type document, so you first start with a foreign worker. If they 

are already here in the United States and getting one of these documents, it is still perhaps a little bit easier to protect the breeder 

documents. I am a little bit more concerned, and I think the Congress has made good progress in REAL ID requirement, some other 

movements toward more secure identification. We can address that 

here in the United States, and I would encourage you to give some 

flexibility. The Department is really trying to coordinate all of 

these registered travelers into some organized system, and they 

probably need some flexibility on that. 

Our greatest concern would be identifying people overseas and 

making sure that we have got the right identification, a good background, and that is going to take some pressure on some other governments to help us on that. 

Chairman KYL. Mr. Reed or Professor Stock? 

37

Ms. STOCK. I think you are going to have to cooperate with other 

countries instead of systems, but other countries do have systems 

in place to identify their citizens. In fact, the U.S. is one of the 

worst countries as far as that goes. We do not have any national 

database of U.S. citizens, and we have bad problems with breeder 

documents here in the United States because of the different variety of birth certificates and things, many of which cannot be 

verified. 

Other countries though do have national birth registers and ways 

that we could identify their nationals if we have the systems in 

place to cooperate with their governments. 

Chairman KYL. Mr. Reed, before I call on you. So it would be important for us then, if we are focused on people who are asking to 

come forward as having previously entered the country illegally, 

who wish to avail themselves of one of these temporary worker programs, that they provide us real documentation with supporting 

documents from their own country to provide them the new documents to replace the old ones that they were using that were clearly invalid, that would be a necessary part of this program then, I 

gather; is that right? 

Ms. STOCK. I think that is true, but I have had good success as 

a private attorney in getting people to admit who they really are 

and come forward with their false documents. And when there is 

a system in place and people know that if they admit what they 

have done in the past, they might be forgiven for it, there is a remarkable ability of people to come forward and confess to things 

like that and admit to their true identity. 

Chairman KYL. Which would make it easier then to make this 

applicable to them, right, okay. 

Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. I think the biggest issue here is that once we establish 

their identify, that is their identity forevermore, and that is done 

with biometrics. And there will be all sorts of opportunities to take 

another look at that identity any time they encounter social service, employer stuff, whatever, just like the rest of us. I think getting documents from other countries is going to be difficult. It 

should definitely be a requirement, but as long as we run them 

through our own internal databases, criminal databases and terrorist watch lists, and we are convinced that they are not one of 

them, I think we should take whatever identity we get and start 

from there. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much. 

Chairman CORNYN. Senator Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Congressman, you have not been called that in a while. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have not. 

Senator COBURN. It is good to see you. I want to tell you, I picked 

up from you during these conversations an ordered sequence of priority, that I think at least people from the southern part of this 

country understand is that you cannot do any of these other things 

unless you are going to have border security first, and I am glad 

to see that. 

Are you aware of any transfer of knowledge between the IRS and 

DHS on the 9 million false W–2s that are filed every year, and 

38

whether there was any communication between the Internal Revenue Service on those and given to Homeland Security? Are you 

aware of any communication between those two departments while 

you were there? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. No, I am not. That does not mean that is all 

encompassing knowledge, but I am not aware of that. 

Senator COBURN. I just think, for the record, it is known that 8 

to 9 million false W–2s are filed by employers every year, and there 

is a penalty for filing a false W–2, which is a great source of information on where undocumented workers are. Many of those are 

used two, three and four times. None of them have to do with any 

one individual, there are four or five individuals doing it, and it 

goes back to the false area. 

Mr. Reed, we had Mr. Evans testify alongside the head of the 

Border Patrol I think our last hearing before we had a break. And 

we were talking about technology. I heard you say earlier that the 

technology is out there, that if we could implement the technology 

that is available today, we could utilize it, whether it be unmanned 

vehicles or sensors or whatever. Is that a true statement? Is the 

technology available in this country to help secure this border 

today? 

Mr. REED. I believe it is. The reason I believe it is is because I 

am working with a team of corporations that are trying to solve 

that problem in the pursuit of the America Shield Initiative. I have 

seen what they have to offer, and I have been able to make my own 

assessment as to what that would provide for the Border Patrol 

specifically in terms of being able to do their job. 

Senator COBURN. So it is your testimony before us today that 

that technology has been perfected, maybe not available, but is perfected? 

Mr. REED. I am sure the technology gets better and better every 

day and there is probably something else that somebody would 

want on down the road, but this is just simply a matter of detecting a target, assessing the threat, tracking and responding to it. 

That is it. So if you give the Government, i.e., give the Border Patrol that capability, the Border Patrol will be much more capable 

today than they have ever been. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to note 

that when I asked that same question of Mr. Evans, his response 

was opposite of that, that technology was not available today. I 

think that is part of our problem, it is not just about resources, it 

is about whether or not we are going to apply the technology that 

is out there today and do it in a sequential fashion. 

That is all the questions I have. I want to thank each of you for 

testifying. I know it is not necessarily fun to come here and do it, 

and then also wait on us on votes. So I appreciate you coming, and 

thank you for your testimony. 

Chairman CORNYN. I too would like to thank all of you for being 

here and hanging in there with us. You can tell by the participation of the Subcommittees how important we think this subject is 

and how much we value your testimony, what you have to offer, 

your expertise. So we hope you will allow us to continue to stay in 

communication with you. 

39

We also will, of course, leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. next 

Tuesday on May the 24th for members to submit any additional 

documents into the record or to ask questions in writing of any of 

the witnesses. 

I know, Senator Kyl, you agree with me that this has been a very 

productive panel, and we look forward to working with these witnesses more as we go forward. 

Chairman KYL. Indeed it has, and in fact, I would just like to 

close by indicating there are so many other details that I really 

would like to get into that will help us to formulate our approach 

to this, and all of you have been very, very helpful, and I hope we 

can call on you in the future. And as you see us come out with 

ideas, feel free to comment to us about them. We really appreciate 

your being here today very much. Thank you. 

Chairman CORNYN. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the Joint Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

40


22411.001
41


22411.002
42


22411.003
43


22411.004
44


22411.005
45


22411.006
46


22411.007
47


22411.008
48


22411.009
49


22411.010
50


22411.011
51


22411.012
52


22411.013
53


22411.014
54


22411.015
55


22411.016
56


22411.017
57


22411.018
58


22411.019
59


22411.020
60


22411.037
61


22411.038
62


22411.021
63


22411.022
64


22411.023
65


22411.024
66


22411.025
67


22411.026
68


22411.027
69


22411.028
70


22411.029
71


22411.030
72


22411.031
73


22411.032
74


22411.033
75


22411.034
76


22411.035
77

Æ


22411.036