DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina Chairman 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

KEN CALVERT, California 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, JIM HOLM, 

KARYN KENDALL, WILL PAINTER, and MIKE BIRSIC, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 3 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................... 1 

Secure Border Initiative and Control of Land Border .. 167 

Department of Homeland Security Response to 

Violence on the Border with Mexico .............................. 369 

Health Services for Detainees in U.S. Immigration & 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) Custody ............................. 465 

Priorities Enforcing Immigration Law .............................. 915 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
PART 4—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina Chairman 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

KEN CALVERT, California 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, JIM HOLM, 

KARYN KENDALL, WILL PAINTER, and MIKE BIRSIC, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 3 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................... 1 

Secure Border Initiative and Control of Land Border .. 167 

Department of Homeland Security Response to 

Violence on the Border with Mexico .............................. 369 

Health Services for Detainees in U.S. Immigration & 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) Custody ............................. 465 

Priorities Enforcing Immigration Law .............................. 915 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

52–999 WASHINGTON : 2009 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome Secretary Janet 

Napolitano to her first hearing before this subcommittee. 

Since her confirmation on January 20, Secretary Napolitano has 

hit the ground running, dealing with issues related to drug cartel 

violence along the U.S. Mexico border, refocusing how the administration deals with criminal aliens, forging new international partnerships to enhance our efforts to combat terrorism, and taking the 

lead on the U.S. Response to the H1N1 flu public health emergency 

in the United States and other countries. Madam Secretary, in 

light of all this, maybe you should be thanking us for giving you 

a few hours to catch your breath today. 

While you have been busy confronting these pressing issues, this 

Subcommittee has tackled some of the broader questions the Department faces. Unlike previous years when the budget has dominated our discussions, the detailed budget, this year we have concentrated on broader issues touching every component of the Department of Homeland Security: from preparing for a national security event to recovering from natural disasters; from technology 

acquisitions to improved DHS operations; to expeditiously obligating funds for critical grant programs; from immigration enforcement to meeting the basic medical needs of those in the custody of 

the U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement. By developing this 

broader perspective we in Congress, I believe, are better equipped 

to help set the Department’s budget priorities in the way that best 

prepares you to face the diversity of challenges to our homeland. 

One of the first challenges you have confronted is the surge in 

violence along the U.S.-Mexican border. The conflict between the 

Mexican Government and drug traffickers has killed thousands, including hundreds of police, military and public officials. You and a 

number of your administration colleagues have visited the border 

and Mexico. You and others have appeared at multiple congressional hearings on this topic, including one held by this SubVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
2 

committee, and all the while this issue has been the subject of intense media attention. 

On April 15, you announced a Southwest Border Initiative to fortify our physical border with Mexico, to assist their government in 

overcoming the brutal criminal cartels and to address related 

criminal activity within the U.S., including narcotics, weapons and 

human trafficking. Every member of this Subcommittee, I assure 

you, wants this effort to succeed. 

Yet I offer a word of caution. Making real progress against criminal activity that has simmered for decades will take more than a 

surge of activity at DHS and assistance to those on the front lines. 

It is going to take a new coordinated approach across our government and indeed across our society. As part of this, DHS must 

work in harmony with the Departments of Justice, Interior, Defense, State and Treasury, all of which have somewhat overlapping 

jurisdictions. You and your fellow Secretaries must consider new 

strategies to overcome the tradition of stove-piped responses that 

focus individual agencies on discrete missions, like combating illegal drug suppliers without addressing the demand, or focusing on 

weapons smuggling without combating human trafficking and so 

on. 

This initiative by its very nature will also help address the longstanding problem of illegal immigration. While apprehensions at 

the border are currently falling, our enforcement-only approach 

costs the American people billions, and it is not a viable long-term 

solution. 

In this regard I am pleased that the President has announced his 

commitment to reform a broken immigration system. I have consistently maintained that without a comprehensive approach to fix 

the legal means for people to come into our country and to achieve 

parity between official policy and our labor market needs, investments otherwise made along the border and for interior enforcement will never be fully effective at halting illegal immigration. 

Therefore, in the absence of comprehensive reform of our immigration policy or, shall I say, pending comprehensive reform—we certainly hope so—pending comprehensive reform, we on this Subcommittee must ensure the Department focuses its resources on 

the Nation’s highest immigration-related priorities. To this end, 

since I have served as Chairman, we have provided over $1.2 billion for DHS to locate aliens convicted of crimes and serving time 

in prison and to deport those individuals from the United States 

after an immigration court has ordered them to leave. 

Madam Secretary, I am encouraged by your commitment to 

thwart cross-border violence and to find and deport criminal aliens. 

I also support the Department’s recently issued guidelines for ICE 

investigators to make employer prosecution the focus of its work 

site enforcement activities. These endeavors will need constant and 

thoughtful attention in their implementation. We would like to 

hear more about how you will focus DHS resources on these priorities, particularly how you will work within DHS with other Cabinet departments, and with State and local agencies, and with the 

country of Mexico on cross-border problems. 

While you are focusing on these issues, DHS is also responding 

to the outbreak of the H1N1 influenza. Since the Department of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
3 

Health and Human Services declared H1N1 flu a public health 

emergency in the United States, the government has mobilized resources and made preparations in case the outbreak develops into 

a true pandemic. As the principal Federal official for domestic incident management, Madam Secretary, you are charged with coordinating preparation and response throughout the government. 

The spread of H1N1 flu is another reminder of the critical need 

for a robust system to identify and effectively respond to threats of 

all types, whether man-made or natural. This all-hazards mentality 

is one that I have long advocated for the Department of Homeland 

Security to adopt in full, and it is a philosophy I believe our President also embraces. 

As the current outbreak demonstrates, the threats our country 

faces are diverse and evolving. Consequently, the systems we have 

in place to prepare for and mitigate these threats must be comprehensive and adaptable, just as the resources we allocate to addressing these threats must be based on a holistic understanding 

of risk to the American people. 

Finally, before we get to your statement, I want to briefly address your fiscal year 2010 budget, the budget request that we received last week. In total, the discretionary budget requests $42.7 

billion for DHS, or a 6.3 percent increase over the comparable 

amount appropriated in 2009. I am pleased to note that in general 

the budget does not continue the disingenuous practice of leaving 

holes where the administration knows Congress has strong interests, such as State and local grants. 

In doing so, though, you have obviously made it harder for yourself. You have had to make some hard decisions about investments 

that cannot move forward at this time, such as advanced 

strectascopic portal monitors, for example, because of technical 

problems. You also appear to have taken a more pragmatic approach to solving complex problems, for example by requesting at 

this time no additional funding for implementation of a biometric 

exit program under US–VISIT, at least until technical and regulatory and diplomatic issues can be resolved. 

Within the total request, I was pleased to see almost $200 million for identifying and removing criminal aliens through the Secure Communities program, an increase of more than 30 percent 

over last year’s level; to see an additional $70 billion to take on the 

criminal organizations operating along the southwest border. There 

is an increase of about $800 million for the Transportation Security 

Administration to accelerate much-needed improvements in baggage screening and to enhance surface transportation protection 

programs. There is a 26 percent increase in funding for the Department’s Science and Technology directorate to make it harder for 

terrorists to launch successful attacks with explosives, and over 

$100 million more than last year to enhance cyber security programs and improve information security in-house. Finally, I am 

pleased to note that the request includes $3.9 billion for FEMA to 

support State and local activities. State and local first responders 

are our partners in homeland security. When a disaster strikes, 

they are first on the ground to respond, and they deserve to have 

a reliable partner. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
4 

Yet the budget request also includes some changes that get my 

attention. For example, the budget cuts fire grants, the basic equipment grants for our firefighters, by 70 percent. And when you include transfers, the budget reduces FEMA management administration by 10 percent. That is an agency we have been trying to rebuild since Hurricane Katrina. 

Finally, you propose moving the frontline protectors of our Federal offices, the Federal Protective Service, out of ICE, an agency 

with law enforcement experience, through the National Protection 

and Programs Directorate, an agency with plenty to do but no law 

enforcement mission. We will want to look at each of these proposals carefully. 

So, Madam Secretary, we look forward to hearing from you 

today. Your full written statement will be entered into the record, 

and we are going to ask you to limit your oral presentation to 5 

minutes as is our custom. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
5 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 52999A.001
6 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 52999A.002
7 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 52999A.003
8 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 52999A.004
9 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 52999A.005
10 

Mr. PRICE. Before we begin, I want to recognize the distinguished 

Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Lewis, for his comments and also comment that our Ranking Member of the subcommittee would be here today were it not for the severe flooding 

in his district in his State of Kentucky. In fact, we tried very hard 

to rearrange this hearing so that he could be here, and there was 

no way to do that. But we do want Mr. Rogers and his staff to 

know that we are thinking about them as they face this. I know 

FEMA has been mobilized overnight to deal with some needs in 

some of those communities. So we miss Mr. Rogers today, and we, 

of course, are going to be attentive to the emergency situation they 

are facing in Kentucky. We are glad, however, to have our Ranking 

Member from the Full Committee here, Mr. Lewis, and be happy 

to hear any comments he wishes to make. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
11 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 52999A.006
12 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 52999A.007
13 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 52999A.008
14 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 52999A.009
15 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 52999A.010
16 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER LEWIS

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Napolitano, it is a privilege to be here at your first 

hearing before one of our committees. In the meantime, seeing Hal 

Rogers fighting the floods and yet experiencing the services that 

can be brought to our districts by way of FEMA, et cetera, is a 

very, very important reflection of your work and our work as well. 

I must say that I have been afflicted by more than one disaster 

in California. FEMA has been overall very effective in its response 

in recent years, and thereby I am very proud of the fact that we 

are being responsive to the needs of people out there in times of 

crises. 

In the meantime I wanted to mention briefly—well, I note that 

there is a group of uniformed officers in the room. They are one of 

the classes of the War College, people who are dedicating themselves to our national security on a different pathway over the 

years ahead. I have spent a lot of time and had the privilege of 

chairing at one time the subcommittee that deals with national security, and the one thing that has made that subcommittee successful over the years is that on both sides of the aisle we recognize 

that national security has very, very little to do with partisan politics. The same thing, over time, as this subcommittee and this 

arena of work matures, I expect we will see a very, very similar 

pattern. 

And so within that context, I just wanted to share with you my 

concern about a little rhetoric early on relative to a relative slight 

difference in philosophy, in which the rhetoric accelerated itself to 

dealing with the extreme; that is, extreme right wingers, extreme 

left wingers, et cetera. Such rhetoric doesn’t tend to cause both 

sides to be able to communicate with each other as well as they 

might, and I would suggest to the Secretary that we are all in this 

together. I am certainly going to be talking to my members relative 

to this committee, helping the Chairman have us all together. 

So, having said that, it is just by way of saying that you have 

got an incredible job to do, and all that I know about you says you 

are capable. If we can stick to the issues that surround effectively 

securing our homeland, that will be helpful to all of us. 

I have seen many administrations come and go. We all have to 

learn this process together, and frankly, I think it is a bit excessive 

for us to presume that you have worked with us for 20 years when 

you are brand new on the job. So, in the meantime, it is my pleasure to welcome you here and express my apologies for the fact that 

the Interior Subcommittee is having a hearing in about 15 minutes 

that I must attend because it has to do with fires in the West. So 

as Hal Rogers is worried about water in Kentucky, I am worried 

about fires in the West. And so you will excuse me, and Judge 

Carter and his able hands will take my place. 

In the meantime, I noted a clear prioritization away from some 

of ICE’s more important interior immigration enforcement programs, like work site enforcement, toward criminal aliens, a worthy program in its own right, but a prioritization that appears to 

forget that none of the 9/11 hijackers were so-called criminal 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
17 

aliens. Making sure that we have a balance relative to those we are 

really looking at is pretty fundamental to our success in this arena. 

It is on another front, Madam Secretary, it is hard for me to support a 30 percent increase in your office when frontline agencies 

like CBP and the Coast Guard are receiving inflationary gains. It 

is also hard for me to agree with hundreds of millions of dollars 

in information technology initiatives when investments in critical 

operational assets are only level-funded. I would have hoped that 

somebody would have provided input for you early on when the 

stimulus package was going on so we could have tapped some of 

that funding in that huge package that was going forward, rather 

than straining your budget in areas that maybe you don’t need to 

be strained so much for the 2010 year. 

Madam Secretary, I note that within the President’s budget only 

one Cabinet agency budget is projected to decrease over the next 

5 years, that being DHS. While you may claim this decrease will 

be offset through increased aviation passenger fees, we have heard 

that story before. The authorizing committees historically have not 

been inclined to exercise fees to carry on government work that 

may not be that authorizing committee’s priorities. So I would be 

very cautious about where that might take you in terms of—all of 

us want to avoid cliffs, but this is a cliff that we have seen before. 

So Madam Secretary, given the current threat environment, now 

is perhaps the worst time to shortchange our investment in security. And I would urge you to recognize that as we are building national security, not only do we need to emphasize this nonpartisan 

approach that I suggested earlier, if we talk to each other the committees will be, on the record and off the record, pretty candid with 

you as to what levels we can see being sustained over a substantial 

period of time. 

Further, it seems to me that within the total stimulus package, 

with pretty high levels of fundings for all the agencies with a lot 

of flexibility given, I find most agencies I talk to privately saying 

we are awash in money, lot of flexibility, but not necessarily a lot 

of direction. And for those agencies to presume that that level of 

funding as reflected in the stimulus package and that level of flexibility in programming is going to continue through the 2010 year, 

the 2011 year and the 2012 year might be a very big mistake. And 

indeed, yours is an agency that, above and beyond almost everybody but national security, needs the kind of stability that I would 

suggest we should be working on. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your giving me the 

time, and I am sorry I am going to have to be leaving early, but 

I am anxious to hear the Secretary. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SECRETARY NAPOLITANO

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Lewis, members of the subcommittee for the opportunity 

to testify about the Department of Homeland Security’s portion of 

President Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2010. 

As noted, the proposed total budget for DHS is $55.1 billion, 

which includes $42.7 billion in appropriated funding. It is also 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
18 

noted DHS performs a broad range of activities across a single 

driving mission: to secure America from the entire range of threats 

that we face. 

The Department’s leadership in the past couple of weeks in response to the H1N1 flu outbreak only proves the breadth of this 

Department’s portfolio. We have also have focused on the need to 

make DHS a stronger, more effective Department. In my view this 

budget strengthens our effort in the five mission areas where we 

need to focus in order to secure the American people: 

First, guarding against terrorism, the founding purpose and perennial top priority of the Department. 

Second, securing our borders, an effort even more urgent as the 

United States looks to do its part to counter the rise in cartel violence in Mexico. 

Third, smart and effective enforcement of our immigration laws. 

We need to both facilitate legal immigration and pursue enforcement against those who violate our Nation’s immigration standards. 

Next, improving our preparation for, response to, and recovery 

from disasters. Not just hurricanes—that season begins in a few 

weeks—tornadoes, earthquakes, fire and floods. I spoke with Congressman Rogers just yesterday about the situation in Kentucky, 

but also unexpected situations like the H1N1 flu. 

And lastly, creating a unified Department of Homeland Security. 

We need to work together as one Department to ensure that we operate at full strength. This is important. As this subcommittee 

knows, our Department is an amalgam of 22 different agencies that 

were put together after 9/11, and in some respects the part of unifying the Department is still a work in progress. That accounts in 

part for the increase in administrative costs that you noted, Congressman, because when the Department was formed, it did not 

bring with it the program managers, acquisition specialists, all the 

things—i.e., the nuts and bolts to make sure that the taxpayer dollars go where they are supposed to and are well spent. We are 

building that infrastructure now. 

Within those five mission areas, there are at least three approaches that cross cut: 

One, we are seeking to expand our partnerships with State, local, 

and tribal governments, the first detectors and the first responders. 

Second, we are seeking to bolster our science and technology 

portfolio, investing in proven technologies and in new technologies 

that can increase our capabilities, all the while being mindful of 

the privacy and other interests that are implicated. 

And third, maximizing efficiency. Through a program entitled 

‘‘Efficiency Review’’ that we launched in March, we are determined 

to ensure that every security dollar is spent in the most effective 

way. 

This proposed budget adheres to the President’s major reform 

goals—government efficiency, transparency and cohesion—and will 

play a major part in bringing about a new culture of responsibility 

and fiscal discipline within DHS. The DHS budget request is based 

on alignment with the Department’s priorities, and programs were 

assessed based on effectiveness and on risk. Budget priorities to 

guard against terrorism, the first mission, the proposal includes 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
19 

$121 million to fund research for new technologies that detect explosives in public places and transportation networks; $87 million 

for new measures to protect critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack; and enhanced information sharing among federal, state, local and tribunal law enforcement. 

For border security, this budget proposal includes $116 million to 

deploy additional staff and technology to the southwest border to 

disrupt southbound smuggling of drugs and bulk cash to combat 

cartel violence, and $40 million for smart security technology funding on the northern border to expand and integrate surveillance 

systems there. 

To ensure smart and effective enforcement of our immigration laws, the budget proposal includes $112 million to strengthen EVerify, to help employers maintain a legal workforce; a total of 

$198 million for the Secure Communities program which helps 

state, tribunal, and local law enforcement target criminal aliens; 

and improved security and facilitated trade and tourism through 

the WHTI Initiative and US–VISIT. 

To help Americans prepare for, respond to, and recover from nat- ural disasters, the budget proposal includes—from $210 million to 

$420 million, it doubles the number of frontline firefighters supported in the budget. It has a $600 million increase to the Disaster 

Relief Fund to help individuals and communities affected by disasters. It strengthens predisaster hazard mitigation efforts as well, to 

reduce injuries, loss of life, and destruction of property. To unify the Department, this budget proposal also includes $79 

million for the consolidation of DHS headquarters which will bring 

35 disparate offices together, which will generate significant savings in the long run. It also provides $200 million to consolidate 

and unify our IT infrastructure and bring all of DHS within one 

system as opposed to the myriad systems we are operating under 

now. 

In my few months as Secretary I have seen a number of remarkable accomplishments by the men and women of this Department 

in addition to the challenges we have faced. I have seen this Department’s potential; I believe we are on a path to realizing it. We 

are aiming to do even better at achieving our security mission. This 

budget will help our Department do just that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
20 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here 52999A.011
21 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here 52999A.012
22 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 here 52999A.013
23 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here 52999A.014
24 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here 52999A.015
25 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 here 52999A.016
26 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 here 52999A.017
27 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 here 52999A.018
28 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 here 52999A.019
29 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 here 52999A.020
30 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 here 52999A.021
31 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 here 52999A.022
32 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 here 52999A.023
33 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 here 52999A.024
34 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 here 52999A.025
35 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 here 52999A.026
36 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 here 52999A.027
37 

CRIMINAL ALIENS

Mr. PRICE. We will now begin questioning. I will have the first 

query. 

I mentioned in my opening statement, Madam Secretary, that, in 

my view, ICE should have no greater immigration priority than 

finding and removing people who have been convicted of crimes 

and judged deportable from the country. From some of your public 

statements, you seem to have similar views; but I would like to 

make sure we are all on the same page about this issue. How do 

you intend to focus ICE’s efforts to identify and remove deportable 

criminal aliens? How is this going to be reflected in your budget, 

and also the kind of policy you implement in the Department? How 

are you going to ensure that this focus remains a high priority for 

ICE? Are there other immigration priorities that compete or even 

take precedence over the effort to remove criminal aliens? In any 

event, how do you balance other priorities against the need to identify and remove criminal aliens so they are not released to commit 

more crimes, but are deported when they complete their sentences? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do believe that 

a high interest of ICE is to remove and deport criminal aliens from 

our population. And I say that based in little part on my own background as the former United States attorney, Attorney General, 

and two-term Governor of Arizona, a border state, which perhaps, 

more than any other state in the last years, has seen the increase 

in illegal immigration across that border, and having to make judgments about what is the best way to get at it, and how do you do 

your immigration mission and public safety mission simultaneously. 

Several things. One is that we look at how to use the existing 

programs within ICE to focus upon the criminal alien population. 

That means, for example, the 287(g) program. 287(g) is a program 

that basically consists of MOUs between the Department and state 

and local law enforcement. 

A very, very good use of 287(g) is to identify inmates in our prisons and jails, those who have already run afoul of our criminal justice system, and begin the deportation proceedings before they are 

released from those places of incarceration, so that you don’t have 

a gap between when you serve a state sentence and then get released into the public and then have ICE have to pick you up and 

start afresh with immigration enforcement. 

I was, as Governor, one of the first, perhaps the first, Governor 

in the country to negotiate such an agreement with ICE for the Arizona State prison system. It has been very effective, and we have 

seen those agreements be effective in multiple ways. 

SECURE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

Mr. PRICE. And within the 287(g) program there is a good deal 

of variability. I know the Department has that under examination 

at present, what the kind of permissible range variability would be. 

But you are saying a prime focal point of 287(g) or presumably Secure Communities or other programs of this sort should be this 

criminal alien population? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
38 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. And Secure Communities 

was the next point I was going to bring us to, which has been a 

remarkably effective program, and the budget that the President 

has submitted greatly increases it. But it is really a way to unite 

immigration, public safety, criminal law, agencies and communities 

across the country to focus on the criminal alien population. 

Also, gangs, for example, particularly in some of the states where 

you have large gangs that have a large percentage of illegals who 

are members of the gang—the Budget allows us to really focus 

those efforts in a very, very good way. 

The third way that this Budget and our Department are moving 

is to make sure we make great use of technology; in other words, 

that we gather the identities of those who are apprehended, that 

we make sure that criminal records checks are run against all the 

relevant databases. It sounds basic, it is, but it needs to be uniform, basic, constantly done, and databases constantly improved. 

And you will see funding for that in the Budget as well. I could 

name a number of other things. 

Let me finish my answer, however, by making one point, and 

that is in the world of illegal immigration, ICE has to multitask. 

We cannot just do the criminal aliens. We have to prioritize and 

identify how we also do work site enforcement, how we also handle 

other matters involving illegal immigration. And so I think one of 

the things—one of the items I am trying to bring to bear on the 

Department, influenced by my experiences I have had, is how do 

we prioritize even with ICE as we multitask on a number of these 

areas. 

But I think, Mr. Chairman, you are exactly right. The criminal 

alien population, in dealing with them and being very robust there, 

is going to be a key priority for us. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Or Mr. Carter, I am sorry. 

RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM REPORT

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, welcome. I am glad you are here. It gives us a chance to visit. I am 

looking forward to visiting with you and you have got a tough job, 

a real tough—tougher than Governor, I promise you. 

I want to start with something that I have been upset about and 

raising Cain about, and so I am going to ask you about it. And that 

is this right-wing extremism report that was mailed out to all law 

enforcement officials in the United States. And when I read 

through it, the reason it jumped off the page at me is the classifications of folks that we ought to be watching out for make up about 

80 percent of my district. And I really felt that it seemed to be a 

little different than what we really should be talking about. 

And of course, I represent Fort Hood, Texas, where we have 

50,000 fighting men and women who work constantly protecting 

our Nation, and many of them retire in our area and become veterans in our area. We have two VA hospitals within driving distance of my home. And I was very concerned about the fact that 

we labeled our returning veterans as possible recruiting persons for 

terrorism in this country, in this report that I have right here with 

me. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
39 

And I understand that you have apologized to the soldiers and 

to the military. And I understand that, but I would just like your 

view on this and how it was accumulated and what reason it is 

that it hasn’t been withdrawn and better clarified. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, let me, Congressman, you are right; 

some things in my initial days have gone very well at the Department; some things have not, and that was probably the worst 

thing. I have apologized for that report. It was not authorized to 

be distributed. It had not even completed its vetting process within 

the Department. It has been taken off of the intel web sites and 

the lexicon that went along with it was similarly withdrawn. Neither were authorized products, and we have now put in place processes. It turned out there were really no procedures that govern 

what went out and what didn’t before, and now there are. I do not 

want to see a replication of that. 

I also met with the leadership of the American Legion. They 

were offended by the report. I understood that. We had a very good 

conversation, and we are going to work with them. For example, 

we are going to be providing—as you can see from the Department’s history and where we are heading this next fiscal year, we 

are still in hiring mode. We will be participating in the job fairs 

that the veterans are hosting to recruit among that veteran population. That is a great, great source of workforce for us. 

Indeed, I think over 25 percent of the Department—that is probably a low-ball number, irrespective of the Coast Guard—are military veterans. So that is a huge population for us. 

With that, however, one of the things we do need to do on the 

intel side—and let me, if I might, share with you where I think we 

need to head, setting aside that mistake. Where we need to lead 

is where the Department of Homeland Security holds a unique role. 

There is no other department of the Federal Government that has, 

as part of why it was created, to share information with state and 

local law enforcement, that they can use. Most intel that you pay 

for, that you appropriate money for, is shared around Washington, 

D.C. It is shared around federal agencies. But there is really very 

little that goes back and forth with state and local. And that is the 

partnership that I talked about in my opening statement comments. Now, if we are going to do that, we have to turn out a quality product and we have to turn out something that is useful to 

state and local. And that is the improvement process that we are 

embarking upon now. 

I look forward to the confirmation of an Under Secretary for I&A. 

We do not have one yet, but a nominee has been named by the 

President and others, and really being that part of value added to 

our whole nation’s network for homeland security. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, as part of that question, clarification I guess. 

I have worked with State and local police for 20 years, and I can 

assure you we have got some of the best and smartest and most 

effective police forces in Texas of anybody around. But in turn, this 

official report has been received by those people and if nothing has 

been—you are right; things are heard around Washington, but if it 

doesn’t get out of Washington, then as far as they are concerned 

this report is still valid and a high priority there. That is why I 

asked, did you send them something, these people all over the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
40 

United States that received this thing about our veterans and 

about our people who believe in the Second Amendment and the 

other people who were opposed to abortion and so forth. Have you 

sent something out to these law enforcement officers so they are 

not targeting these individuals as they look for terrorists? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congressman. First of all, the 

report was not designed for targeting purposes. It was designed for 

situational awareness. Secondly, the report is off the DHS intel 

web site and all of its web sites. And third, it will be and is in the 

process of being replaced or redone in a much more useful and 

much more precise fashion. 

Mr. CARTER. But that it went out to them in a written form, has 

it been withdrawn in a written form? Or if it went out in electronic 

form, has it been withdrawn in electronic form? Because not everybody looks at Web sites. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe that is how that information is 

distributed. 

Mr. CARTER. Only on the Web site? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Is my understanding, but I will doublecheck. And it is not there anymore. 

Mr. CARTER. Very good. Very good. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

to the members on my side for allowing me to go first, since I have 

to leave right away. 

Secretary Napolitano, I have been deeply concerned by reports 

from NGOs that unaccompanied children apprehended at the border are sometimes being held for extended periods of time, sometimes as long as 5 days at Border Patrol stations. This is based on 

a report from the Women’s Commission, which has also been confirmed by your own Department and your agency, Border Patrol as 

well as ICE, which are two of the agencies that have responsibility 

for these children. The third is the Office of Refugee Settlement, 

and I have heard that these delays occur in large part because the 

ORR lacks the resources to promptly accept these children. Concerns have also been raised as to whether ICE is the right agency 

to facilitate the transfer of these children. 

Have you had the opportunity to look at the current structure for 

the handling of unaccompanied children and do you believe that 

ORR, not ICE, should have the responsibility for the transfer and 

placement of these unaccompanied children, given the problems 

that we have seen? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, let me say yes and no. 

Yes, we have begun looking at a whole host of issues involving detention policies and practices of ICE. We have elevated the detention office within ICE—it was at the bottom of the org chart—to 

an office that reports directly to the head of ICE, who hopefully 

will be confirmed within the next week or two. His name is pending before the Senate now. But also to look at issues—unaccompanied juveniles, health-care standards within our ICE detention 

facilities. There are a whole host of things that have caused public 

concern. So that is one among several we are looking at and we 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
41 

will be happy to provide you with information as that examination 

goes forward. 

With respect to ORR versus ICE, as to which is the appropriate 

body, I have not yet made a determination. This is a very difficult 

issue. In states along the border, there are a lot of children, unfortunately, who are picked up as unaccompanied minors, and sometimes they are held simply while someone in the consulate or somewhere else asks that they be held there, or held there while they 

try to locate parents or somebody in Mexico or Central America 

where they could safely be returned. And so sometimes that takes 

more than a day or two or three, though I don’t think it is often 

an extended stay, nor should it be. 

So I have not yet made the determination whether ICE is doing 

the best job or ORR is a better place for that, but I do know it is 

one of a cluster of detention issues that we are looking at. 

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. And are you also looking at alternatives to detention for those that pose no threat to the community, the elderly and the sick? It is a much cheaper way of monitoring these people. And I believe that ICE spent close to $2 billion 

to house approximately 400,000 detainees, and it is very expensive, 

and it is a proven method to be able to monitor, through supervision and other monitoring of programs, a lot of these people that 

are very vulnerable, as I said, such as the elderly and those who 

are ill. 

So I was just wondering if you were also looking at those alternatives to not only reduce costs but also because it is a more humane way of housing these vulnerable populations. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, we are. I must say, however, that my initial blush review of alternatives to detention was 

not a very encouraging one. It was not actually all that cheaper 

than actual detention, and the disappearance or the rate of people 

not coming back for their visits or whatever was not acceptable. So 

whatever we were doing in that mode either had to be strengthened and funded appropriately or we needed to continue with a detention model. 

So we are looking at it. But I just wanted to share with you, the 

purpose of detention is to hold somebody for deportation and the 

detainee knows that, too, and so there are some issues there that 

we need to address in the enforcement perspective. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Such as tracking bracelets and other 

things. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Tracking bracelets. Again, they are not 

cheap. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Right, okay. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is the problem. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. All right. I would like to work with you on 

that particular area. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Madam Secretary, before we turn to Mr. Calvert, just 

to pick up on Ms. Roybal-Allard’s line of questioning, this is not the 

first time this committee has dealt with this. As you probably 

know, the report for this year’s bill asks that your Department, 

within 90 days, provide a briefing on this matter to our staff, and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
42 

that has not occurred. So we know you have this under advisement. It is something that we have a continuing interest in resolving, particularly this ICE–ORR trade off and where the responsibility should sort of lie. 

Mr. Calvert. 

E-VERIFY PROGRAM EXTENSION

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Napolitano, for returning today. 

In anticipation of this hearing, I reached out to folks back home 

and their concerns about our homeland security. I received an overwhelming response and found a majority of people had three major 

concerns: First is the lack of control over the southern border; second was the frustration with the Federal Government for its inability to stem illegal immigration and drug flows; and last, anger and 

disappointment—as an individual similar to Judge Carter I have 

three military installations in my district—about this ill-advised report on right-wing extremism. 

What I want to get into, though, is the primary sentiment on illegal immigration. First, I would like to thank you for your public 

support of E-Verify. As you may know, I created the program back 

in 1996, and I commend the administration for funding the EVerify program at $112 million for fiscal year 2010. However, I 

have a question about the 3-year reauthorization request. 

E-Verify, as you know, is successful. It is highly adaptive. Obviously, it is mandatory in your home State of Arizona. As you know, 

last Congress, the House passed a bipartisan 5-year reauthorization of E-Verify, 407 to 2. Why did you limit it to 3 years? Would 

you support a permanent reauthorization of this program? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Representative. I am a big 

supporter of E-Verify, and so thank you for what you did in 1996. 

I believe it has to be an integral part of our employer enforcement 

moving forward, because you have to give employers, particularly 

smaller ones, a relatively accessible, easy-to-use method of 

verifying lawful presence for purposes of employment. 

As Governor, I issued an executive order requiring the use of EVerify throughout the Arizona government, so I know how it works 

because we were one of the largest employers and we were hiring 

people all the time. And so I knew that some of the issues raised 

with E-Verify in truth didn’t pan out. 

I also signed the law that was the strongest and, I think, remains to be the strongest employer sanctions law in the country 

which drives employers to use E-Verify. And indeed, I think the 

last report I saw was that about 26 percent of the employers who 

are on E-Verify now come from Arizona. So I know that if the law 

works in the right way, you get the right result. 

With respect to a 3-year authorization, you know, I live off of 

Congress’ wisdom. I would like certainly more than 1 year, and I 

certainly would like the expectation that this is going to be an ongoing and integral part of our enforcement network. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Regarding E-Verify, Federal contractors, as you know the Federal order has been postponed twice. It 

is now scheduled to go into effect on June 30 of this year. Do you 

support the ruling requiring Federal contractors, one, to use the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
43 

system similar to what you decided in Arizona, or do you see any 

further delays of putting in this rule? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I think my record speaks 

for itself on this in terms of my support on how E-Verify ought to 

be used. 

With respect to the postponement, I think that has mostly been 

a logistical one; in other words, to make sure that the system is 

robust enough, accessible enough and so forth, so that the actual 

application of stimulus moneys didn’t get slowed down waiting for 

E-Verify to catch up. 

Mr. CALVERT. We had testimony here from the people who work 

for you that operate that system, and they said they are ready to 

go. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are ready to go. 

SOUTHERN BORDER SECURITY

Mr. CALVERT. Ready to go. I don’t know if I have time in this series of questions, but I want to get into this problem we have south 

of the border on these drug wars going on down there and how that 

affects our security and our border. And maybe in what remaining 

time we have, what are you doing right now to help secure that 

border and the drug flows that are coming across? 

Part of that defense is air interdiction. I also represent March 

Air Force Base where AMOC is located, which operates the perimeter air defense of the United States, and they are doing a marvelous job of attempting to stop the high number of aircraft that 

are coming into the United States with these illegal substances. 

But the folks that are involved in that are using new technologies 

all the time, lower flying UVs—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. UAV. 

Mr. CALVERT [continuing]. UAV aircraft, other types of endeavors 

in which to get these drugs over. So what are you doing to support 

those activities to help stop these drug flows? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. A number of things, Congressman, from 

moving manpower down to the border, adding dog teams to the 

border who are cross-trained to sniff drugs, but also we have dog 

teams trained to sniff guns and bulk cash, to adding to our border 

liaison officers—those are the ones that deal directly with their 

counterparts on the Mexican part of the border—to adding more 

technical and technological capacity, to adding more ICE attache ́s 

within the interior of Mexico to feed intelligence back up to us 

about what is going on. There is a whole menu of things. 

METHAMPHETAMINE

Mr. CALVERT. One of the things I want to touch on is methamphetamine. It used to be these labs were scattered all around 

the rural areas in Arizona and California and the rest. Now, most 

meth comes in from Mexico, about 90-plus percent of methamphetamine comes in from Mexico, from these superlabs that are located 

there, and it is a horrific, horrific drug. It is literally poison. 

And the system in Mexico to get precursors into Mexico from 

China and India, are you involved in that to try to work with the 

Mexican Government? And I give President Calderon full credit on 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
44 

trying to stop this, to help stop these precursors coming in. So I 

just wanted to bring that up also, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. And I could say yes we do have that 

and we are working with that primarily through CBP. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

OPERATION STONEGARDEN

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, and welcome, Madam Secretary. 

I represent a district that has 785 miles on the border. I have 

three major sectors there, the Border Patrol. I have over 17 border 

stations and seven ports of entry. So I do represent the most, more 

than anyone else on the border, in the southern border and the 

northern border. So I wanted to kind of touch base with you on a 

piece of legislation, H.R. 1448, that we pushed forward that includes efforts that the administration—and President Obama has 

already indicated that are a priority for him: Project Gun Runner, 

the best teams at ICE, and Operation Stonegarden. 

The Chairman has also taken a major lead on the Stonegarden 

project which has been dormant, and the Chairman made sure that 

we got it activated. Although it has a lot of problems because it has 

got—the locals have to go through the State and then, you know— 

and so I wanted to ask you—and I don’t know if you have given 

any thought, but would you support or consider moving Operation 

Stonegarden as a stand-alone direct grant similar to assistance to 

firefighters? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, let me look at that, if I 

might. What we have been doing over the past 2 months is we have 

intensified our efforts on the southwest border—holding regular 

conference calls with the local police and sheriffs who occupy, are 

doing the frontline law enforcement down there. And it was in partial response to their request that we freed up the guidance on 

Stonegarden so they could use it for other things. And we brought 

forward some previously unallocated funds, around $59 million, 

that is really accessible and designed for them, and I occasionally 

participate, myself, in those conference calls. 

They have not mentioned to us the need to apply directly, and 

it surprises me that they are not or do not believe they are able 

to do so. I believe they can already. So I will need to go back and 

double-check. 

OUTREACH EFFORTS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. And then I also wanted to kind of 

touch base with you on this. As Congressman Carter had mentioned earlier, the administration, at the very beginning after 9/11, 

there were some groups that would come together—whether it 

would be Jewish, Christian, Muslim groups in the community—in 

terms of getting better understanding of each other. Are there any 

efforts at this point in time going on in this area? And I would encourage that kind of activity to occur in communities throughout 

this country as a proactive method of reaching out, and I know that 

there were some that were conducted. Somebody just came out 

automatically to bridge the gap and have a better understanding 

between communities. And that could also include between people 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
45 

that might feel one way or another on abortion, as well as veterans 

and others, and those that might be identified as gun lovers and 

whichever. 

But I know that that initially was occurring, and I was wondering if that is also part of your agenda, and I would encourage 

you to kind of look at that, if you cannot respond at this present 

time. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, we have within our civil 

rights and civil liberties section an outreach effort into several communities. One that I think I can mention here is an outreach effort 

to the Somali communities around the United States. I do not 

know that we actually convene multi-interest groups in the way 

that you described, but I think we clearly understand that there is 

an outreach component to the security work that we do that is very 

important. 

EMPLOYEE HOUSING

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Because I think that would be much more 

proactive and working with communities and helping out from a 

homeland security perspective. 

Let me also quickly follow up. Since I have a lot of rural—on the 

border, rural Texas, one of the biggest difficulties that we have— 

and your budget includes funding for deferred maintenance of existing employee housing. But do you think there is a need for building additional units and working in the area of communities for 

public service, private sector housing for our workers? That is one 

of the biggest problems that we have when we locate them out 

there in West Texas. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congressman. It depends 

where you are on the border, but particularly in some of the areas 

on the border where we have greatly staffed up very quickly, you 

really don’t have the housing stock there for the employees; and so 

that means they are having to commute really long distances to get 

to the border station to go to work. 

So in certain areas, yes, we are working with local housing authorities, public-private partnerships, the whole kind of menu of 

different options to try to make housing more uniformly available 

to our own workforce at the border. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is a very serious problem, and I would hope 

that you kind of look at that and see what we can make happen 

for some of those employees. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Agreed. 

OPERATION STONEGARDEN

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Before we turn to Mr. Kirk, just following 

up for a moment on Mr. Rodriguez’s line of questioning. This too 

is a matter that is not new before this Subcommittee. In fact, the 

report accompanying this year’s bill indicates that these Operation 

Stonegarden grants are made directly to tribal governments, units 

of local government including towns, cities, and counties along land 

borders of the United States; the purpose being, of course, to enhance the coordination between local and Federal law enforcement 

agencies. I am quoting here from our report. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
46 

The report further directs that only CBP and FEMA are to make 

these Operation Stonegarden grant decisions; and specifically it 

says that no administrative costs are to be deducted from Operation Stonegarden award totals by the States. So I do think we 

have dealt with this. We thought we had. So to the extent it needs 

to be revisited, maybe you can clarify if some problem has developed. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, that is why I was somewhat surprised at the question, because my understanding was 

these are direct-funded to local entities, not just that the state was 

no longer needed as the entity. I think that is the way it is. I will 

actually bet you $5 that is the way it is. But we will just doublecheck anyway. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Very good. Mr. Kirk. 

RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM REPORT

Mr. KIRK. I really want to commend my colleague Mr. Rodriguez. 

It is an outstanding bill that you have got. I have signed on and 

I think you have done a very good piece of work on that legislation. 

I hope we get it through. 

I want to ask a couple of quick questions. One, this extremist report; your staff said the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating in their communities could be the potential emergence of terrorist groups and lone-wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks. And you have apologized for 

that directly and said you took it off your Web site. 

Let me just ask specifically, who in the extremism and 

radicalization branch of the homeland environment threat division 

have you fired for this report? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Representative, as you know, I cannot discuss personnel matters with you, nor would it be appropriate to do that in a public committee setting, but I can say this. 

The report was begun many months ago. It was part of a series 

of reports on a whole variety of things that are occurring within 

the United States. The fact of the matter is, as was correctly noted 

by the Veterans of Foreign Wars when they read the report, the report was not an accusation, it was an assessment of who some 

right-wing groups, a target—I don’t really want to use the word 

‘‘right-wing.’’ Let me finish my answer, please. 

Mr. KIRK. Let me interrupt you. The President just fired our 

commander in Afghanistan, a way more important person than 

who works for you, and you can’t tell us that you have taken any 

action whatsoever? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I can tell you that personnel actions are 

being taken, but I can also share with you that it is not appropriate for me to talk with you today in committee, and that is all 

I think I should be saying. These are career civil servants. Most of 

them have worked at the Department since 9/11 and—— 

Mr. KIRK. The President took inappropriate action in firing a career military officer in public? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I am saying that personnel action—appropriate personnel action—has and will be taken 

in compliance with our Nation’s civil service laws. These are civil 

servants. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
47 

Now, with respect to the report, on the veterans issue there was 

no intent to accuse our veterans of being un-American. What there 

was was an understanding that veterans are sometimes targeted 

for recruitment. That is an assessment the Department of Defense 

indeed gives instruction to its own commanders at its own military 

bases about the same phenomenon. In fact, some of that was the 

basis for the report. We have made all those sources available to 

the committee. 

TRIBAL CYBER SECURITY

Mr. KIRK. Now, we have in the one-tenth of 1 percent of cuts that 

the President made, we cut criminal grants assistance to incarcerate criminal aliens, but we are funding $15 million for cyber security efforts to help tribal governments. Describe the specific tribal security cyber threat that you have seen. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Congressman, what that is related to 

is to make sure that there are tribes throughout the United States 

that have infrastructure, just as there are towns and other entities. 

And what we are trying to do is make sure that everybody has access, just as we work with some in the private sector and some in 

the local sector. Our domain within the cyber world is the protection of the dot gov sites and the protection of the work with the 

private sector on their sites. 

Mr. KIRK. But you would agree that funding should be threatdriven? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Funding is risk-driven. 

Mr. KIRK. Risk-driven. Based on the threats you have seen and 

the risks, have you seen any specific cyber threat report related to 

a tribal government? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have not seen a specific cyber report. 

However, I can share with you that the moneys that ultimately will 

be given out will be based on a threat and risk assessment. 

Mr. KIRK. Since your report on cyber security hasn’t come up, 

can you give us a quick understanding from your viewpoint on 

what the specific areas of responsibility are for NSA, DHS, and 

DOD? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Congressman, as you know—— 

Mr. KIRK. Not a hundred thousand feet. How do you see a lack 

of duplication of these three agencies? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. As you know, Congressman, the President has that very topic under review. I think, as you can also appreciate, it is an ever-changing threat environment in the cyber 

world and one to which we are paying particular attention. 

Mr. KIRK. I am not asking for his opinion. I am asking for your 

opinion. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, I think we are participating in that review. I believe the President will be making announcements there shortly. However, I think it is fair to say that 

where DHS’s role is preeminent is in the dot gov realm and the 

interaction with the private sector realm. 

Mr. KIRK. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mrs. Lowey. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
48 

ASSAULT RIFLES

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. Madam Secretary, welcome. I do want 

to say we are very fortunate to have a person of your caliber, conviction, and intelligence in this position and we thank you. And before I ask a question I just wanted to mention a couple of issues, 

because our time is limited, that I look forward to working with 

you on. 

First of all, bolstering aviation security. TSA employees should 

be given executive bargaining rights, and I have been working on 

this issue and I hope we can be successful. 

Number two, improved emergency communications for our first 

responders. More focused urban area grants to cities that are truly 

high risk. Improved cyber security for critical infrastructure, decreased border violence, and the identification, removal of dangerous criminal aliens which my Chair has focused on before. 

I want to a ask you a brief question about an issue that I think 

is urgent, having just returned a couple of months ago leading a 

congressional delegation to Mexico. 

The ATF estimates that 90 percent of firearms recovered in Mexico come from dealers in the United States, and many of the 6,600 

licensed U.S. Gun dealers, licensed U.S. Gun dealers along the 

southern border, operate out of their houses and sell assault weapons that fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. In one case 

that was recently dismissed, a gun shop owner had sold hundreds 

of AK–47 rifles to smugglers. 

Maybe you can share with us, do your think the availability of 

assault rifles from the United States, which are illegal in Mexico, 

increase border violence? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congresswoman, I think what we are trying to do on the gun issue going south is to do a more robust job 

of actually intercepting and interdicting them, and also working 

with Mexico so that we get real-time exchange of information about 

the guns that are seized that have been used in the commission of 

a crime, so that appropriate tracing can be done for purposes of 

pattern analysis and possible prosecution under our gun laws now. 

So to the extent the budget has additional resources from our Department for those efforts, that is how they are tailored. 

SECURING THE CITIES

Mrs. LOWEY. I will move on to another subject. Your fiscal year 

2010 budget proposal does not request any funding for securing the 

cities, a Federal and local effort, to prevent illicit radiological and 

nuclear material from being detonated in Manhattan; and for the 

past 2 years, the program has been funded at $30 million, which 

is less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the budget for a program 

that seeks to eliminate the catastrophic attacks scenario. 

Given that President Obama has called the threat of nuclear terrorism the most immediate and extreme threat to global security, 

why is this program not funded in this request? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The answer is several-fold. Securing the 

Cities was a pilot program involving New York, New Jersey, that 

area, on the nuclear threat as you correctly described. It was designed to be a 3-year pilot. There is money in the pipeline that will 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
49 

pay for the 3-year pilot. Indeed, New York hasn’t yet submitted its 

application for the fiscal year 2009 funds. Therefore, it was the 

view that new money into the program for the pilot wasn’t necessary and we want to see how the pilot actually works. If the 

states involved, such as New York, want to use other homeland security grant money to take it forward for years 4, 5 and 6 beyond 

the pilot, those grants can be requested through those other grant 

programs. So that was the thinking. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. So you agree that it is an important 

program, and pending evaluation you will make that decision as to 

whether additional moneys should be invested in the future. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I agree it is an important program. I 

agree that the nuclear issue always will be an important one for 

us. The question will be, and it will be partly for this committee 

and others in the Congress, should the pilot be continued under the 

Securing the Cities issues; or should it be, as this budget designs 

it, shifted over then to the regular grant programs once you are 

through the pilot phase and have used those funds up? 

Mrs. LOWEY. I will ask one more question. 

Mr. PRICE. You better make it quick. 

TSA COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mrs. LOWEY. Let me just say, President Obama has publicly supported granting all TSA employees collective bargaining rights, 

whistle-blower rights, veterans preference and other common workplace protections enjoyed by other DHS employees. When you testified before the authorizing committee earlier this year, you told 

Chairman Thompson you were discussing the issue of TSA collective bargaining with general counsel. Do you have an update, briefly? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Other than to say it is still in the review. 

What is really, I will say, Representative, the major issue we are 

waiting for now, is for the President to actually nominate a new 

head of TSA, because you really want, if you are going to be moving down that path, to have your TSA head in place, and that nomination has not yet been made. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say in closing 

on that issue, it seems that there is tremendous turnover, dissatisfaction, disgruntled employees. And if this is the first line of 

defense in the airports, it doesn’t make sense to me. They should 

be treated like all other Federal employees and have collective bargaining rights. We want them to stay in that position for a lengthy 

period of time so they can get the expertise and be professional in 

their work. So I would hope that decision would be made shortly 

concerning that issue. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. If I might add, one of the 

things I think we also—in addition to looking at that, we need to 

be looking at for TSA, which we are also looking at, is a real career 

path for those employees so that, you know, if you come in as a 

frontline screener, that there is a way to move up the chain as a 

way of making a real career with value added and training and supervisory responsibility and the like. And I think, in part because 

it is a relatively new agency, you really don’t have that kind of a 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
50 

defined career path, and we want to design one for those employees. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rothman. 

CHEMICAL PLANT FACILITIES

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, great pleasure to have you here with us. The 

FBI has called a 2-mile stretch in northern New Jersey, which 

links my district to the port of Elizabeth, the most dangerous 2 

miles in the United States when it comes to terrorism. The screening of all cargo at Port Elizabeth is an important security concern 

for my constituents and the entire region; and I am glad to see that 

you have prioritized container security and maritime security in 

general in the fiscal year 2010 budget request. 

However, the other challenge that we face in that 2-mile stretch 

has to do with chemical plant facilities. New Jersey’s chemical 

plants are known al Qaeda targets. Will the securing of those—further securing of those chemical plant facilities be a priority in your 

Department? And in particular, there was language enacted in 

2008 which said that the States could have their own regulations 

with regard to securing chemical plant facilities unless there was 

a conflict with the Federal requirements. Might it be time to revisit 

that language to allow each State to have its own chemical plant 

security regulations even stricter than a national minimum standard, even if they conflict? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, two things. One is we are 

actively engaged now on the issue of securing chemical facilities 

through the regulation, design and implementation of the regulations known as CFATS, and that has been a huge initiative undertaken by the Department over the last years, inordinately more 

complex and complicated than one would think at the outset. But 

you are exactly right to point to that in places like your own district about its potential danger to the homeland. So it is a key concern of ours and something that is ongoing, and we are working 

very heavily with the private sector on that, as you might imagine. 

With respect to the kind of reverse preemption argument, if they 

can go stricter but not looser than federal requirements, I must say 

that is the first time that has been suggested to me, and I would 

be happy to take a look at that. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you for that and look forward to engaging 

you in that discussion, or members of your Department. 

Also, Madam Secretary, I appreciate your focus on improving coordination and communication between the different arms of your 

agency, especially in light of the difficulties DHS has encountered, 

prior to your being sworn in as Secretary, with respect to the 

Transportation Security Grant program, which this Subcommittee 

has held two hearings on earlier. Are you familiar with this program and the inability or the apparent inability of grantees under 

the Transportation Security Grant program to draw down funds in 

a timely fashion? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
51 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will have to look into that. I know that 

has been a problem with some of our grant programs. I also know 

that this budget eliminates some of these grant programs under 

the fear that they were not risk-based enough to really justify 

going forward. 

RISK ASSESSMENT FUNDING

Mr. ROTHMAN. These have to do, of course, with the New YorkNew Jersey metropolitan area. And that comes to my third question which has to do with your risk assessment, the request for 

funding for additional risk assessment capabilities. And by the 

way, I hope that you will personally take a further look at the 

Transportation Security Grant program. The second of our two subcommittee hearings was more productive than the first and gave us 

a better sense, or a sense that progress was being made and appropriate attention was being focused, but if you as Secretary could 

take—— 

Mr. PRICE. This involved the Rail and Transit Grants and the 

problematic nexus that it would seem between TSA and FEMA in 

releasing those funds. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. It seemed that progress was being made, but if 

you could take a personal look at that, that would be great. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would be happy to. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Finally, the question. I was very delighted to see 

that in the last several years, threat of risk assessment was going 

to be the key criteria upon which the allocation of homeland security funds was going to be determined, as opposed to simply dividing up a big pie across the country and regions that didn’t share 

the same level of threat or risk as others. But now that we have 

a more risk-based allocation of funds, there has been an allocation 

in your request, $5 million, for this strategic requirements planning process to judge these risks in order of priority. Five million 

dollars. Do you think that that is sufficient to get the job done? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, yes, I do. I think that 

given where we are, where we are going, that is a very well-based 

budget request. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And sufficient? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

USE OF DOD RESERVE

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I want to say how pleased I am that you have 

taken the responsibility of this job. I think it is really refreshing 

to have a Governor come to Washington and essentially have experience on the ground with how things really operate. 

I find, having come out of local government, State government, 

after being here this many years, I am really glad that the Washington Monument isn’t round, because if it was, we would have a 

monument that stove-pipes, which is what so much goes on. 

What I think is remarkable about your agency is essentially the 

concept of interoperability. I think we have made it, in the agency, 

interoperable, still some struggles; but as a lot of your issues and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
52 

testimony have touched upon, there are these around the edges. It 

is our other Federal agencies that are not interoperable with 

Homeland Security, and I have about probably five or six questions. I will get to as many as I can. 

One is in your comments—and I would just like you to reflect— 

I have been through seven Presidentially declared disasters. It was 

very interesting the earthquake Loma Prieta in 1989 knocked out 

all the power and knocked out roads. Everybody was stuck. We had 

Fort Ord at that time, and the military could respond to the moment it was declared a Federal disaster. Then the military, they 

had to drop everything. So all the generators that they turned on, 

they couldn’t be used. 

And I know that the Governors have indicated that they are not 

keen on using—allowing this sort of the presence of the Reserve 

system because they are under Federal DOD command, whereas 

the National Guard is under the Governor. But the Reserve system 

in America has—the DOD has all the equipment. And I wondered 

if you can work with sort of making these more—the ability to use 

the assets of the military for emergency response, whenever—you 

know, whenever it calls for it. 

I know that the Governors have indicated they don’t want that 

because they want to maintain control, and it seems to me that we 

are at a cross there. We have Governors who want everything they 

can at the moment the disaster occurs, but they don’t want—they 

want to have control. I think you are not going to be in the Army 

Reserves, or the other Reserves, Air Force Reserves, to the Governors. And I hope you can maybe look at seeing how we can make 

that more interoperable. 

FUSION CENTER IN SALINAS

The other issue I want to bring up to you is I represent the city 

of Salinas. The city of Salinas has 150,000. It is essentially responsible for breaking the back of international terrorism through the 

cartels by big gangs in the largest State prison there. The town 

just does not have the resources. 

And what they are asking for, we have gotten other Federal help, 

and we have brought them all together in a whole it-takes-a-village 

to solve this problem. But now they want the intel issues that you 

mentioned earlier, and were really pursuing a model fusion center 

in a way it can be drawn that the Center for Homeland Security 

training are teaching master’s degrees and Ph.D.s at the Naval 

Postgraduate School. And I wonder if we could work with your 

agency to see if we could bring ability in this community to get an 

intel fusion center. We have already got the FBI Gun Checking Lab 

there, but there is still lots of other information that they need. 

Could you respond to that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. First, with respect to your first 

point, having been a Governor longer than I have been a Secretary, 

I can understand the notion that Governors want to have equipment available at their immediate command when a disaster 

strikes, because of the need to avoid unnecessary delay. That being 

said, I think we are working very closely now with Governors on 

a whole host of response issues, and so hopefully that battle with 

them, as it were, is going much more smoothly. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
53 

With respect to a fusion center in the Salinas area that would 

be particularly geared toward intelligence gathering with respect to 

the quite sizeable gang prison population in that part of California, 

that is something we could certainly look at. 

FEDERAL LICENSED GUN STORES

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. Regarding the Southwest border, what really struck me in earlier conversations, having visited 

the border and going with the President to Mexico City and to meet 

with all of the Federal agencies, one thing they have indicated that 

the law only allows ATF to go in and inspect gun sales through federally licensed, federally authorized gun shops once a year. They 

want that authority moved to ICE because ICE has all the officers 

on the border, whereas ATF doesn’t have very many, and they 

want the authority to be able to check more than once a year. 

ATF is in the Justice Department, and DHS has many other responsibilities under its bailiwick. Buying weapons along the SW 

border and transferring them illegally into Mexico is a huge problem, and we need to focus more attention on this particular problem. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is an agency that we work very closely with. We are working 

very closely with the Attorney General on how we can harmonize 

the joint responsibilities of ICE, DEA and ATF; because when you 

referred earlier to stove pipes, the memoranda, the original memoranda really think of them as not having any kind of concurrent 

or overlapping work, when in fact they do, particularly at the border. And I think we are very close to breaking through that in a 

formalized agreement. 

Mr. FARR. Well, if you need more authority, could you let this 

committee know? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will do it. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

PORT SECURITY

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you. I think you are very well-qualified for this. I think Homeland Security has had a lot of issues and 

a lot of bad judgment, lot of calls, a lot of money that has been 

spent that really shouldn’t be where it goes. But the fact that you 

were a prosecutor, the fact that you were a Governor, in management, and know local and State government, and now where you 

are I think is a good fit. So we are looking forward to working with 

you. 

We are going to have two rounds of questioning. I have got three 

issues I want to raise. So I might not get it all done the first round, 

and where my three areas would be are going to be in port security. We talked to you about the nuclear components and cargo containers being smuggled in, and we are going to get into the cyber 

issue, and then finally, I want to get into the Coast Guard about 

their resources, and especially in Central and South America as it 

relates to their resources. 

As far as the first one, the nuclear components and cargo containers, I represent the port of Baltimore. I am cochair of the National Port Security Caucus. So I have done a fair amount in the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
54 

port area, and I understand—I mean, your budget zeroed out the— 

I think it was zeroing out any type of money for technology and detecting the nuclear components. I think one of the areas was 

cranes. You know, in port security you have to make sure that you 

balance security with the commerce. I think we learned that when 

there was a strike, I think on the west coast, with about 17 ports, 

and I think it was $1 billion a day that it cost us. 

But are you familiar with the DNDO? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. To my knowledge, they were appropriated close to $15 million in fiscal year 2009 to further develop an ondock rail application; namely, a crane-mounted and straddle carrier 

detection system. And the crane-mounted system, which scans 

cargo containers as they are being unloaded, it seems to me is the 

way to go to balance out the commerce versus security, and it 

would not slow down operations. 

But the DNDO has some remaining money, and they just haven’t 

spent it. And you know, I am concerned that we need—we have a 

goal of scanning over 100 percent of incoming containers at foreign 

ports. And I really doubt, based on what I know, that that is going 

to be a reality. Just because you scan them doesn’t mean that you 

are getting what you need to get. 

I think you look at ports like Hong Kong where they say they 

scan every container, but they are going to miss a lot. So it is about 

technology and getting the right system in place. 

Now, as far as your goal, how do you address—do you think we 

will be able to meet the 100 percent? And secondly, the technology 

of trying to make sure that we can detect these nuclear components 

in cargo containers; because that is probably our biggest threat, 

components of a nuclear bomb coming into our country. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, let me if I might—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. In your fiscal year 2010 budget request, the 

acquisition of funding for radiation detection systems was zeroed 

out. That is why I am addressing this. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. Fair enough. And if I might 

address your question in several parts. One is, 100 percent scanning of all cargo from foreign origination by the deadline, I think 

I said even as early as my confirmation hearings, I thought that 

that deadline was not reachable, in part because of the logistics of 

simply negotiating some 700 or so international agreements to 

allow that sort of process to proceed. 

That being said, the budget does include expanding the ports 

that are doing 100 percent scanning abroad and adds three more 

of those ports, subtracting Hong Kong which now has withdrawn 

from our secure initiative. 

With respect to, however, scanning or screening at the ports as 

they come into the domestic U.S.—for nuclear, that is virtually 100 

percent. So I want to make sure we speak a little in a differentiated way between what we are doing abroad where the cargo is 

loaded, to what we are doing as they come into American ports. 

With respect to DNDO, yes, it was zeroed out for several reasons. 

First, there is money still in the pipeline that has not yet been 

drawn down. And second, the decision that the new-stage technology that I think the Congress was perceiving would be available 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
55 

to buy, really has not met our specifications or the expectations 

that we have; and rather than budget for it, I think we need to 

keep working with the vendors to get something that really will be 

working for us long term. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. If there aren’t systems that work now, then 

we have to continue to spend money to develop the systems which 

are going to work. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And there is money in the pipeline for 

that, but we are not going to be buying new systems right now in 

fiscal year 2010. That is the money you are referring to that was 

zeroed out. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Do you have research and development to 

determine there are a lot of inventors out there? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is money in S&T, but there also 

was unspent money in DNDO that could be used for that purpose. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And as you said before, there clearly is an 

issue of port of embarkation and getting the intel, HUMINT and 

SIGNET, and developing those different countries. But I think 

there are only 70 countries that deliver to our port and out of, 

what, 700 or something, whatever it is, they really are limited as 

far as their resources. So are you working on a plan on the point 

of embarkation and how we get intelligence in those ports moving 

forward? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will try to answer quickly. The answer 

is yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What are you doing? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are working with the Department of 

Defense and other entities on the intel gathering. That is how we 

selected the two or the three new ports that we will install the Secure Threat Initiative in this year. But beyond that, we have a 

multilayered risk-based approach that we are now using for cargo. 

I would be happy to make sure your staff or you are briefed and 

can see where we are headed. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It is kind of tough in a hearing, in 5 minutes, to do this. So we will have a meeting later and follow up. 

SECURE COMMUNITIES

Mr. PRICE. And we will have another round of questions which 

I am going to begin at this very moment. 

So, Madam Secretary, let me follow up on your response to my 

first question which had to do with the prioritizing of convicted 

criminal aliens for deportation proceedings. It was significant, I 

think, that in giving that answer you focused on two programs that 

strive to strengthen the cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement, namely the 287(g) program and Secure Communities, so 

I want to take that a little further. 

I am drawing here on some conversations I had recently with 

five sheriffs from North Carolina who discussed what they felt the 

best approach was for ICE to work with State and local law enforcement to combat illegal immigration. Specifically, I would say 

the sheriffs, to a person, highlighted the good experience they had 

had with the Secure Communities program, which they say gives 

them important information about the criminal histories of the people they arrest, something that indisputably they need to know. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
56 

Yet they also stressed that it allows them to maintain good relationships with local immigrant communities since it leaves to ICE 

the discussion of which individuals have detainers put on them and 

are to be scheduled for deportation. It leaves that discretion with 

ICE. It does not give local law enforcement a role in that. 

Now, the 287(g) program they had more mixed views of, some 

very positive, others not so positive. And that perhaps reflects, as 

I said earlier, the fact that 287(g) doesn’t look the same in each 

and every community, and I know the Department is exploring 

that as we speak. The program has been interpreted and implemented quite differently in various communities. 

But that aside, generally the 287(g) program allows our local officials both to investigate the backgrounds of suspected illegal immigrants and to make the determination whether an individual is in 

the country illegally. Now, deportation decisions, still a great deal 

of discretion with ICE; but more on intermixing of roles, I think 

you would agree, with local law enforcement; a less clear division 

of labor than we have with Secure Communities. 

In any event, 287(g) requires local officials to receive significant 

training in Federal immigration law that is costly and has, in some 

instances, led to strained relationships between local law enforcement and the immigrant community, since it does put local officials 

in the position of trying to stop crime while simultaneously being 

the long arm of ICE, or at least part of the enforcement mechanism 

with respect to Federal immigration laws. 

Now, all that by way of asking you, what do you think is the best 

way forward for ICE to build cooperative, working relationships 

with State and local law enforcement? Do you see significant differences between Secure Communities and the 287(g) program? Do 

you see clear advantages to one approach rather than to the other? 

I think we are going to have to sort this out, and you may not have 

it totally sorted out yet with respect to your own review. 

But it does seem to me, some of the pros and cons of the two approaches are becoming clear. Certainly they are clearer to law enforcement people in my communities. And I wondered what your 

reflections to this point would indicate. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are right; 

they are different with some overlap, but they are somewhat different approaches to the same problem, which is how do you identify for deportation criminal aliens and then get them deported. It 

is not just a matter of identification. It is a matter of removal from 

the country. 

As you correctly note as well, we are looking at 287(g). Why? Because it had so many variations across the country and no metrics 

in terms of was it actually producing a benefit for our immigration 

enforcement efforts. We want to really be looking at that agreement to look at ways to make it more uniform across the country 

and to put some real metrics, so it is an accountable program to 

us. 

Secure Communities, you know—the easiest model is giving local 

law enforcement access to immigration databases in a computerized way so they can identify more immediately and clearly who 

they have got. And to me, that is working. It is working very well. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
57 

It is very popular, and I can predict that we will be looking to grow 

that program over this year and the coming years. 

Mr. PRICE. And can you clarify in your budget for 2010, you are 

proposing a substantial increase in that Secure Communities line 

which is $200 million? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is correct, because it is effective. It 

works and law enforcement knows it. 

SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE

Mr. PRICE. Okay. Thank you. That is helpful, and we will continue to work on this with you. Let me shift to the related topic 

of the Secure Border Initiative and the question of border infrastructure. 

On April 21 you told the Border Trade Alliance—and I am 

quoting you here—that you cannot build a fence from Brownsville 

to San Diego and call that an anti-illegal immigration, anti-illegal 

drug strategy. Almost 3 years into the Secure Border Initiative, 

SBI’s most visible and expensive symbol is the physical fence, as 

well as thousands of new Border Patrol agents deployed to the border. The cost of this initiative over the past 3 years easily exceeds 

$4 billion. 

Now, at the same time, you have made it clear that you plan to 

finish the currently planned 670 miles of pedestrian and vehicle 

fencing. Your budget also includes $110 million, the same level as 

fiscal 2009, for tactical infrastructure. And your budget notes that 

the Border Patrol operational requirements call for a variety of 

such infrastructure, including additional pedestrian fence. 

However, I understand the Department does not intend to build 

new fence, but will focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, 

further testing and deployment of planned technology investments, 

and northern border technology programs. 

Now, as you may know, I have questioned the last administration’s investment priorities in this area. So as you can imagine, I 

am encouraged by the approach you have articulated, but I do have 

some questions about where we turn next. After such massive investments in technology and infrastructure and people, what would 

you say is your vision for a sustainable approach to the border security and how do you envision these elements fitting together? 

Obviously from your budget, the combination of elements is rather different than what we had in the last administration. Could 

you describe that a little more, in a little more detail though, how 

would you characterize the combination of elements you are looking 

to work together to reinforce each other going forward? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will 

confine my remarks to the southern border. We can talk about the 

northern border, but they are different in respect to the kind of 

system we are putting in place, but both require a system. And to 

me, the system has several elements. 

One is adequate boots on the ground, manpower. The second is 

technology. For example, we now have just signed off on the first 

phase of SBInet as being operational. It is going into place in the 

Tucson sector and will be added to other sectors now along the 

southern border. That program, as you know, took a while to get 

worked out but it is now being worked out. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
58 

So boots on the ground and technology. And then infrastructure 

is part of a system. So while, for example, on the fence the budget 

does not necessarily ask for new miles and miles of fence, it does 

not say that there can never be another portion of fence added on 

as part of another section of the border. As part of a system, we 

might want to add some more fencing in certain more places in a 

limited way. 

But my statement at the Border Trade Alliance is what I have 

seen and what I have experienced, just building the fence across 

several thousand miles of some of the most rugged terrain you will 

ever see, is not in and of itself an anti-illegal immigrant or anticontraband strategy. 

The other part that needs to be added to that is interior enforcement. That is why the worksite enforcement has to be part and 

parcel of our efforts here, because it is the demand or the draw for 

jobs that really creates the demand for a lot of that illegal immigration over the southern border. So unless you marry what you 

are doing at the border with some interior enforcement, all you 

have done is create a challenge to sort of run the gauntlet. And in 

a home-free system, that is what we need to avoid. 

Mr. PRICE. I assume you would agree beyond that, that enforcement alone is not, whatever the different components, whatever the 

different aspects, interior border enforcement; enforcement alone is 

not a sufficient immigration strategy. During my first months as 

Chairman I spent a lot of time down on that southwest border and 

have yet to meet a Border Patrol officer, a border agent, who would 

say enforcement alone is the answer to this problem. As long as our 

overall immigration policy is out of whack, as long as there is this 

gross disparity between what our labor market demands and what 

our official policy permits, all the fences in the world aren’t going 

to solve this problem. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I think the President has 

already indicated that he wishes to, sometime this year, take up 

the issue of underlying immigration reform, and we will be fully 

prepared to help participate in that effort when the time comes. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Carter. 

COUNTER NARCOTICS AND WEAPONS SMUGGLING

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To clarify some stuff we 

have been talking about, on the issue of the guns coming across, 

I believe what ATF has reported is that of those seized and traced, 

they are from the United States, but they haven’t traced anywhere 

the number of guns that they have seized. So there are other places 

that we should be involved in trying to help our allies across the 

border find out where the guns come from and don’t presume that 

they all come from the United States, because they have already 

reported that many of them come from being imported for law enforcement, and then law enforcement turning to the other side, the 

Army turning to the other side, and so forth. So there are other 

issues. 

On the 287(g) issue I believe that there are some good stats out 

there, that are available right now, showing that this has been a 

very effective program. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
59 

You mentioned that—and I wasn’t in the room but I was told of 

it—that you are formalizing an agreement with ICE, DEA, CBP 

and ATF and others on counter narcotics and counter weapons 

smuggling. Could you give us am idea of what kind of agreement 

you are formalizing and kind of where you think it is going? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Certainly, Representative. With respect 

to the gun tracing you are right; that 90 percent number comes 

from guns actually turned over and traced, which is not the total 

universe of guns seized. We know that however, a great proportion 

of the guns seized come from the U.S. But there are guns that are 

coming from other sources as well. 

One of the things we are working on is a better way of capturing 

what guns are actually used in the commission of crimes right then 

and there so they can be traced quickly, which was not previously 

the case. 

With respect to working with the Attorney General, there are a 

number of oral memoranda of understanding, MOUs. Some of them 

date back to the 1970s, for example, between DEA and the old INS, 

and before ICE even was created, that divvy up things such as, for 

example, Title 21 authority. They are stove-pipe MOUs. They don’t 

really reflect the modern day that we are dealing with, which is a 

whole region with a whole complex of problems. So we are engaged, 

the Attorney General and I, in rectifying that situation now. 

Senator Grassley, for example, a couple of weeks ago actually 

wrote me a letter asking what we were doing. It was a GAO report 

on some of these old MOUs, and I was pleased to report to him 

that we are making good progress. You know, we hope to be able 

to announce something shortly. 

E-VERIFY

Mr. CARTER. That is a good plan. On the issue of this work site 

enforcement, 2 weeks ago Saturday night, I was at a barbecue with 

a Hispanic American contractor, probably the sharpest in my district, a big contractor. He is constantly turning over backwards to 

try to make sure that he is meeting every kind of requirement so 

that he is not going to get in trouble. I don’t know where he got 

it or what was said or what he read, but he was really concerned, 

and expressed it to me, that it looked like all the effort he had done 

was going to be for nil, including going through E-Verify and other 

things, because it looked like the target of the Department was 

now employers, period. And he was really concerned about it. 

And he was saying that if you do everything right, could you still 

end up being held for crimes charged against you? And of course, 

being an old judge, I said of course not. There are laws. But he is 

worried about shutting down his business, throwing him in jail, 

huge fines, when he says he has done everything right, and I believe he has. That is his work ethic that he brings to the job. 

So I am real interested in these things, especially a lot of this, 

you are talking about new elements that are out there. One of 

them was then leaked—one of the supposedly secure documents 

was leaked to The New York Times. Are you aware of that? 

When you were talking, when you were doing some conversations 

on this new going after the employers, not the employees—and 

maybe this is where he got it—they were law enforcement sensitive 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
60 

and you labeled them law enforcement sensitive from the new 

guidelines, and that they were to be kept from the public and not 

for public release, and yet somebody released them to The New 

York Times. Do you have any idea about that leak and source of 

that leak or were you aware of it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, but I will share with you the guidelines and how they work. With respect to your constituent, if he is 

doing everything right and he is using E-Verify, and he has got a 

robust I–9 process to check immigration forms, the fact of the matter is the law is very tough to prove a case against an employer. 

You have to show knowledge and intent to hire illegally, and that 

requirement is not going away. 

The intent of the guidelines, however, was to say look, it is easy 

to look up numbers and just go on to a place and pick up the employees. What I want our agents to do, however, is to build cases 

not just against employees, but if there is an employer who is intentionally and knowingly continuing to deal in that illegal labor 

market, then we have a shot at bringing a winnable prosecution. 

And so it means really thinking through your evidence strategy, 

your warrant strategy, how you are going to handle that, increasing our number of I–9 auditors who can actually go in and do more 

I–9 audits, which are lower-paid employees than actual case 

agents, but help give us some inkling about where our case agents 

ought to be targeting, to help really deal with the whole issue of 

the work site. But if your constituent has got a good process and 

he can show that he routinely uses E-Verify and I–9 and has got 

that all in place, then existing federal law will not allow us to bring 

a prosecution. 

Mr. CARTER. I agree; build your case before you raid. But I guess 

the whole point is it is targeted at the employer and not the employees. So even though you may know there are 500 illegal aliens 

working in a place, if you don’t know that he meets the requisite 

intent to prove the case, then that wouldn’t be a place that you 

would raid? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Not necessarily. That would not necessarily be this case. We may still serve a warrant and bring in 

workers and interview; what did they do, how did they apply, who 

did they talk to, what kind of documents did they use, and what 

were they asked? Those sorts of things oftentimes lead to a case 

that can actually get you to the employer. So these are not mutually exclusive concepts. They are a matter of emphasis, however. 

Mr. CARTER. Am I through? If I can, I would like to expand one 

question. 

Mr. PRICE. Just go ahead. 

Mr. CARTER. The Seattle issue is what I am curious about. Is 

that going to be our policy, that we are going to release the workers back with some kind of permit to let them work? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me explain that. First of all, that was 

not a new policy. That is the way those cases have been done for 

a long time. Here is what happens. You go onto a work site, you 

serve warrants. You want to bring a case against the employer. 

You need certain of the workers to be able to testify, and these 

have to be able to stay in the country legally while you are getting 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
61 

ready to go to court. It also means they have got to be able to feed 

themselves while you are waiting to go to court. 

So the practice has been to provide for an extended departure 

date for them. They are allowed to stay in the country legally for 

that period of time while they are cooperating. They are allowed to 

work during that period of time while they are cooperating. When 

the case is over, they are deported. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much, and let me follow up on 

the gun-running issue. 

We have got resources for ATF and others to follow up and we 

just started that, and as indicated by Congressman Carter, we 

don’t have all the information. I even asked President Calderon 

when he mentioned 50-caliber if he knew where it came from. He 

didn’t. And so hopefully we will get some more information as we 

move forward. 

There were some kind of concerns that I started to hear that, for 

example, a lot of those high-caliber guns are not sold in the gun 

shows. We know that. So they are coming from somewhere else, 

some indication possibly from the Contras and the war in Central 

America. So it would be great as we move forward to gather that 

information as to how to best deal with that. So I am hoping that 

we can do that. 

Secondly, on the issue of cyber security, it is an area that I know 

is getting even worse throughout and the number of attacks are 

more serious, and I know that we are—there are attempts to hit 

it from a national perspective down. But there is a need also, from 

the local community up, in educating people about the importance 

of becoming aware. 

I know one of the former Congressmen talked about tribes. I got 

tribes right on the border, the Kickapoo, the Tiguas, and the importance also of educating them as to what to look for and things that 

might be happening. So I am hoping—and I was glad that you put 

some additional resources there in terms of cyber security from a 

local perspective and how we can enhance that. 

My concerns are that we have not moved enough into educating 

also the private sector, the banking area, the local police, for crime 

and those kind of things. I was wondering if you might want to 

react to that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, yes. One of I think the 

major efforts that will be underway, it is underway now actually, 

that will be enlarged upon greatly, is cooperation with key features 

of our private sector. It is not just the financial infrastructure but 

the electrical infrastructure, the water infrastructure. All of these 

things now are subject to hacking or cyber attack. We know that. 

We don’t control it. 

So we have to work cooperatively on educational and support role 

with the private sector on those things. We have teams now working very aggressively with the private sector. We also have teams 

known as CERT teams that are helping with responsive reaction 

when something does happen. There was a virus, the Conficker. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
62 

You may have heard of it, where we really were playing a lead in 

terms of getting information to the private and other dot gov sites 

about what you could do with your own system to protect it. 

DECLARATIONS OF NATURAL DISASTERS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If I could just mention, I was on the Services 

Committee before, and we did one of the major exercise drug 

screens prior to 9/11 in San Antonio, and there are still some programs there. 

I also wondered if I had the opportunity to ask you about a problem, I have had serious disasters. The last 3 years I had two: one, 

a flood in Presidio which was never declared and is still a major 

problem; a major tornado in Eagle Pass that killed seven people, 

took 17 days to declare it. 

There still seems to be a problem, and maybe we can look at it 

as a committee and as an agency responding to small communities 

that sometimes don’t reach that so-called level that it has to reach. 

But when 90,000 acres have been burned in West Texas and they 

say the only damage was to the fences, we know that that is not 

the case, because there are a lot of cattle and sheep and goats and 

other things out there, and just somehow we have got to look at 

some of those areas. 

The flooding that I had in Presidio that also I am not even sure 

when they submitted those requests, that displaced 500 people 

there, but it went downstream and also displaced at Redford and 

other communities, and it was never declared by the previous administration. 

The tornado that occurred in Eagle Pass, that was not only embarrassing but frustrating in having to deal with those situations 

when the Mexican side was taken care of. And they called my elected official and said, do you need any help? And I couldn’t even— 

we were not at that point. 

So I am hoping that in FEMA we can come to grips with those 

kind of issues and respond more appropriately to natural disasters. 

If I can just end it with a comment and to also be very cautious 

during natural disasters, because usually that is the best time to 

create problems, also. Not only—there is a natural disaster, but 

there is also a way of creating man-made disaster in times of natural disasters in terms of beefing up in that area. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Calvert. 

STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Mr. CALVERT. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This may be a little out of your lane, but I just want to bring 

this issue up. As the Chairman indicated, a high priority to the 

Chairman, and apparently to the administration, is the problems 

with deporting criminal aliens. And as you know, the State Criminal Alien Assistance program has helped the States incarcerate 

criminal aliens. It is a small portion of that cost. It is one of the 

things that in border States especially, both Republicans and 

Democrats have really gotten together on, is a program worth funding. I am just curious when you were the Governor of Arizona did 

you support SCAP funding? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
63 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. Don’t you think it is a little inconsistent on the 

part of the administration on one hand to say that their willingness 

to get more involved in the deportation of these criminal aliens, 

and, second, not to be involved in their incarceration, even though 

as you know in your State I suspect it was probably—what, 20, 25 

percent of your costs, maybe less? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we had—in Arizona—we had an average daily population of about 34,000 and probably about 4,000 to 

4,500 were illegals. 

Mr. CALVERT. As far as the portion of your costs to incarcerate 

some criminal alien versus your cost, what did you get back from 

the Federal Government versus your cost? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, I think it was about 10 cents on the 

dollar. 

Mr. CALVERT. So you thought it was a great program while you 

were Governor? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I recall sending an invoice to the Attorney General of the United States for payment and did not receive 

such. The Congress did not fully appropriate the money. 

But let me say this. SCAP, as you know, is funded through DOJ, 

and those budget hearings will take that up, I am sure. My job, 

however, is to do whatever I can to reduce the number of illegals 

that are coming into the States to begin with, and that is where 

I think I can provide the greatest assistance to the border states. 

Mr. CALVERT. At one time they were talking about a program to 

work with the Mexican Government to incarcerate some of these 

people within their home country at a much less cost, but that program never went anywhere. I know that a number of Governors 

were talking about that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We looked at that actually in Arizona, 

Representative; and first of all, there were lots of legal impediments to it, treaty and otherwise. 

Secondly, there was a great deal of skepticism, myself included, 

among prosecutors, because in the Mexican system oftentimes people can be released before they actually serve their time, and we 

were not confident that people would actually serve their time. 

CBP BORDER PATROL OFFICERS

Mr. CALVERT. In fiscal year 2009, more than 2,500 additional 

Border Patrol agents were funded. In this fiscal year 2010 budget 

proposal, you only had 44 agents. In fiscal year 2009, more than 

1,300 additional CBP officers were funded. In this fiscal year 2010 

budget proposal, you had 65. 

At a time when we have intense drug smuggling activity, growing influence by the Mexican drug cartels, the fiscal year 2010 

budget proposes constraining the growth in the workforce of the 

Border Patrol and CBP officers. Do you think that is a wise move? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and several reasons. One is because 

the target hiring for Border Patrol as set by the Congress has been 

20,000. So what you saw there was a rapid ramp-up from a force 

that, not too long ago, was like 8,500 agents up to the 20,000 mark, 

and now the ability to sustain that over time. You marry that manpower, as I said earlier, in a system with greater use and funding 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
64 

for technology, interior enforcement and the like, and the system 

makes sense, yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. So there was a threat of workload analysis done 

to justify keeping that workforce level for the next year. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That was the recommendation that was 

carried forward from the previous administration and I accepted it, 

yes. 

COAST GUARD LEGACY CUTTER SUSTAINMENT

Mr. CALVERT. Since it is estimated that more than 85 percent of 

the drugs entering Mexico from South America are transported via 

noncommercial maritime routes, how can the fiscal year 2010 budget justifiably shortchange the Coast Guard’s legacy cutter 

sustainment—I understand you cut it by 18 percent—provide no 

funding for immediate maintenance needs of the high-endurance 

cutter fleet, and cut CBP’s air and marine procurement by over 11 

percent? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We would be happy to give you a greater 

briefing on the operational side of that, Congressman, but the plain 

fact of the matter is that the budget provides that the Coast Guard 

do different mixes of programs. We will be able to sustain all of its 

current missions in the maritime environment. Right now, we are 

involved in several surge efforts that are by the Coast Guard, in 

the maritime environment, related to the importation of drugs from 

South America. 

Mr. CALVERT. One point I want to make as far as the fence is 

concerned. For those of us in California near San Diego, it has 

worked marvelously. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It has. 

Mr. CALVERT. It has cut down crime significantly. And now that 

that area by the Tijuana Gulch is finally completed, I have talked 

to people in the neighborhood over there, and they are greatly appreciative of that infrastructure being completed. 

With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

COAST GUARD

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Two issues. I am going to try to move 

quickly on the first one. 

The issues of the Coast Guard. I think having the Coast Guard 

in Homeland Security is very helpful. I think they are probably one 

of the best organizations that I have worked with since I have come 

to the Hill. What they did, and the admiral and the Commandant 

in Katrina, they just get it. They are well-disciplined, they are focused, and they are professional. So I hope as their leader that you 

understand how good they are. 

One of the areas—they have so many different areas of jurisdiction—the drug problem in Central and South America, which is one 

of our biggest problems as it relates to drugs. And a lot of what 

we want to do is try to get to the drugs before they get actually 

on land, especially Mexico. 

In that area of water near Guatemala and Mexico, where really—the Coast Guard is at a disadvantage because they have an 

aging fleet. I mean, they are close to 40 years old. Now, I think 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
65 

there are eight ships that are ready to go, and I don’t know where 

they are in the budget right now, but I would ask you to look at 

expediting the resources that they have, because I think that the 

ability to have a helicopter—which is probably one of the most effective methods that they are using now as a deterrent in stopping 

these ships. It is very difficult to stop these fast ships that are 

moving all over the place. But with the helicopter, it puts them in 

a better position. 

And if you could just look at your budget and see what we could 

do, or get back to me or whatever, and see how we can give them 

more resources, because it is just like port embarkation; if we are 

aggressively stopping them ahead of time, we might be a lot better 

off. 

They also, I know, are in the intelligence arena. I think it is important that we look at and make sure they are well-focused because they are not just dealing with the drugs in the United States. 

They are in all parts of the world now, dealing with the pirate 

issue, whatever. 

CYBER SECURITY

Now, let me get to cyber. The cyber initiative is probably one of 

the most important issues we are going to deal with, new issues 

that we are going to deal with. I think the good news is that President Obama understands this. I know during the election both candidates were briefed, along with President Bush and whatever, the 

DNI, Admiral McConnell who really raised this as an issue and 

how we are dealing with cyber defense. We know we have been 

compromised on a regular basis, NASA—I mean, this has been 

going on for a while. 

And the funny thing that the public doesn’t understand what 

really this is about. They probably assume that we own the Internet, when we don’t, and so there is a big process that is going on 

now. And I know the process is—Melissa Hathaway is dealing with 

the President and her report coming out, and you have General Alexander on the other side. 

My concern, as you are involved, you look at the history of Homeland Security. We have had some embarrassing moments. As a 

former prosecutor, you know there is always an issue between 

State, Federal and local. But the best way to get them all working 

together is a strike force concept, and that works. 

But I am really concerned about the jurisdiction of Homeland Security versus maybe where we might have DOD. And I just want 

to know how you can make sure that we are working together as 

a team on the different areas of jurisdiction. I remember in the beginning we had an issue where we were closing tunnels on 95, 

where the FBI was supposed to be in charge, and Homeland Security got involved and New York City Police, and none of them were 

working together. That is just not going to get it now. We need the 

leadership at the top to make sure there is not a turf issue because 

of jurisdiction—because the right person is in the right place. 

And I also think it was Admiral Brown, I think, is heading—was 

one of the people heading your cyber security. The good news there 

is he is well-respected by General Alexander, and that is good for 

Homeland Security and what NSA will be looking at. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
66 

So how do you as a manager feel that you can manage those 

issues so there is no turf, that everybody is doing what they need 

to do, and then as the DNI would want us to do, bring us together? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, first of all, I have been 

involved in several meetings and initiatives already as a Secretary 

where we have had multiple agencies who have a piece of cyber 

there, and there has been a unified effort. But beyond that, the 

product I believe of the President’s own review will be some decisions made with respect to how, out of the White House, things will 

be coordinated across the Federal Government. And so I think the 

results of that review are pretty ripe and should be announced 

shortly. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That is the Hathaway review. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is correct. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I am on the Intelligence Committee and 

deal with this right now, and there are areas we can’t talk about. 

But I think—I mean that was a broad answer to a long question, 

but my concern is, I really—if you could focus on how we are not 

going to be involved in the turf issue, because all that we do and 

that we work on, either guidelines or standards need to be set. Are 

you communicating with General Alexander, or is Admiral Brown 

doing that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes and yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. Thanks for the answers. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Farr. 

CENTER FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE AND SECURITY

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very pleased to see your tough stand on some of these border issues. It was very interesting, talking to all of the personnel 

associated with our Embassy in Mexico City when I was with the 

President and we had a meeting on the border issues. There are 

civilians and there are law enforcement officers, DHS and so on, 

looking from that side and really supportive of the Merida initiative. But I think what they also recognize is that for the first time 

our country has stopped being apologist about the fact that the addiction is on this side of the border, that the money that is being 

raised to be laundered is on this side of the border, and the fact 

that the 7,000 gun stores that sell guns are on this side of the border, not located in California, but located in Texas and your former 

State. 

I mean, this is my comment. I don’t even need a response. But 

I think that we are going to get respect around the world when we 

admit to the fact that some of these problems are caused by us, and 

that we have got to do a better job of taking care of our own house 

before we start blaming everybody else for the problem. 

Having said that, I would like to switch to another issue which 

is the Center for Homeland Defense and Security. I am pleased 

that your fiscal year 2010 budget recognizes the high value of the 

Homeland Defense and Security because it provides our Nation’s 

first responders and Governors and mayors. And I note that your 

personnel were very active and frequent participants in the CHDS 

programs. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
67 

And I wanted to know how we can have a greater impact on our 

national security issues using these centers. And, for instance, 

some of the students in the master’s thesis are doing cutting-edge 

research projects, and how can DHS make greater use of such research? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is interesting. I have not really 

thought of it that way. Let me see what they are producing and 

get back to you. 

Mr. FARR. One of the interests there—and you might even suggest—is that they all have to write master’s degrees. They come 

there not necessarily knowing what subject matter, and a lot of 

them, what professors do is give them a list of issues. And you 

know, you might have given some thought as to just some of those 

areas where the Department could really use that kind of—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Free labor. 

Mr. FARR. Free labor, exactly. I am also pleased that the California Homeland Security Consortium is a collaborative between 23 

academic institutions, Federal, State, and local government organizations, private sector firms in the Monterey Bay region, dedicated 

to conducting research, education, field experimentation programs, 

as well as developing new technologies to improve homeland security. And I understand that DHS officials recently visited the campus to develop and coordinate the next round of research projects 

which can flow into these master degree programs. How can DHS 

continue to be supportive of this initiative? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well I think, in part, by what we have 

already done, by also looking for other opportunities. One of the 

things that we are going to need as a country is an educated cadre 

of individuals who really know about homeland security, have 

thought about it. I mean the people who are working in our Department now aren’t going to be there for forever, so it is going to 

be a useful investment for us to be working with our institutions 

of higher learning on useful curricula and training for the next 

wave of potential specialists. 

STATE DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS

Mr. FARR. I appreciate that. I think your leadership is going to 

be key, and I would hope that sometime you can share with Secretary Clinton—we have created within the State Department a 

whole new Center for Postconflict Security, Stabilization and Reconstruction. And the idea is to use State Department U.S. AID 

and then have a Federal Reserve Corps, so to speak, of Federal employees and Reserve Corps of State and local employees who have 

the expertise to go overseas to sort of a special ops group; but in 

this case, these are civilians who can work with their civilian counterparts and hopefully have linguistic or cultural or area studies 

that would be useful. It seems to me it is the next way, for once 

we develop these folks in our country and, you know, from your 

own State, the retired judges and sheriffs and others who can 

speak Spanish or other languages, who might be just perfect in retirement or thinking about, you know, where the next step is to 

link them up with the State Department program. And I think 

there is the graduation from homeland security at home to international security abroad. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
68 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is an interesting thought. Let me take 

a look at that as well. 

Mr. FARR. Do I have any time left? 

Mr. PRICE. Gentleman’s time has just expired. 

Mr. FARR. I have got one more question. 

STAFFORD ACT DISASTERS

Mr. PRICE. We will have a very brief third round. I do want to 

respect the Secretary’s time. I know you need to leave at 3:30 we 

will all be very brief and efficient here in our third final round of 

questioning, starting with myself. 

I want to turn a question that I suppose comes up every time you 

have a hearing, so we don’t want this to be any different. And that 

is the question of the status of FEMA within the Department. I am 

on the record some years ago as voting not to make FEMA part of 

this Department. That doesn’t mean that I believe now that it is 

feasible or desirable to unscramble the eggs, so to speak. I believe 

that, in fact, there are very good reasons not to subject FEMA to 

yet another reorganization and to yet more organizational uncertainty. And so I am hopeful that we will leave FEMA where it is 

and make it work. I think that is the main question. It is not the 

main question whether FEMA is in or out; it is whether the agency 

works well. 

And as far as that goes historically, you can demonstrate that 

during certain parts of its history that FEMA was an independent 

agency, didn’t work all that well as an independent agency. What 

happened in the nineties was the Clinton administration made it 

work very well. But as I said, the question is making the agency 

work wherever it is. 

Now, there are some continuing issues with regard to FEMA’s integration within your Department and the tug-of-war that we have 

seen between incident management and emergency management 

and who is the chief Federal officer in charge after disasters, all 

of that is indicative, I think, of some continuing uncertainty here 

or some continuing debate. 

Who is the principal Federal official after a major disaster? 

There was some uncertainty about that after Hurricane Katrina 

and after other disasters. 

Emergency managers have sometimes complained bitterly that 

PFOs, the Principal Federal Position in a post, can muddle the 

chain of command in the field, and that FEMA statutorily required 

Federal coordinating officers have always been the point of contact 

in the field for States and should remain so. You probably have 

some experience with that as a Governor. 

You probably also know that this Subcommittee had an ongoing 

discussion with your predecessor about this very issue, and partly 

as a result of that, we have carried a prohibition on designating 

PFOs during a Stafford Act declared disaster in the last two appropriations bills to deal with the issue. 

So one question I would like for you to clarify is whether you 

agree for Stafford Act disasters, FEMA should lead the Federal response, pure and simple? And then I guess there are some other 

somewhat more complicated disasters where there has been some 

debate and some uncertainty, and I wonder what you think there. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
69 

Are there other disasters and incidents you can identify where 

FEMA shouldn’t serve as the lead Federal response agency? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, for 

your general Stafford Act disaster, FEMA should be the lead agency. We have had several natural disasters already since I have 

served as Secretary, actually quite a few, and we are heading now 

into hurricane season. I am hopeful that the FEMA Administrator 

will be confirmed shortly. 

With respect to the amendment or rider, whatever you call it, in 

appropriations bills that precludes, however, the appointment of 

other Principal Federal Officials, I would hope that the Committee 

would rethink that for the following reason with the following example. It is too broad a prohibition. And the example is what we 

need to do now in the wake of the H1N1 outbreak. We really need 

to do quite a bit of work over this summer with respect to looking 

at what states and locals have done with respect to further training, with making things more robust, working, for example, with 

school districts across the country, should the H1N1 rebound and 

come back in a more lethal form. 

To do that it would be very helpful to have regional PFOs designated to work to coordinate that training in different places 

around the country. So I hope that over the course of this budget 

negotiation and discussion, we can ask Members of Congress to revisit that particular issue. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we certainly will want to look at that with you. 

We are looking for language. We will put it in the record at this 

point. 

[The information follows:] 

From 2009 P.L. 110–329: 

SEC. 526. None of the funds provided by this or previous appropriations Acts shall 

be used to fund any position designated as a Principal Federal Official for any Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et 

seq.) declared disasters or emergencies. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me say that this language was very carefully 

worked out and it was narrowed a good deal in the course of the 

discussion and dialogue back and forth. Certainly, we will put—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will work on that with you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. We agree on the Stafford Act disasters. The question 

is, what is the desired organization of the response to more complicated disasters that go beyond those parameters? And we certainly want to work this out. We don’t want to—we want to respond to these disasters effectively, but at the same time we don’t 

want to compromise FEMA’s authority or the kind of relationship 

that our State and local officials have had with FEMA and knowing where to turn in short order when a disaster occurs. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think the issue going forward needs to 

be not immediate response. I think those chains of command are 

very clear. I think the issue is the long-term recovery issue, and 

that is where Katrina got so complicated. In fact, one of the things 

I did was eliminate one of those offices, an entire level of bureaucracy between claimants and getting claims paid in the Katrina situation. But, Mr. Chairman, in light of the time, we will work with 

you on this issue. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
70 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have really enjoyed being with you, Mrs. Napolitano, and I wish you well in your 

job, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

MANAGEMENT INCREASES IN BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. CARTER. Couple of questions I want to ask you about. 

You have got about a 30 percent increase in the Office of the Secretary and a 76 percent increase in the Office of Under Secretary 

for Management, which I think Mr. Lewis brought up; $220 million 

for the consolidation of electronic data, and you explained that. 

But then at the operational level we have gone from 2,500 authorized additional Border Patrol in 2009 to 44 in 2010; and 1,300 

in 2009 of CBP officers to 65 in fiscal year 2010. So it looks like 

this budget seems to lean more towards the administrative than 

the boots on the ground, and everybody acknowledges that boots on 

the ground is the solution to the problem. I just wanted to know 

what the curiosity was on the heavy load on the management side. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think if you are actually, Congressman, 

if you actually look at the budget as a whole in terms of everything 

that is funded and how it all fits together, that would not be a correct categorization of the budget. 

It funds the Border Patrol at the level that Congress says they 

want to get the Border Patrol to. CBP, as well, has great increases 

for technology and other supports to that manpower which makes 

them much more effective for the man-hours that they do have on 

the border. 

So, as I said, it is not just your boots on the ground. That is step 

one. Then you have to have the technology and the technical infrastructure. That is the system. Then you have to have the interior 

enforcement backing them up. 

With respect to how management looks, really what we are doing 

is now building the ribs of the Department. This Department was 

kind of put together in a hurry, but now we are in the process of 

creating one Department of Homeland Security. So we have moved 

money that previously had been at CBP and some of the components into one headquarters. We have moved money that previously had been in the components to move from 35 different locations into far fewer locations, which I have got to say from a management standpoint is going to be inordinately helpful and cheaper 

over the next several years. 

And I ought to explain that the issue with the IT and the infrastructure of the Department was diverse, and the moneys for that 

were spread all over the Department. It looks like a big increase 

to admin when you put them all in one place. In actuality, we create a lot more efficiencies by doing that. 

Mr. CARTER. This work you are doing on management, which I 

am glad you clarified that—thank you for clarifying it—will that 

assist us? We seem to constantly be having somebody come in here 

to testify in the last week before they leave again. I bet there must 

have been a dozen people who testified over the 4 years I have 

been on this committee that were leaving right after that testiVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
71 

mony. Will this help us retain some of those people if we get a better, more efficient management structure? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I hope so. 

SOUTHBOUND CHECKING

Mr. CARTER. I hope so, too. Finally, right now I understand from 

talking to some of the Border Patrol people down in Laredo, when 

we are checking for guns and money going out—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. South. 

Mr. CARTER. South. Our machine is set up—and I am talking 

about on trains—our machine is set to get things coming in, okay. 

To test going out, we just reverse the machine. We don’t move it. 

We just transfer it this way. But the issue is when they are running south, they almost immediately run into the Mexican jurisdiction. So if we recognize—in fact, they do immediately run into the 

Mexican jurisdiction in Laredo. So if we recognize guns or money 

inside a boxcar, it has got to be seized in Mexico. 

Are you aware of that? Because that is very inefficient from our 

guys’ standpoint, because they don’t know—all they can do is call 

them and say car number five has got guns and money in it, or 

whatever it has got in it. The Mexicans then do the seizing. The 

Mexicans, I guess, get the cash unless you all have got some deal 

that you have worked out to give us the cash, because I know my 

DA used to always want to get the cash. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I understand that, yes. 

Mr. CARTER. But I am just curious about that, because it is a little thing but it is really irritating to them because they are not in 

control of what they have identified. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, this is why I like these 

hearings, because I hear about these things that I haven’t heard 

about before. I will follow up on that. Prior to this initiative, we 

weren’t doing any southbound checking. So, undoubtedly, some 

wrinkles to unwind. 

Mr. CARTER. That is exactly what it is, a wrinkle. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will take a look at it. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

POST DISASTER CONTRACTING

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much, and once again, thank 

you very much, and your success is going to be our success, so we 

wish you the best. 

But let me just bring up two quick issues. One—and this is not 

necessarily your agency or Homeland Security, but I had some figures for Armed Services and DOD, Department of Defense, where 

there was $300 billion overruns in contracts. And I would just ask 

you to look at FEMA and those contracts. Nothing is worse than 

to see a disaster and all of these people coming in, knowing full 

well they are sticking their hands out for getting contracts and 

looking at those disasters as a way of making money. And so we 

need to come to grips with that. 

I also saw the statistics that also show that since 2004 not only 

are there overruns of over $300 billion in that one agency, but also 

in terms of—and that is DOD, not yours—and also in terms of the 

doubling of the time to complete the contracts. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
72 

So I would hope our responsibility is oversight but that the agencies take the responsibility. And I know that you will do that, and 

especially on those contracts, and start doing the right thing. 

BORDER FENCE

Finally on the fence, we and the Chairman did some good language on that. Just to be practical in some of those situations, not 

to put a fence where it is going to create a problem for us in terms 

of flooding, and endanger not only our communities but others and 

create a problem for us, the importance of reaching out to our constituencies. 

And I still recall the comments from the Chief of Border Patrol 

that says the fence is only as good as the amount of time that allows that individual to capture someone. So that we have got to get 

smart about this. We have got to get practical and look at other 

forms of technology that might be more cost-effective than to going 

that route. And so thank you for being here with us today. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Farr. 

PORTS OF ENTRY FACILITIES

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having this hearing. It is a long one, but it is a huge Department 

and a a lot of issues there. 

One of the issues I would like to bring out is sort the image of 

America when you arrive here and what you have to go through 

at the small ports of entry idea, and the fact that declining international travel to the United States where we had been—international travelers consider the United States to have the world’s 

worst entry process due to poor and rude treatment at ports of 

entry. 

What I was thinking when I went out to Dulles Airport, where 

we were bragging about these smaller ports of entry, first of all, it 

is ugly. It does not feel like welcome to America. And the structure 

is not under your jurisdiction, but the personnel inside of it are 

yours. And again, in working with the Secretary of State to see if 

we could—we have put a lot of effort into making sure our Embassies are beautiful places when people visit them. There is art in 

there and there is sculpture. There are other things. There are 

things I think we can—at least posters and pictures of America 

welcoming people to this land. 

The irony of an Embassy is you can’t get in unless you are a VIP, 

because they are all fenced around; but ports of entry are supposed 

to be the friendly welcoming to America. 

I think the problem is also that when we are changing policy, 

why they feel that they are treated rudely is the visa has been 

given by State Department overseas in the host country. They arrive here and the protocols they have to go through are Immigration and Customs. And oftentimes, the officers are saying, well, we 

have changed this or that, that the incoming passenger has no 

idea. 

And maybe you can get the Embassies and consulates to issue 

what the procedure is when they are going to arrive in the United 

States, what they are going to have to expect and go through, so 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
73 

that if there are changes in protocol, that you want the arriving 

traveler to know that we could give them out when we give them 

the visa. 

So I hope that you can look into this. I am chair of the Traveling 

Tourism Caucus, and there is just a lot of concerns about, and I 

find it—I mean, there are other countries you go to and it is just 

that first impression, the look, and you feel really good and comfortable. And if our our model entry, and the Dulles airport is one 

of them, it is a scary operation. 

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

The other issue that I wanted to talk to you about was that we 

have a Citizenship and Immigration Service office in San Jose. It 

is a sub-office. It is 100 miles and over an hour to get there from 

the Salinas Valley where we have probably the most at-risk kind 

of people living. When they are not in the Simi Valley, they are 

down in Yuma, in your old territory, but a lot of those growers are 

from my district. 

And we did have a mobile outreach office that came down to answer questions. DHS did away with that. I remember changing 

from the old disaster assistance centers, where we used to set these 

up after a President declared disasters, to a registration by phone. 

Could we do that? Could we look into doing that registration by 

phone or at least a process to answer questions? Once you have 

sent your application in for your change of status or your citizenship issues, could we have a system where people do not have to 

go all the way to San Jose when there are questions that they 

could phone in? 

I understand that there is an answering machine that answers 

questions, but it doesn’t answer specific questions about the casework. And I just thought, since you have done it with disasters, 

where you handle hundreds of different issues with thousands of 

different people, that perhaps the Immigration Service could look 

at some of that. 

IMMIGRATION INTEGRATION PROGRAM

And last comment I would like to make, I read about your immigration integration program, where you provide grants to community-based organizations for citizenship preparation programs for 

new citizens and for integration of new citizens. I have been doing 

a swearing-in ceremony every year around the Fourth of July, and 

we call it Proud to be an American Day. I get more publicity on 

that event than on anything I have ever done in Congress, because 

of the stories of all the people that are becoming citizens. There is 

no funding for that. 

There ought to be for the whole country, to encourage communities to put on these ceremonies so that new citizens don’t have 

to travel to the capital cities where the Federal offices are. The nice 

thing about doing it in your community, one, is that it makes the 

community realize what becoming an American citizen is all about. 

Secondly, it allows the community to say, ‘‘thank you for doing 

this’’. It is wonderful to do it around the Fourth of July. 

And third, it allows those people getting sworn in to bring their 

families, relatives, and workplace partners who can come and see 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
74 

them, rather than having to take a day off and drive 100 miles to 

get sworn in. 

So I think your immigration integration program is very smart. 

I just hope we can take it one step further to the swearing-in ceremonies as well. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I can take a look at that, yes. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. How about the ports of entry? Can you 

take a look at that one, too? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. You are not the first person that has 

raised that particular issue with me, and I understand the concerns. So, yes, we will take a look at that. 

Mr. FARR. We just don’t want to be recognized in the world as 

the worst place to come to. That is just unacceptable. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I want to thank all members for a good 

hearing with lots of participation. And Madam Secretary, we appreciate you coming at this point when we are all busy, but nothing 

is more important than getting your take on this budget proposal 

as we prepare to write this bill. So we thank you for your good 

work and for all the things you have done in a short period of time 

already. Look forward to this being a long relationship where we 

work together productively. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank 

you, Members. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. The Subcommittee is adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
75 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 here 52999A.028
76 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 here 52999A.029
77 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 here 52999A.030
78 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 here 52999A.031
79 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 here 52999A.032
80 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 here 52999A.033
81 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 here 52999A.034
82 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 here 52999A.035
83 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 here 52999A.036
84 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 here 52999A.037
85 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 here 52999A.038
86 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 here 52999A.039
87 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 here 52999A.040
88 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 here 52999A.041
89 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 here 52999A.042
90 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 here 52999A.043
91 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 here 52999A.044
92 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 here 52999A.045
93 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 here 52999A.046
94 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 here 52999A.047
95 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 here 52999A.048
96 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 here 52999A.049
97 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 here 52999A.050
98 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 here 52999A.051
99 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 here 52999A.052
100 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 here 52999A.053
101 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 here 52999A.054
102 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 here 52999A.055
103 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 here 52999A.056
104 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 here 52999A.057
105 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 here 52999A.058
106 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 here 52999A.059
107 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 here 52999A.060
108 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 here 52999A.061
109 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 here 52999A.062
110 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 here 52999A.063
111 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 here 52999A.064
112 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 here 52999A.065
113 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 here 52999A.066
114 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 here 52999A.067
115 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 here 52999A.068
116 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 here 52999A.069
117 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 here 52999A.070
118 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 here 52999A.071
119 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 here 52999A.072
120 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 here 52999A.073
121 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 here 52999A.074
122 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 here 52999A.075
123 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 here 52999A.076
124 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 here 52999A.077
125 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 here 52999A.078
126 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here 52999A.079
127 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here 52999A.080
128 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here 52999A.081
129 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here 52999A.082
130 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here 52999A.083
131 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 here 52999A.084
132 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 here 52999A.085
133 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 here 52999A.086
134 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 here 52999A.087
135 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 here 52999A.088
136 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here 52999A.089
137 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 here 52999A.090
138 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here 52999A.091
139 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here 52999A.092
140 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here 52999A.093
141 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here 52999A.094
142 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here 52999A.095
143 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here 52999A.096
144 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here 52999A.097
145 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here 52999A.098
146 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here 52999A.099
147 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here 52999A.100
148 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here 52999A.101
149 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here 52999A.102
150 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here 52999A.103
151 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here 52999A.104
152 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here 52999A.105
153 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 here 52999A.106
154 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 here 52999A.107
155 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 here 52999A.108
156 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 here 52999A.109
157 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 here 52999A.110
158 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 here 52999A.111
159 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 here 52999A.112
160 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 here 52999A.113
161 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224 here 52999A.114
162 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 225 here 52999A.115
163 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 here 52999A.116
164 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 here 52999A.117
165 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 here 52999A.118
166 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 here 52999A.119
(167) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009. 

SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE AND CONTROL OF LAND 

BORDER 

WITNESSES 

JAYSON AHERN, ACTING COMMISSIONER UNITED STATES CUSTOMS 

AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID AGUILAR, U.S. BORDER PATROL CHIEF 

MARK BORKOWSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE. 

OPENING STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning 

everyone. We are happy to have witnesses here to discuss with us 

the Secure Border Initiative, and then in a second panel, the 

Homeland Security Department’s response to violence on our border with Mexico. $3.6 billion, that is what Congress provided in the 

past 3 years to the border security fencing infrastructure and technology account, BSFIT, targeted at securing about 6,000 miles of 

land borders as part of the Secure Border Initiative. SBI, originally 

intended as a coordinated effort as broader investment, interior immigration enforcement and immigration reform, has tilted toward 

enforcement and physical barriers between the land ports of entry 

on the southwest border. As a result, BSFIT has taken prior border 

control attempts to new and more expensive levels. 

Today we want to take stock of this progress. How is it progressing? Is it working? Are we spending enough or too much, or 

are we spending our dollars in the right way? On one hand, DHS 

reports that it has ‘‘effective control,’’ meaning it can detect and respond to most illegal entries on over 31 percent of the Southwest 

border. That is up 12 percent—that is up from 12 percent in 2005. 

Apprehensions are lower in most places. But it is unclear how 

much of that is attributable to BSFIT investment and staffing and 

how much is attributable simply to a weaker economy on our side. 

And the San Diego sector with the most robust infrastructure 

and substantial agent presence actually recorded increased apprehensions last year. So the picture is somewhat mixed. Anecdotally 

we hear that the impact of the new infrastructure is not clear with 

breaches and invasion of barriers continuing. Up north is a different story. DHS lacks effective control over 99 percent of our 

4,000 mile border with Canada. I am pleased with progress in placing agents on the northern border, but remain concerned that 

BSFIT investment has largely bypassed the north. And we hope to 

hear today about the status of the northern border project that was 

funded in fiscal 2007. Border patrol and field operations are experiVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
168 

encing historic increases in their numbers, but many are in the 

pipeline, in training or otherwise not deployed. 

And a year after the National Guard ended Operation Jump 

Start, there is a vacuum in operational support there that CBP has 

been unable to fill. Do we have boots on the ground that we all 

agree are the most important ingredient for border security? Initially BSFIT targeted technology to leverage border security. However, its spending now does not reflect such an emphasis with over 

$2 billion, 55 percent, going to pedestrian fencing, vehicle barriers 

and roads. At this time, about 600 miles of 670 planned for construction has been built or is under construction. The remainder, 

chiefly in the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas is delayed owing 

to technical, economic or legal obstacles. 

I expect to hear from our witnesses today about the cost of the 

fence, prospects for its completion, the impact it has and is likely 

to have on operational control of the border and how the Department is meeting the requirements for consultation, for minimizing 

environmental and community impacts of construction of the fence. 

SBI technology has taken a more deliberate path. While we have 

not seen Department plans for the $100 million provided in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I look forward to hearing the current plans for testing and deployment of technology solutions intended for the Arizona border and the plans for the remainder of this year. To address these issues, we welcome Deputy 

Commissioner Jayson Ahern, the Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to testify on the Secure Border Initiative and its impact on gaining control over the physical borders of 

this country. Accompanying him are U.S. Border Patrol Chief 

David Aguilar and Mr. Mark Borkowski, Executive Director of the 

Secure Border Initiative. While any discussion of border security 

would naturally turn to the instability and increased criminal violence in northern Mexico, I would ask Members to defer questions 

regarding that for our second panel devoted to that topic immediately following this panel. 

So, gentlemen, we look forward to your testimony, look forward 

to a thorough discussion of how BSFIT and border patrol deployments have improved border security and the challenges ahead as 

we strive to find an effective approach to control our borders. Let 

me now turn to our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers, for 

his comments. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
169 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 here 52999A.120
170 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 here 52999A.121
171 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 here 52999A.122
172 

OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our 

distinguished panel. As we discuss the effectiveness of the Secure 

Border Initiative during this first panel and the Mexican drug war 

during the second, I think its important that we keep in mind the 

big picture at what is at stake here; no less than our Nation’s sovereignty and the unquestionably urgent need for robust border security. We must not forget that after 9/11, there was universal recognition for the need to gain control of our borders and protect the 

Nation from dangerous people and dangerous goods. And with the 

creation of CBP, we established a unified front line border security 

agency to carry out this vital chore. Simply put, CBP serves as our 

Nation’s filter letting in legitimate travel and trade while keeping 

out all forms of contraband from WMD and terrorists to illegal 

drugs, illegal aliens, counterfeit goods, even agricultural hazards. 

So I think it is obvious that this mission is as important today, if 

not more so, than it was right after 9/11. Failure is not an option. 

It has now been just over three years since the SBI was 

launched, 3 years and billions upon billions of dollars. And over 

this period with these sizable funds we have made some significant 

progress; doubling the size of the border patrol to now more than 

18,000 agents, expanding the CBP officer workforce to more than 

20,000 officers, ending the flawed practice of catch and release, constructing over 600 miles of pedestrian and vehicular fencing along 

some of the most frequently traversed sections of our southwest 

border, and improved performance marked by notable drug seizures and a steady decline in apprehensions of illegal aliens along 

the border. 

Positive steps for sure, but perhaps not nearly enough when we 

consider the unacceptable delays in the development of the SBInet 

technology system against a backdrop of intensifying threats, 

threats that include, but are not limited to, this bloody turf war between Mexico’s drug cartels, a war that is responsible for some 

7,000 murders since the beginning of last year. Sprawling crossborder criminal enterprises, exploiting the flow of illegal weapons 

and bulk cash and the evils of human trafficking and vile drugs, 

travel of known and suspected terrorists along our northern border, 

and increasingly innovative smuggling techniques ranging from sophisticated underground tunnels to advanced semi-submersible 

maritime craft, to hidden compartments in vehicles, to devious attempts at corrupting legitimate modes of cargo conveyance. 

The complexity and cutthroat nature of these tactics speak to the 

challenges that you face, but they also tell me you are actually 

making a real dent in the smugglers’ operations. So now that you 

have made some progress, and gotten these thugs’ attention, I 

must ask all of you, what are you prepared to do now? Are you prepared to follow through on the needed fencing, fix the problems 

with SBInet and get serious about deploying the tools your agents 

in the field so desperately need to not only sustain this border security fight but to actually win it? 

Well, from where I sit here, there is no question, there is no debate. A sovereign nation has effective control of its borders, and 

that is the standard we are duty bound to uphold. I can assure all 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
173 

of you this subcommittee is absolutely committed to doing all that 

is necessary to ensure CBP has the tools it needs to facilitate the 

legitimate trade that our economy thrives on while also stopping 

the threats we can’t allow to penetrate into our country. I want to 

thank the witnesses for appearing today. We look forward to discussion. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
174 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 52999A.123
175 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 52999A.124
176 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 52999A.125
177 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Ahern, we will be happy to insert your full statement into the hearing record, but we would appreciate a five minutes or so oral presentation to get us started. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. AHERN

Mr. AHERN. Very good. Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, Members of the Subcommittee, we will be doing one statement 

for both this panel and also for the second panel. Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss CBP’s efforts to secure our borders. I 

look forward to joining our sister agency Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement and my DHS colleague on the second panel to discuss 

the current situation on our southwest border with Mexico. With 

me today is David Aguilar, Chief of the Border Patrol, and Mark 

Borkowski, the Executive Director of the Secure Border Initiative. 

I would like to first begin by saying that every investment we 

make in Customs and Border Protection is to protect our Nation 

against a variety of threats. And for that reason, we are very grateful for the $680 million provided to CBP in the economic stimulus 

package, along with $300 million that went to GSA for land ports 

of entry. We appreciate your strong support and continued support 

and will certainly make sure we put this money to good use by improving our aging infrastructure, as well as adding the technology 

needed at our borders. 

Over the past few years we have made tremendous strides in securing both our southern and our northern borders through the deployment of personnel, technology, as well as tactical infrastructure. It is clear that our Secretary, Janet Napolitano, is extremely 

supportive of our efforts. Along our Southwest border, we completed 610 miles of fencing where border patrol determined it was 

an operational requirement. But we are not only just building 

fence, we are deploying technology through the SBInet program, we 

are currently completing engineering assessments, which we are 

conducting with the appropriate rigor and deliberation. And once 

we are satisfied we will begin to deploy technology in the first of 

two projects that will cover 53 miles in Arizona. And it’s important 

to note that our agents, who will actually be using the technology, 

have been—and will continue to be—fully engaged in this process. 

We are testing the technological solutions in both a laboratory and 

a field environment before full deployment to ensure that we make 

wise investments and will meet our operational needs. 

A couple of weeks I, personally, along with the Chief, visited our 

testing facilities supplies to Mexico to see firsthand our progress. 

At the same time, we are rolling out these systems in Arizona we 

have also deployed 40 mobile surveillance systems that provide 

more immediate radar and camera surveillance coverage along our 

borders, and we are currently developing plans for additional MSS 

deployments elsewhere. We also have 272 remote video surveillance systems in place, over 9,707 ground surveillance and ground 

sensor systems, as well as five unmanned aerial systems on the 

southern border, one of which is also on the northern border. 

So you can see it is a variety of technological solutions we have 

employed, not just one. The investments in infrastructure and technology are an important component to our boots on the ground, and 

we thank the Committee for supporting the hiring of more border 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
178 

patrol agents. We currently do have 18,566 border patrol agents on 

board and will have over 20,000 by the end of the fiscal year. With 

respect to the northern border we have been approaching challenges to our north in a thoughtful and systematic way. 

In 2008, we opened our fifth air wing location on the northern 

border, and just last month we deployed our first UAS on the 

northern border in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Also the fiscal year 

2008 and 2009 appropriations provided funds for 11 marine units, 

six of which are on the northern border. And later this spring, we 

plan to deploy additional camera systems along the northern border locations in Detroit, as well as in Swanton, Buffalo and will 

continue to make further deployments once we have stabilized 

going forward. 

I think it is also important to talk about our continued partnership with our other law enforcement partners both in the United 

States and Canada through the IBETs, as well as through our collaborative efforts with ICE through the best of the border’s enforcement security task forces. Now, to talk about some of the issues on 

the Southwest border, it certainly is a fact of life that our officers 

and our Border Patrol agents deal with border related violence and 

encounter drug traffickers on a daily basis. In terms of drug trends 

I think it is important just to give you an indicator. Year to date 

there has been a 47 percent increase for marijuana seized by the 

Border Patrol, over 1.1 million pounds. At the ports of entry, cocaine seizures are up 119 percent. However, I think important and 

very notable to make this Subcommittee aware of, are the coordinated efforts that we are seeing in the transit zone. 

Certainly as far as to highlight a series of days that actually occurred in the first part of January, our P–3 aircraft working in coordinated effort with the JIATF South folks with the Coast Guard, 

as well as the Navy, coordinated the interdiction of 25 metric tons 

of cocaine carried by semi-submersible, self-propelled semi-submersible submarines heading towards the coast of Mexico. The 

point of that is that is an opportunity for us to take larger quantities down through our coordinated efforts in the transit zone. We 

are also seeing that our enforcement efforts are frustrating drug 

traffickers and as a result are becoming much more violent. 

When we talk about violence, I think it is important to make a 

distinction, the violence we are seeing on our agents and officers, 

the rockings, the vehicle assaults, the physical assaults and gun attacks and the gang and the cartel violence that is occurring in 

Mexico. This fiscal year alone we have had 327 incidents of violence against our officers and agents, 204 against the Border Patrol 

agents and 123 assaults at our ports of entry. Additionally, in 2008 

reporting indicates that, as you mentioned, Ranking Member Rogers, close to 7,000 deaths in Mexico have occurred. So far that kind 

of violence has been contained in Mexico, but we certainly do not 

want to see it spill over into the United States. 

And to that end, we have developed very detailed contingency 

plans to maintain control of the border as we move forward. While 

in recent years, we have certainly focused on threats coming into 

the United States, Secretary Napolitano has made it clear that 

southbound enforcement, keeping guns and money out of the hand 

of criminals in Mexico will be a priority to us. To this end, we will 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
179 

dedicate additional personnel and technology to combat this threat 

and we are finalizing on hands operational plans at this time. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, other members of this Subcommittee, I 

thank you for allowing us to testify today and will look forward to 

answering your questions about both topics today. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
180 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 52999A.126
181 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 52999A.127
182 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 52999A.128
183 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 52999A.129
184 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 52999A.130
185 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 52999A.131
186 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 52999A.132
187 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 52999A.133
188 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 52999A.134
189 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 52999A.135
190 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 52999A.136
191 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 52999A.137
192 

OPERATIONAL CONTROL VERSUS EFFECTIVE CONTROL

Mr. PRICE. And thanks to all of you for being here. Let me start 

us off by asking some questions about the term of art that you used 

to describe the results of our efforts, namely operational control, 

exactly what the projections are and how that is achieved in terms 

of infrastructure. Operational control is a key measure of SBI effectiveness. As I understand it, DHS assigns four levels of control 

ranging from ‘‘remote low activity’’ for the lowest level of control to 

‘‘effective control,’’ the level of which CBP can generally detect and 

appropriately respond to and resolve illegal entry. Such control also 

entails being able to achieve what you call persistent impedance of 

illegal crossing. 

DHS reports that between October of 2005 and October of 2008, 

the percentage of the Southwest border miles under effective control grew from 12 percent to 31 percent. That is 625 miles, almost 

a third of the border. Mr. Ahern or Mr. Aguilar, I would appreciate 

your bringing us up to date on that figure so far in fiscal 2009. 

Also, how does that relate to the construction of fencing? We ask 

on this Subcommittee, as you well know, for an expenditure plan 

and some detailed justifications for the fence construction that you 

had projected. We caught a little flak for that, but as a matter of 

fact, it was nothing less than we would ask of any major governmental expenditure. 

And the Department worked with us cooperatively in providing 

detailed information segment-by-segment on the plans for fence 

construction. We were puzzled at the time because for at least 25 

segments of the border, for which border fencing was proposed, you 

described those segments as already being under, ‘‘effective control.’’ However, the argument we understood was that to sustain 

this without a physical fence could require increases, maybe vast 

increases in border patrol deployments. 

Now, this raised the question whether we were maybe skewing 

too much toward a physical fence, a physical infrastructure as the 

way to deal with this problem as opposed to a mixture of approaches. So in the context that you said this morning, I would like 

to hear you reflect on that. There, of course, is an uncanny resemblance between the number of miles you describe as being under 

‘‘effective control’’ and the number of miles of fence that we have 

constructed. But I gather you are not necessarily arguing for a 1- 

to-1 equivalence. Does ‘‘effective control’’ mean something more or 

different from an area with physical infrastructure? After all, you 

described early on areas without fencing as a number of them as 

being under ‘‘effective control.’’ If it is not a 1-to-1 equivalence, how 

much of the improvement and security is due to more infrastructure? How much ‘‘effective control’’ on the other hand is due to additional or more mobile or better coordinated Border Patrol agents? 

Are you, in fact, redeploying agents that are freed up by the construction of new fencing to achieve ‘‘effective control’’ in nonfenced 

areas? So bring us up to date on the ‘‘effective control’’ mileage, if 

you will, but also help us understand the kinds of infrastructure 

that are relevant to achieving ‘‘effective control.’’ 

Mr. AHERN. Thank you very much. I will just give a very broad 

overview, then I will ask the Chief of the Border Patrol to give a 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
193 

more specific detailed answer to you. But I think certainly, as I believe we have made significant attempts to explain to this Subcommittee and others, that the strategy is to make sure that we 

have a combination of personnel infrastructure and the technology. 

There is no single solution to gaining ‘‘effective control’’ in the operational environment. That is why it was essential for the national 

Chief of the Border Patrol to deal with the Southwest border sectors to have that mile-by-mile assessment done that led to a lot of 

the analysis of alternatives we did for this Subcommittee back in 

the fall of this year. 

But certainly as far as the types of fencing, whether it be pedestrian fence or vehicle fence, that was done based on assessments, 

again, based on smuggling patterns, based on what we saw from 

an intelligence perspective, and based on the experience of the individuals in those locations. And we have seen dramatic shifts for 

some of the patterns that have occurred. We can certainly speak 

to some of the numbers in the Yuma sector where we have seen 

just dramatic drops for the apprehension to that environment. It is 

significant. But clearly as far as the types of infrastructure, it does 

need to be complemented with people to be able to respond once we 

have actually slowed down some of these individuals that have 

been previously able to drive through our Nation’s borders. That 

was unacceptable. And the technology to be able to spot this so we 

can have a more enhanced response time. So it is a complementary 

package in each one of these environments that needs to be assessed. One of the things that I don’t believe we have done a good 

enough job on over the last couple of years is to express that it is 

not a single solution. It is not just fence, it is not just SBInet, it 

is not just more people. It has to be a well thought-out strategy 

that this Border Patrol and this Agency have put together. The 

Chief might like to go ahead and elaborate further. 

Chief AGUILAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for asking that question, because it always comes up and we always take the opportunity to explain in such a fashion that it makes sense, because we 

do need to be held accountable for the amounts of money that we 

are spending. One of the first things I would like to begin with is 

what ‘‘effective control’’ means. Effective control means giving our 

agency the ability to detect, deter, identify any kind of illegal incursion between our ports of entry. The ability to classify it, identify 

it, and bring it to some kind of resolution. 

Now, as the Acting Commissioner said, one of the things that 

comes into play is that each piece of the border, there is an enforcement model, if you will, that is designed by the chiefs that has 

ownership over that piece of the border that takes into account 

what it is that he or she needs in order to bring each one of those 

components to bear on the criminal organizations that are operating on our border. The term is ‘‘persistent impedance’’. Persistent 

impedance refers to the outcome produced by some kind of barrier, 

whether it is pedestrian or vehicular barrier, that is placed only in 

those areas where the chiefs believe it is absolutely necessary. But 

that is only one piece of the enforcement model. Because along with 

that persistent impedance where it is required we need the right 

amount of personnel and the technology to give us that full enforceVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
194 

ment model that then creates that capability for our people to keep 

those illegal incursions from happening. 

One of the things that you talked about in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, was the fact that San Diego did see an increase last year. We fully expected that. The reason we expect that 

is because the cartels, which basically for the longest time in this 

country’s history, basically felt as if they owned the border, they 

acted with impunity. Well, when we were slowly addressing in a 

post-9/11 world our border, we would address with either personnel 

a very small amount of technology and very small amount of tactical infrastructure. There would be a displacement within what 

they felt was a piece of border that they owned. 

Over the last 3 years, we have applied so much technology, so 

many personnel and tactical infrastructure that the displacement 

now is coming across several cartel areas of operation. That results 

in some of the infighting, some of the border violence that we are 

seeing. They are fighting for territory that they no longer operate 

with impunity. 

Today what we are seeing is, in the area of success, for example, 

we are seeing Ultralights flying over our fences and below our radars, our AMOC, trying to penetrate our forces. We have detected 

over 102 tunnels since 1990, 89 to 90 of them post-9/11, because 

of what we have added to the border. The personnel that we have 

added, all of these things have made a world of difference on our 

borders. The 25 segments that we talked about that were already 

under control, we fully expected and anticipated that as we gained 

control of these pieces of border, these parcels of border, there will 

be a back flow into some of these areas that were previously under 

control. That is the back flow that we are seeing now. But the 

chiefs have designed the number of personnel, the type and amount 

of tactical infrastructure and the technology that is coming, to give 

us that entire persistent impedance of any kind of flow that comes 

at our borders. 

COST FOR EFFECTIVE CONTROL

Mr. PRICE. Could you give us the figure, either you or Mr. Ahern, 

the estimated figure for ‘‘effective control’’ as of the end of this fiscal year and some indication of the extent to which that simply coincides with the amount of fence constructed? And I guess another 

way to ask the question would be are there areas where the fence 

has been constructed that you don’t deem to be under ‘‘effective 

control’’ because of various evasive efforts? 

Chief AGUILAR. Well, that is a very important question, because 

one of the things that the chiefs have termed now in the field is 

the fence that existed before we took on building the fence, the 660 

miles of fence, was basically put together by the border patrol. We 

used to weld it ourselves, we used to put it up with landing mat 

fence and things of this nature. The designs that Mr. Borkowski 

are putting forth now are designs that stand up to what is coming 

across at us. Having said that, the actual strengths that we had 

in the past pre-660 miles have now become some of our weaknesses, because the new infrastructure that we have put up is so 

strong that they are going back to some of the old fencing areas, 

if you will, trying to find a way to come into the country. What the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
195 

criminal organizations are looking for, Mr. Chairman, is the infrastructure that exists south of us in Mexico in order to stage, in 

order to jump off into the United States. But the successes have 

been tremendous on holding them back. 

Some of the things that we used, for example, is the violence 

against our officers. As the Acting Commissioner pointed out, the 

violence and the type of violence against our officers has gone up. 

We actually use that as a measure of our success. We are starting 

to see where the displacement is going into areas where we never 

intended to use fence. Now, we are going through a transformation 

of the border. Are there areas where the chiefs today deem that 

they do not need fence where they may in the future? That may 

be a situation that we are looking at. We don’t anticipate that to 

be a large number. 

PERCENTAGE ESTIMATE FOR EFFECTIVE CONTROL

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Ahern, what would be the percentage estimate for 

the end of fiscal 2009 for effective control? 

Mr. AHERN. I think we would be better served if we actually gave 

you a detailed written response on what we project as we go on for 

the rest of the year. As we have got the 610 miles that are currently done, we have the remaining of the 661 that will actually 

be done over the next couple of months, as well as we have gone 

through getting the orders of possession from the court down in the 

Rio Grande south Texas area. And as we go ahead and begin the 

deployment for the additional mobile surveillance systems and we 

actually do stabilize the deployment for the Tucson-1 and the Ajo1 deployment of the SBInet technology for an additional 53 miles, 

I think we would be best served for you if we actually provided that 

detailed response of what we project as we add all these things incrementally forward towards gaining that level of control by the 

end of the fiscal year. 

Mr. PRICE. Fine. Please do that. And do as much as you can to 

square this up with the kind of technology that is deployed over 

these miles that you are estimating will be under ‘‘effective control’’. Mr. Rogers. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairman PRICE. What percentage of the Southwest Border does CBO estimate 

will be under effective control by the end of fiscal year 2009. 

We estimate that 34.2% of the southwest border (683 miles) will be under effective 

control by the end of fiscal year 2009. 

COMPLETED FENCING

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, briefly on the 

point the Chairman has raised. As I understand it, you now have 

completed 307 miles of pedestrians fencing, is that correct, which 

is about 86 percent of what you had intended to complete? As I understand it, the optimist is 358 miles, right? 

Mr. AHERN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And you have made 307 of those miles with fencing? 

Mr. AHERN. 309 actually for pedestrian fence. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right. And of vehicular fencing you have completed 300 of the planned 303 miles, right? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
196 

Mr. AHERN. 301. 301 and the 309 give us our 610 figure currently. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right. And of the fencing yet to be completed, 

most of that, if not all, is in Texas, where I understand you have 

had some complications with land condemnation cases that has 

held you up on building the fence there, right? 

Mr. AHERN. That is absolutely correct. We have had several challenges in court that still remain. 

ATTEMPTS TO GO OVER FENCING

Mr. ROGERS. Where you have built a fence have we seen attempts to get over the fence or tear it down or what have you? Who 

can answer that? 

Mr. AHERN. Certainly I think both the Chief and I can speak to. 

When we were out going to fly us to Mexico last week just the day 

prior that we were arriving out there, that we did see an attempt 

to go ahead and ramp one of the vehicle fences. But I think one 

of the key factors here is it does go ahead and slow down their ability to gain entry into the United States. And just observing it from 

the air as we were flying from El Paso out to New Mexico what 

had previously been heavily scarred surface areas actually is now 

starting to diminish greatly which shows to us that there is not 

that number of driving coming through in those remote areas. So 

if you want to respond to that, David. 

Chief AGUILAR. The only thing I would add, Congressman, is that 

the fence is not a solution in and of itself. It still needs to be protected by the agent and we still need the technology in order to detect any kind of attempted defeat of the fence also to include tunnels; the Ultralights that I talked about flying just above it, the 

rampings, the ladders and things of that nature. So it is that proper mix that gives us that capability. 

REDUCTION IN APPREHENSIONS

Mr. ROGERS. Can you attribute the reduction in apprehensions in 

some measure to the fencing? 

Chief AGUILAR. Yes, sir we can. We can, based on what we refer 

to as overall activity, third-party indicators, the smuggling activity 

that occurs south of us in Mexico. We gauge that both on social impacts, on the staging areas in Mexico, information from the government of Mexico as to what is happening, the levels of traffic that 

are occurring and things of this nature. One of the things that I 

think we can now associate with the level of success of the fence 

as a part of the enforcement model is what is happening within the 

cartels, the violence. It is because of the impedance that we have 

established as some of these historical areas that they used to operate with impunity, that they are now fighting themselves for what 

is remaining of the border that they consider to be an opportunity 

of free flow. And that is where they are fighting for those remnants. 

VIRTUAL FENCE

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Borkowski, the rest is up to you, as they say. 

That is the SBInet, which is supposed to be using electronic and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
197 

modern day means where we can’t build or have not built a fence 

to build a virtual fence. And we have been at this now for many 

years and we have been disappointed along the way quite a bit. In 

fact, frustrated I think is the word that all of us and you and others down there have used. Now, you are a former Air Force aerospace engineer, a rocket scientist. And I have got confidence that 

a rocket scientist can get us out of this mess. Help me out. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Yes, those were the good old days, Mr. Congressman. I don’t think it is going to take rocket science to get us 

out of this mess. I do think that some of the principles, the rigor, 

the discipline that rocket scientists and others apply to problems 

will help us with this mess, and that is what we are going to try 

to bring to this. I would just like to say that it is actually not the 

rest up to me. SBInet is a very significant contributor to this, and 

we intend to deliver on our obligations to contribute to this. 

But again, there is a great deal more to this than me. There are 

the agents on the ground, there is our Air and Marine resources. 

And I think what we will be spending a great deal of time doing 

over the next couple of years as we deliver, and I understand we 

owe you a commitment to deliver, as we deliver is starting to think 

more carefully about how we apply all of those things in an integrated way. So while we are a very important part, and yes we are 

committed to even bringing rocket science if that is what it takes 

to this, we are one part of a much bigger picture that we think we 

can bring to bear on the problem. 

Mr. ROGERS. Tell us where we are. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Okay. Where we are. We have designed what 

we refer to now as SBInet Block 1, SBInet technology Block 1. That 

Block 1 is, and it implies, that there will be other blocks. So what 

we are doing is we are taking a measured step here in providing 

something that is good. The SBInet Block 1 consists of hardware. 

That hardware is fixed towers. Those towers have cameras and radars on them. It includes a command and control capability, which 

we call the COP, the common operating picture. That common operating picture basically can integrate the activity of cameras and 

radars and in effect the unattended ground systems that Mr. Ahern 

mentioned earlier, and can give you a common picture. So it can 

link a radar track, for example, to a camera so it can link what one 

tower sees to what another tower sees. So that is the SBInet Block 

1 design. 

What we have done over about the past 9 months to a year is 

tightened up that design and tested it. And Mr. Ahern mentioned 

to you that the facility in Playas, New Mexico, which is a facility 

that can put this whole system together so we can test it together, 

we can test multiple towers, we can actually build the real production tower we intend to use. We can have vehicles, people, vehicles, 

animals go through the desert there and detect how well we can 

detect them, how well we can respond to them, how well we can 

link cameras and radars to unintended ground systems, how that 

does or doesn’t improve our response, and we can even use it to 

allow the agents to start to experiment how they will adapt to their 

operations with this technology. 

That Block 1 went through a series of tests culminating in something called system qualification test down at Playas that took 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
198 

place in December. That is a test that is designed to stress the system. That test went reasonably well, but not completely well, 

frankly. It did demonstrate the fundamental soundness of the design but it did leave us with open issues which we are in the process of closing. Pending closure of those issues we intend to begin 

deployment of Block 1 into two areas of Arizona. We call them Tucson–1 and Ajo–1. Those are the two areas that Mr. Ahern mentioned earlier that are about 53 total miles of border. There are two 

purposes of doing that in a kind of measured way. And one is so 

that we can put a system out there that the border patrol itself can 

evaluate. 

In other words, we are spending time at this point, convincing 

the engineers that the system is effective. And we are about to 

complete that confirmation but it is very important that we get a 

reading from the Border Patrol about whether or not it is effective. 

So we need to deploy this in a real Border Patrol environment so 

that the Border Patrol can make that assessment. We want to deploy in two places because we want to convince ourselves we can 

build these things, we can build them on a schedule, we can build 

them for cost and we can do that in more than one area. That is 

the focus of activity this year for SBInet Block 1. It leads to a decision scheduled toward the end of the calendar year or early next 

year. And that decision will basically evaluate all of these results 

and say yes this is the system we want or no it is not. 

We are presuming the answer will be yes. And that will lead to 

a decision to deploy fully throughout Arizona. That deployment 

would be scheduled to complete in 2011 or 2012, depending on 

budget decisions and priorities. So that is the quick summary of 

SBInet as applied to the Southwest border. 

SBINET AREAS

Mr. ROGERS. I am holding a map here that shows the border of 

Arizona with Mexico, and the two red areas are the two test areas 

that you are establishing that you described, is that correct? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Yes. And they are not intended to be test areas. 

Let me be clear about that so that we don’t have any 

misperceptions. At the point we deploy those, that is an operational 

system. It is my assertion to the chief that that is the operational 

system. It is not a prototype, it is a system we expect to work. 

However, we are putting the two in before we give go ahead for all 

of the rest because we still do need to give the Chief an opportunity 

to say yes in fact this system works the way I want it to work before we give full approval through the rest of Arizona. But yes, 

those areas that you have cited there are the two areas we are 

talking about. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, our patience is running real thin, because we 

have been at this now for several years and we were led to believe 

at the onset it was not a big deal. It has turned into a big deal. 

The Boeing contract has been severely criticized, and so we are expecting results. Can you—at this time next year—when you come 

back here tell us this is a success 100 percent? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. If I cannot tell you that, I will have failed. So 

I expect not to fail, so I expect to give you that answer a year from 

now. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
199 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

SBINET COST

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a follow-up question 

on that. How much is the total cost of SBInet? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. In terms of going through—— 

Mr. FARR. Just a price, what is the total price? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. We have about $600 million that we have applied to SBInet to this point. 

Mr. FARR. How much is the entire program budgeted? It is in the 

billions, right? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Pardon me? 

Mr. FARR. It is in the billions, isn’t it? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Oh, yes, it certainly is, sir. 

Mr. FARR. Do you know how many billion? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. In the expenditure plan we talk about $6.7 billion. 

Mr. FARR. $6.7 billion. How much of that is spent on the Canadian border? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Of the $6.7 billion in that plan, about $100 million. 

Mr. FARR. $100 million. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. About on the order of $100 million from SBInet. 

Now, there are other investments on the northern border, but from 

SBInet, that is about right. 

INTEGRATED BORDER ENFORCEMENT TEAMS

Mr. FARR. Thank you. I wanted to ask Mr. Ahern, I really enjoyed reading your testimony. I started thinking more questions 

than we have time for. But one of them is last week ICE was in 

here. And ICE’s budget, they have a $6 billion budget. They said 

they have 20,000 employees. I read yours and you have a $7 billion 

budget and 20,000 employees. And then when we get these drug 

seizures you were talking about the submarines, interesting, because the Coast Guard also takes credit for that. 

What I think this whole discussion is about, frankly, it is really 

about the Mexican border and it is really about a lot of innocent 

people trying to get here to get a better job and make money. And 

we are putting a lot of effort into it. And it seems to me that we 

are not, and I think Mr. Rogers’ opening statement was about a lot 

of violence going on on that border. And what I am very interested 

in is that you have created, you are very interested in the IBET 

program, the Integrated Border Enforcement. And you talk about 

that between Canada and the United States as a model of bi-national collaborative efforts in securing our shared border. Do we 

have an IBET with Mexico? 

BEST TEAMS ON SOUTHWEST BORDER

Mr. AHERN. Currently on the southwest border we have the 

BEST teams that are there. 

Mr. FARR. Is it bilateral? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
200 

Mr. AHERN. There are representatives from the government of 

Mexico and some of the BEST task forces, yes. 

Mr. FARR. Is it the same as the Canadian one, is it that integrated? 

Mr. AHERN. I would say as far as you need to look at IBETs and 

BESTs as kind of two different iterations. The integrated border 

enforcement teams actually began many years ago where you did 

have a lot of the intelligence and the interdiction focus. When ICE 

actually developed the BEST concept, I believe it was last fiscal 

year, perhaps the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008, it was actually to bring the investigative piece to the entire wheel of enforcement that had been lacking prior, so we think that is a complementary program as you go forward. 

WEAPONS SMUGGLING INTO MEXICO

Mr. FARR. Well, it seems to me the ounce of prevention is really 

trying to do as much as we can to try to collaborate with Mexico. 

I mean, you, and I am very sorry for the officers that were threatened and attacked, I mean that is a serious issue, but, of course, 

Mexico is pretty concerned that 850 of their police and soldiers 

were killed. And it seems to me that you are also very proud in 

your testimony about the ability to stop the smuggling of weapons 

into the United States. And I am wondering why your ability to 

nonintrusively screen and examine cargo and conveyance allows to 

more effectively interdict weapons of mass effect and other contraband, how come we can do it coming in but not going out? 

Mr. AHERN. I think it just goes back to as far as the way that 

the operational process has been laid out. We don’t have the facilities, we don’t have the technology or the personnel to be able to do 

redundant processing for things exiting the country. And that is 

one of the things that the current Secretary is asking us to do in 

a more robust way, is doing more southbound processing for vehicles of people going into Mexico that could be taking money and 

weapons. 

Mr. FARR. The other day, the Washington Post and New York 

Times had articles about the 12,000 gun stores on just the Arizona 

and Texas borders alone. Is it the responsibility of ICE, is it the 

responsibility of ATF, is it the responsibility of Customs and Border Protection? Who is the responsible entity for policing those gun 

shops? You saw the pictures of those weapons, they aren’t little 

hunting rifles, these are big assault weapons and everything, and 

grenade launchers and all kinds of things. Which agency is responsible for policing that? 

Mr. AHERN. I think, first off, it is a shared responsibility not only 

just within the agencies here in the United States, but also with 

Mexico as well. Certainly Mexico can be doing more for the inbound 

processing of people and things coming into their country. 

Mr. FARR. Can we help them? Can we give them resources and 

so on? 

Mr. AHERN. That is going to be part of the Merida initiative 

about building capacity, providing training, providing technology to 

build a capacity at their borders. But certainly as far as to make 

sure that we actually look in a much more thoughtful way of being 

intelligence driven, investigative information driven so that we can 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
201 

do southbound processing going into Mexico to make sure that we 

have the ability to apprehend the weapons. Also we have taken a 

look just within the last couple of months at a couple of things beyond just the money. For fiscal year 2009 to date, we have actually 

had $23 million in money being smuggled in these southbound 

lanes going into Mexico. One of the things that is a challenge operationally without having 100 percent requirement to process everybody and everything going into Mexico is smuggling organizations 

can wait. If they see us doing an enforcement operation or a southbound operation or a protocol, they just pull off and wait until we 

actually pull back and it becomes a high stakes game of cat and 

mouse. So being intelligence driven and having the use of technology gives us a much better opportunity for success. 

Mr. FARR. I don’t have any time left, but I just want to say that 

I think it is as important that we do bilateral investment in professionalizing, upgrading and sharing intel information with Mexico 

as we do with Canada. And I think that if we did that in a smarter 

way the burden wouldn’t just be on one side of the border. It is a 

two sides to this issue. And it seems to me that we are ignoring 

our responsibility for what we are smuggling into Mexico from our 

side, and we are only paying concentration on what they are smuggling into the United States. And we can’t win this war against the 

cartels, which I don’t know of any country that supports them, unless we have a lot stronger collaborative relationships, and I do 

think we need to build those better with Mexico. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We will have a chance on the second 

panel to address more explicitly the violence on the border and also 

the international cooperative efforts. Mr. Calvert. 

SMUGGLER’S GULCH

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ahern, I live a couple hours from the border in California. I am down south. So I have 

been on the border a number of times. And I have been reviewing 

your advancement of building the physical barrier along the border. 

One area that was a concern to me and my predecessor Duncan 

Hunter was the so-called Smuggler’s Gulch. And I was there just 

prior to the letting of that contract. I know it has been a constant 

problem in the San Diego area. Can you provide us an update on 

what is going on with that contract? 

Mr. AHERN. Sir, actually that construction is substantially underway at this particular point in time, and actually the conclusion 

should be happening in the very near future. When you look at the 

amount of earth that has actually been moved there to bring the 

operational control it has been substantial. We can provide you an 

exact answer on that. I don’t know if the Chief or Mark would like 

to give the update on that particular project. 

Chief AGUILAR. The Smuggler’s Gulch is probably one of the most 

prominent successes we have had out there. That one area of a little over a mile used to be one of our most problematic areas in the 

most problematic sector in the Nation. As we speak, finishing 

touches are being placed on Smuggler’s Gulch. Once that is up 

completely we will have basically finished off what started off 

about 16 years ago as a directive for us to finish. We have accelerated to a point that it is literally being done within a year’s time 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
202 

from when we actually started with a contract on things of that nature. 

[The information follows:] 

The construction of Smugglers Gulch is mostly complete, with two remaining activities to be performed: 

1. The contractor will attempt to begin seeding in the fall to meet the minimum 

requirement for vegetative coverage in the project area. 

CBP is working with the local power company and the contractor to provide power 

hookup for lights and gates in this area. Until a permanent power hookup is established San Diego Sector Border Patrol plans to supply power via temporary generator. 

METHAMPHETAMINE IMPORTATION

Mr. CALVERT. Great. I look forward to getting over there and 

looking at the results of that. I also co-chair the meth caucus here 

in the House. As you know, methamphetamine probably is one of 

the larger problems of drug importation from Mexico, and one of 

the reasons why this violence is taking place in Mexico. So I see 

this physical barrier, not just physical barrier from people trying 

to enter the United States, a physical barrier from trying to keep 

this drug from coming into the United States. What kind of results 

are you seeing as far as limiting the amount of importation of 

methamphetamine as far as along the southern border? 

Mr. AHERN. One of the things I will give you is a couple of 

things. First up, on the methamphetamine, what we are seeing at 

the ports of entry we have actually seen the increase of methamphetamine coming up at about 79 percent increase over last 

year, so that the seizures are going up. But I think more important 

than the seizures it is actually taking the precursors off before they 

go to Mexico. And we have some undertakings that I won’t speak 

about in this open hearing without actually identifying a lot of the 

precursor chemicals that actually do go to Mexico that actually 

transit the United States on commercial vessels that we actually 

have had some very successful opportunities in making sure that 

we identify those before they get into Mexico to start to get put into 

the meth labs down there. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF PHYSICAL AND VIRTUAL FENCE

Mr. CALVERT. Also, the debate we are having today on the physical fence versus the virtual fence or a combination of both, do you 

see more results as far as apprehensions and the ability to stop 

folks from coming across the border with a physical fence, a virtual 

fence or a combination of both? Let us get your opinion on that. 

Chief AGUILAR. It is going to be a combination of both, sir. The 

physical fence, whether it is a vehicle barrier or a pedestrian barrier, is specifically to create what we refer to as persistent impedance, which basically addresses a time distance factor that is a part 

of the enforcement model. Time distance in that the persistent impedance gives our agents the time and the capability to respond. 

What is very critical is the ability to detect by virtual means, by 

technological means, to not only detect, but very importantly, as 

Mr. Borkowski pointed out, to tag and track that incursion over a 

given area of operation. In some cases, we would like to tag and 

track for hours at a time. In some case we can’t afford that luxury. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
203 

It is only a matter of minutes because of the areas in which we are 

working. So it is that combination of both that makes us solid on 

the border. 

REPAIRS TO FENCING

Mr. CALVERT. How often do you have to maintain—I have been 

on the border a number of times. I noticed almost every time people try to defeat your fencing system, and either welding or using 

helicopters. I was up there where one of your agents were telling 

me about using physical cranes to get people across and the rest. 

How often do you have to maintain that? Do we have to have crews 

every day going along and trying to fix the areas in which folks are 

trying to break it down? 

Chief AGUILAR. Well, like any good property owner, any good 

ranch owner, we actually ride the fence on a daily basis in order 

to identify where attempted breaches have occurred. Now, the good 

news is, is that the fence that are being designed and placed today 

are designed with those attempted breaches in mind. So those have 

been mitigated, those have been minimized. But the human factor 

is they are going to try to defeat them, they are going to try to 

knock down those bollards, they are going to try and ramp over 

them. Hydraulic ramps are being used, I am not going to say on 

a daily basis, but pretty often on our fences out there. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rothman. 

NUMBER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COMING ACROSS THE BORDER

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to get a 

bigger picture of where we have been and where we are today and 

what you anticipate for the future in terms of illegal immigration 

into the United States. So if you will, let us say that 3 years ago, 

we would assign the number of 100 to the number of illegal immigrants crossing our borders from the south and north. What number would you give that today reflecting an accurate number of illegal immigrants crossing those borders? 

Chief AGUILAR. Well, I can give you approximate numbers on 

those 3 years. Last year we finished off the fiscal year with apprehensions totaling 723,000 between the ports of entry. The year before that was about—— 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Excuse me, Chief. I didn’t ask that. I asked not 

your number of apprehensions, how many of illegal immigrants are 

crossing those borders? 

Chief AGUILAR. To include the ones that we didn’t get. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Correct, sir. 

Chief AGUILAR. We are asked that question time and again, and 

there has not been anybody, both in the academic or enforcement 

field, that has been able to figure that out, sir. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. No one in our government has any idea how many 

illegal immigrants are coming in? 

Chief AGUILAR. No, that is a bottom line. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Do each of you three gentlemen share that same 

opinion? 

Chief AGUILAR. We share the opinion that, I believe we share the 

opinion, I know my opinion is that we are more successful today 

than we have in the past. We are stemming the flow, not only beVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
204 

cause of the numbers, both the theoretical and the actual numbers, 

but what we are seeing to support the numbers that we are seeing. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Then give me a—I will assume by their silence 

they are acquiescing to your statement that they don’t have any 

idea either. You don’t even have a—do you have a guess? Is it 10 

million a year crossing, 100 million, 1 billion, more or less than 1 

billion? 

Chief AGUILAR. It won’t be 1 billion, I can tell you that. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Okay. Can you narrow it down more than that? 

Chief AGUILAR. No. I would not venture to give that, because 

again some of the best thinkers in this Nation have tried that; universities, colleges. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Chief, with all due respect, American people are 

going to find that hard to swallow that you can’t tell much less— 

give or take 1 billion. I can understand maybe you don’t want to 

get nailed down to thousands or a couple of hundred. Can I ask for 

that for the record to the extent that someone in your operation 

wants to rethink the answer to that question, please? 

Chief AGUILAR. Yes. 

NUMBER OF APPREHENSIONS

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you. Then please, Chief, give me the number of apprehensions again 3 years ago versus today? 

Chief AGUILAR. About 3 years ago, it would have been about closer to 900,000; 819,000 2 years ago; 723,000 last fiscal year. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Okay. Now, people can say you know the anticipation rate having gone down as a result of one or two things, you 

are catching more or you are catching less. You are deterring more 

by catching, by having caught so many 3 years ago, or people are 

getting around your defense mechanisms and are coming in notwithstanding that. How do we know as a committee, as a Congress, 

which it is, since you don’t know how many are coming in in total? 

Chief AGUILAR. There are several factors that come into play. 

One prime example that is used, for example, is remittances into 

Mexico for people to come into this country specifically for work 

purposes, those have fallen dramatically. At a peak I believe it was 

about 24 billion. Last year I believe it was down to about 16 billion, 

and I will have to verify those for you. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. But Chief, can’t that be related to more illegals 

being out of work? 

Chief AGUILAR. Absolutely, and not crossing, because we are not 

seeing them. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. How about those who are here out of work and 

simply here and out of work and not sending money home because 

they are using whatever money they do make here to pay their living expenses here? 

Chief AGUILAR. If they are here we wouldn’t see them on the border, sir. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. So again, that doesn’t strike me as a completely 

accurate or foolproof way of figuring out how many have come. 

What other indicators do we have, sir, or gentlemen, to know 

whether we are making progress in stopping illegal immigration 

into this country? Any of you other gentlemen? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
205 

Chief AGUILAR. If I might follow up on this. The first thing I feel 

is absolutely critical that we bring out to this question, this is not 

about illegal immigration, this is about all threats on our borders 

of which illegal immigration is but one component, sir. 1.6–1.8 million pounds of narcotics apprehended last year. 723,000 illegal 

aliens coming across that border. Over 115,000 criminal aliens. 

Over 38,000 OTMs, other than Mexicans. Over 600 special interest 

country aliens coming across. These are the forces that are coming 

at our borders. This is not about illegal immigration. This is about 

everything coming at us that is creating the vulnerabilities because 

of the high levels of activity between our ports of entry, 

vulnerabilities that could be exploited by the people that are really 

looking to do us harm. So it is mitigating everything, not just illegal immigration. We engage activity levels. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Okay. I thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Carter. 

MOVING PEOPLE INTO AREAS WE HAVE A BETTER CHANCE TO

APPREHEND

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had another hearing. 

Somehow we have got to figure out how to not have these conflicting hearings, because this is one I really wanted to be at. 

Like my friend Mr. Calvert, I live relatively close to the Mexico 

border. I went to school in Mexico, so I feel pretty close to that part 

of the world. 

Speaker Hastert told me that years ago, way before I came to 

Congress, that he was working with the drug enforcement people. 

The concept was you want to funnel them into areas where you can 

get them, catch them. And so you are trying to move them towards 

the port of entries as best you can, make it harder and harder out 

to make them go there so you have an area that you can contain. 

Are we still using that basic concept of protecting our border by 

the fences, by the virtual fences, and the other things that we are 

using to try to move people into areas where you could have a better chance to prevent them from coming in? Is that still our concept? 

Mr. AHERN. I think that is a fair assessment. I think when you 

take a look at the assessments that were done by the nine Southwest border chiefs assessing each mile on that border, what is 

needed for the tactical infrastructure, the apprehension rates that 

we are seeing in those particular areas help indicate if we need to 

advise the local and the national chiefs of additional changes that 

need to be made. 

But I think as you talk about opportunities for apprehension, certainly each one of those border areas is unique to itself. They are 

not all urban areas. Some of the remote areas you have an opportunity for interception further inland across the border where there 

is no impact into any kind of urban society. 

The ports of entry you bring up, though, I think is also a critical 

conversation piece. Certainly, as I stated in my opening statement 

here, we are very pleased that the Congress gave this organization 

$420 million directly to our budget and $300 million to GSA for 

land-border ports of entry infrastructure, because certainly, as we 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
206 

look to channel into these ports of entry, we need to make sure, 

again, the same strategy, the infrastructure, better port facilities, 

the technology. And there was also $100 million for NII for largescale X-ray systems and the personnel to make sure that we have 

got the right capabilities at the port as we are having that funneling effect coming into the ports of entry. 

So I think, yes, that strategy is accurate. 

Mr. CARTER. And in reality, you get out somewhere around the 

Big Bend country, crossing there is going to be pretty tedious once 

you get into Texas. So nature helps you out a little bit out there 

so you don’t have to spend your resources so thick in that area. 

And people have asked me about fences. I don’t think anybody in 

their right mind would fence out in that part of that world. 

I was with one of your Border Patrol agents, who told me the 

only time he thought about fencing was when he is sitting there 

in the dark in Laredo. If he can just slow them down from going 

across that street, he can catch them; but once they get across that 

four-lane street, they are in amongst people, and he doesn’t know 

who to catch and who not to catch. So at least I got from a guy 

in the trenches that he liked the idea. 

I commend you for doing something that I think is an important 

part of the defense system of this Nation. We, in Texas, know how 

important you are, and we appreciate you. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

WOMEN AND CHILDREN DETAINEES

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to switch gears a little bit and talk about detainees, 

particularly women and children, because some of what I have 

been reading in reports and that I have been hearing are quite 

troubling to me both as an American and as a mother. 

According to a report in 2008 by the Women’s Refugee Commission, immigrant youths that are being detained by the Border Patrol are being kept in cold, crowded cells, sleep on hard cement 

benches, and receive inadequate food and water. And at one facility 

in Texas, children were reported to be without blankets. I am just 

wondering what is being done to address these conditions and to 

make sure that children that are detained are being treated properly and humanely at our Border Patrol stations? 

Chief AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for that question because 

it is a question that we deal with on an ongoing basis, and we 

should, very frankly, be addressing. 

Let me begin by saying the following: There is probably no group 

of individuals, men and women, that feel more for these children 

and these females that are accompanying them sometimes than the 

men and women of the Border Patrol, who actually see what it is 

they actually go through in getting to the point where they are detained by us or detained by law enforcement officers and handed 

over to us. 

When they are detained, it is a fair statement to make that the 

Border Patrol is not equipped to house them, nor should we be 

equipped to house them. 

The actual housing is done by ICE. They do a very good job of 

responding to us, but, in addition to that, there is a third agency 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
207 

that gets involved in actually detaining these people on a longerterm basis, HHS, Office of Refugee and Resettlement. It is the 

process between the points of detention, handing off to ICE, and 

ICE on to HHS, that unfortunately extends the period of time that 

these children and these females stay in our custody. 

But the policies that we have in place are very strict in that we 

ensure that we feed them, clothe them, provide them with what 

they need to have in the interim as we continue that, as callous 

as it may sound, that hand-off process to the proper department. 

We have come closer together over the last couple of years in 

making sure that we are gaining greater efficiencies between the 

three entities. We have gotten a lot better. But I can assure you, 

Congresswoman, that the men and women of the Border Patrol 

take very good care of these children and these females that we apprehend, 59,000 last year. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. How do you account for these reports? Are 

you saying that these are more isolated incidences? 

Chief AGUILAR. They are isolated in the sense that when we apprehend or detain these children, we bring them into our facilities, 

and, as I said, we are not equipped to house them. So when these 

folks visit us, they do see children basically in a detention room cell 

or in a room where they are being given blankets, fed, and things 

of this nature. It is not a proper housing facility, but we can’t do 

anything other than hold them until we can pass them off, hand 

them off to the proper authorities. That does happen, but we focus 

on those situations where we reduce that from happening as often 

as we can. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. You mentioned that Border Patrol isn’t 

properly trained to really handle women and children. Would you 

consider hiring or working with social workers to ensure they are? 

Chief AGUILAR. I wouldn’t say that we are not trained, Congresswoman. Our officers do go through a lot of training. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I meant trained to work with children. 

Chief AGUILAR. Our stations each have, in fact, a juvenile officer 

that handles each one of those specific incidences. ICE also has a 

juvenile officer component that immediately begins when the process starts in order to ensure the effectiveness of that hand-off process. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. It is just hard to understand, then, when 

you are talking about the different policies and that you see the 

proper treatment of women and children, and we get reports like 

this. For example, there is another report by the human rights 

group that is known as No More Death where immigrants are apprehended by the Border Patrol officer, are frequently subjected to 

grievous verbal and physical abuse. And it is documented that 

three women were pushed into cactus, were not able to get any 

treatment. 

I am just wondering why, if what you are saying is accurate, why 

is it the Department of Homeland Security, for example, has issued 

38 standards for immigrants held longer than 72 hours, but there 

are no regulations governing the treatment of individuals in shortterm custody? 

Perhaps there needs to be some kind of very clear guideline so 

these incidents don’t continue to happen. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
208 

Chief AGUILAR. We do have some of those policies. I would be 

glad to share those. 

[The information follows:] 

CBP, Office of Border Patrol (OBP), currently has differing policies on holding immigrants less than 72 hours and longer than 72 hours. These national policies cover 

the short-term custody of persons arrested or detained by OBP and detained in hold 

rooms at stations, checkpoints and processing facilities. These policies also contain 

requirements regarding the handling of juveniles. These policies have been designated as ‘‘For Official Use Only’’ and cannot be placed in the record or released 

to the public. DHS staff have provided these policies to the Committees separate 

from this document. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Kirk. 

DRUG GANG MOVEMENT IN THE U.S. 

Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I am the only member of this Subcommittee that is a 

graduate of La Universidad Nacional Autonoma in Mexico. 

I watch Mexico very closely. We are seeing a disturbing trend of 

the movement in Mexican drug gangs into the United States. I 

think DEA now estimates about 200 cities that have major Mexican drug gang presence. And I will just randomly pick out one, Raleigh, North Carolina, for example, where they happen to be. 

We are seeing a practice, which we do not see in Iraq, now common in Mexico, which is beheading and leaving the heads of their 

drug cartel victims in coolers. And apparently this practice has now 

come to Alabama, is now across our border. 

Another common Mexican practice in the drug world is what is 

called the ‘‘public statement body dump,’’ which apparently has 

now moved from northern Mexico into Arizona. And now we have 

had some Rhode Island victims treated exactly the way, I guess, 

the drug cartels would handle them. 

And a new status for the city of Phoenix, that is now the kidnap 

capital of the world, with more kidnappings in Phoenix, I think, 

than in Baghdad. 

So let me ask you this: We have had a great debate on the fence, 

but we have seen another fence being built in the last couple of 

years, and that is the fence that Israel has built opposite the West 

Bank and Gaza. Have you guys compared and contrasted technology there? Because my understanding is we are seeing 80 and 

90 percent reduction in terrorism due to the Israeli fence, and I am 

wondering if you have done any comparative work with them on 

that. 

COMPARISON WITH ISRAELI FENCE

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Probably not as much as you are suggesting. We 

are aware of the Israeli fence. We are also aware of Israeli technologies in terms of tunnels. We use, frankly, an Israeli radar. So 

we do have some dialogue with Israel, and we have looked at that 

to some degree, probably not to the degree that you are suggesting. 

We are aware of it. 

LONG TERM POLICY FOR FENCING

Mr. KIRK. I have been struck by how much—we have had a tremendous increase in violence in northern Israel as the fence was 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
209 

built. And also just on a more theological point, for me, I have become very close to a couple of towns in Mexico, particularly one in 

Michoacan, and we have seen people encourage families to come to 

the United States. And the stories that you hear is a family has 

led their kids across the border into the Arizona or New Mexico 

desert by a coyote, and then they die. 

Isn’t it a more humane policy in the long term that that family 

see a well-administered fence and not try to walk their kids across 

the desert? 

Chief AGUILAR. Absolutely, sir. And it is not so much just a fence, 

it is a matter of high-profile status of our borders to remove any 

kind of thinking that they can freely flow between the ports of 

entry. It is a combination of fence, technology, and infrastructure. 

Even in the absence of fence, something that they can see; the 

high-profile nature of our enforcement efforts should be that they 

cannot cross without being detected, deterred, identified, classified, 

and apprehended. 

Mr. KIRK. In the villages that I have been to, a lot of folks say 

in many ways they would prefer to see a well-administered fence 

so that people would not think of crossing the American desert; and 

then either orderly enter the United States, or don’t and stay in 

Michoacan, or the other big town that I have become very close to 

is in Estado Mexico, and to do it that way. 

So my thinking overall is we have a danger from drug cartels 

moving their practices into the United States, now beheadings, 

public statement body dumps, and kidnappings now. And it also 

would send a better message: Don’t try to walk your family across 

the desert if we have this. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Again, we will have an opportunity to 

take up these questions of Mexican violence in our next panel, 

which is going to convene very shortly. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

COORDINATION OF TECHNOLOGY

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First thing, I agree with Mr. Kirk’s comment. I know I voted for the fence. I got some criticism, but I based 

my thoughts on what I saw in Israel. I chair the Intelligence Technical and Tactical Subcommittee. We oversee NSA, the satellite 

program, and their technology out there does work. 

And one of my concerns is when we have such an issue, we can’t 

secure our own borders the way we should, whether it is illegal immigrants or it is also the drugs, which are the major problem; probably drugs. Drugs are more of a problem then terrorism generally 

on the impact on us and our community and our country. 

I have had this argument and debate also with the head of the 

FBI Mr. Mueller about why can’t your agency get with NSA, CIA. 

They have technology that does work. That technology is being 

used in other parts of the world, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and has 

been used effectively. 

I am going to ask you the question and if—whether you have the 

contacts or not, I will set it up for you as far as getting set up with 

our other agencies in getting the technologies that work. And the 

reason for that is basic. You know the technology situation is in 

deep trouble. It has been poorly mismanaged. You have a situation 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
210 

that GAO said it is really hurting, a lot of wasted Federal dollars, 

and where are we. And we can’t even secure our own border. 

Now, Mr. Borkowski, you are the new guy in charge, and so you 

have a clean track record right now, but you have got to produce 

because failure is not an option. What is your plan to take the technological issue that we are dealing with on the borders, coordinate 

with other United States of America agencies that make it work, 

and then there is a cost factor, and that is what our committee has 

to look at. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. There is a balance, and I know you know that, 

but we don’t want to overdesign this either at this point. 

However, having said that, yes, we do have contact with the Department of Defense. There is a very, I think, aggressive program 

in the DHS science and technology who does this on our behalf, 

identify these technologies and then brings them to us as candidates. 

So going forward with SBInet, where we are at this point, and 

we discussed this a little bit earlier, Block 1. 

The longer-term question is how can we build on a basic kind of 

capability, a capability to see and detect with radar and expand 

that capability with some of these other technologies as we go forward. So we are trying to get a baseline at this point and an option 

to build up with those other resources. So we do have some of those 

contacts, and we have a robust program with DHS science and 

technology. 

SBI MAJOR CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It is just not what you talk about, radar 

and other issues. There are UAVs. We need desperately VEA. And 

here we are all over the world. We are in two theaters right now. 

And yet if we could take just a small amount of our intelligence 

group, our CIA, our NSA, our Department of Defense, and focus 

with you all, with the FBI, on our borders, we could go a long way. 

And we haven’t made that a priority. 

Answer my question. Would you be willing to meet and see what 

you have there on your baseline, what is working, what is not? You 

have the GAO report. Who is the major contractor? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. It is Boeing. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What is Boeing doing as far as the past 

record? You have got to sit down with Boeing and see where they 

are. How do you plan on dealing with the main contractor? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. The main answer to your question is yes, I 

would meet with those people. 

In terms of Boeing, some of the issues we have with Boeing is, 

frankly, due to us as well. But I think that we also have concerns 

about Boeing as you have. And many companies in these kinds of 

programs have these kinds of problems, so I don’t think this is 

unique to Boeing. But Boeing is who we have at this point, and we 

have had some issues with Boeing. 

So what we have tried to do is put again in some program management discipline structures to manage the contractor, to set 

clearer expectations, to define baselines, to define ways to better 

measure progress. I don’t think those things existed to the level 

that they needed to. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
211 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It is also do you need different technology 

that works in other parts of the world as being successful? That 

has to be looked at. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Yes, it does. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me say this. My time is running out. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to have my staff get with you, and 

maybe we can talk more about the technical side of this. 

Do I have more time? 

Mr. PRICE. About to run out. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I was going to ask the Chief something, but 

at another date. 

Mr. PRICE. With that, we will bring this first panel to a close. 

Mr. Borkowski, we will thank you. And we will ask Mr. Koumans 

and Ms. Forman to replace you at the table. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
212 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 52999A.138
213 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 52999A.139
214 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 52999A.140
215 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 52999A.141
216 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 52999A.142
217 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 52999A.143
218 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 52999A.144
219 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 52999A.145
220 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 52999A.146
221 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 52999A.147
222 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 52999A.148
223 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 52999A.149
224 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 52999A.150
225 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 52999A.151
226 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 52999A.152
227 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 52999A.153
228 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 52999A.154
229 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 52999A.155
230 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 52999A.156
231 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 52999A.157
232 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333 here 52999A.158
233 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 334 here 52999A.159
234 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 335 here 52999A.160
235 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 52999A.161
236 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 337 here 52999A.162
237 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 52999A.163
238 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 52999A.164
239 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 52999A.165
240 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 52999A.166
241 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 52999A.167
242 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 343 here 52999A.168
243 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 344 here 52999A.169
244 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 345 here 52999A.170
245 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 346 here 52999A.171
246 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here 52999A.172
247 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348 here 52999A.173
248 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 349 here 52999A.174
249 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here 52999A.175
250 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 351 here 52999A.176
251 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 352 here 52999A.177
252 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 353 here 52999A.178
253 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 354 here 52999A.179
254 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 355 here 52999A.180
255 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here 52999A.181
256 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here 52999A.182
257 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 here 52999A.183
258 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 52999A.184
259 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 52999A.185
260 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361 here 52999A.186
261 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 362 here 52999A.187
262 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here 52999A.188
263 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here 52999A.189
264 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here 52999A.190
265 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here 52999A.191
266 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here 52999A.192
267 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here 52999A.193
268 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 52999A.194
269 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 52999A.195
270 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 371 here 52999A.196
271 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 372 here 52999A.197
272 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 373 here 52999A.198
273 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 374 here 52999A.199
274 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 375 here 52999A.200
275 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here 52999A.201
276 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 377 here 52999A.202
277 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 378 here 52999A.203
278 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 379 here 52999A.204
279 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 380 here 52999A.205
280 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 381 here 52999A.206
281 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 382 here 52999A.207
282 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 383 here 52999A.208
283 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 384 here 52999A.209
284 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 385 here 52999A.210
285 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 386 here 52999A.211
286 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 387 here 52999A.212
287 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 388 here 52999A.213
288 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 389 here 52999A.214
289 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 390 here 52999A.215
290 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 391 here 52999A.216
291 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 392 here 52999A.217
292 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 393 here 52999A.218
293 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 394 here 52999A.219
294 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 395 here 52999A.220
295 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 396 here 52999A.221
296 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 397 here 52999A.222
297 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 398 here 52999A.223
298 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 399 here 52999A.224
299 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 400 here 52999A.225
300 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 401 here 52999A.226
301 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 402 here 52999A.227
302 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 403 here 52999A.228
303 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 404 here 52999A.229
304 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 405 here 52999A.230
305 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 406 here 52999A.231
306 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 407 here 52999A.232
307 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 408 here 52999A.233
308 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 52999A.234
309 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 52999A.235
310 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 411 here 52999A.236
311 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 412 here 52999A.237
312 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 413 here 52999A.238
313 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 414 here 52999A.239
314 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 415 here 52999A.240
315 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 416 here 52999A.241
316 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 417 here 52999A.242
317 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 418 here 52999A.243
318 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 419 here 52999A.244
319 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 420 here 52999A.245
320 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 421 here 52999A.246
321 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 422 here 52999A.247
322 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 423 here 52999A.248
323 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 424 here 52999A.249
324 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 52999A.250
325 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 52999A.251
326 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 427 here 52999A.252
327 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 52999A.253
328 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 52999A.254
329 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 52999A.255
330 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 52999A.256
331 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 52999A.257
332 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 52999A.258
333 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 52999A.259
334 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 52999A.260
335 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 52999A.261
336 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 52999A.262
337 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 52999A.263
338 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 52999A.264
339 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 52999A.265
340 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 52999A.266
341 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 52999A.267
342 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 52999A.268
343 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 52999A.269
344 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 52999A.270
345 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 52999A.271
346 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 52999A.272
347 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 52999A.273
348 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 52999A.274
349 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 52999A.275
350 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 52999A.276
351 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 52999A.277
352 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 52999A.278
353 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 52999A.279
354 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 52999A.280
355 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 52999A.281
356 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 52999A.282
357 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 52999A.283
358 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459 here 52999A.284
359 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 460 here 52999A.285
360 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 461 here 52999A.286
361 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 462 here 52999A.287
362 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 463 here 52999A.288
363 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 464 here 52999A.289
364 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 465 here 52999A.290
365 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 466 here 52999A.291
366 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 467 here 52999A.292
367 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 52999A.293

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(369) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY RESPONSE TO 

VIOLENCE ON THE BORDER WITH MEXICO 

WITNESSES 

MARK KOUMANS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

MARCY FORMAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

JAYSON P. AHERN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 

DAVID AGUILAR, CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION 

OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. PRICE

Mr. PRICE. We are going to move directly to consideration of the 

violence on the border with Mexico and the U.S. Response hearing. 

With over 6,000 dead in 2008, and with over 1,000 dead in January of 2009 alone, the violent clash of drug cartels in Mexico has 

caught the attention of many of us in Congress, and it certainly 

has caught the attention of Americans, especially those living near 

the border. 

Mexico has sent its military to its border region and has assumed 

control of police in hotspots like Ciudad Juarez. As Secretary 

Napolitano testified last week, the situation deserves our utmost 

attention. 

And we need to put this in perspective. We are not talking about 

anything like the raids of Pancho Villa during the Mexican Revolution, nor are these fears of mass migrations northward necessarily 

justified. But while Mexican President Calderon has dismissed reports that Mexico is at risk of becoming a failed state, nonetheless, 

concern is rising about the impact of the violence on the region and 

beyond. 

The U.S. is providing the assistance to Mexico through the 

Merida Initiative, and Chairman Lowey is holding a hearing on 

that initiative this very morning. Defense Secretary Gates has offered to provide additional assistance to Mexico, Texas Governor 

Perry has asked for Federal troops to provide immediate relief for 

his State, the State Department has warned U.S. travelers to stay 

away, and the Attorney General has promised to destroy the cartels. Secretary Napolitano has testified that she has asked the National Security Adviser, Attorney General and State and local law 

enforcement to review ways to help the Mexican Government stop 

the flow of guns and cash to the cartels and to identify areas where 

more resources may be needed. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
370 

Now, there have been reports of contract killings and high-profile 

kidnapping in the U.S., as we have already heard this morning. 

There also are some statistics on the other side, statistics that 

show decline in such violence in border communities such as El 

Paso and Phoenix even, which is often cited as a hotbed for such 

activity. 

It appears thus far that the violence is not yet systematically 

spilling over, as some have alleged. The violence has so far been 

limited largely to Mexico, but that doesn’t mean it is not a matter 

of grave U.S. concern, and we want our witnesses today to help us 

understand why Mexican violence threatens the homeland security 

of the United States. And our assumption is that we are not just 

talking about violence spilling over. We are talking about what is 

going on in Mexico itself and how that affects our ability to coordinate, to collaborate with the Mexican Government in dealing with 

a whole array of border issues. 

I would think we shouldn’t frame this issue too narrowly, simply 

asking if it is spilling over into U.S. communities. There are much 

broader implications for the Mexican Government’s control of its 

own territory and of our government’s ability to coordinate and collaborate with the Mexican Government effectively in addressing a 

whole range of issues. So I would hope we could adopt that broader 

perspective. 

Unfortunately, we have also heard this morning the U.S. plays 

some role in fueling the violence by its huge demands for illegal 

drugs, and, as the State Department reported last month, as the 

main source of the cartels’ weapons. We hope to hear today what 

the U.S. can do, and how and why the U.S. Government is getting 

more engaged. 

This issue touches the missions of many agencies, not only DHS, 

but also Justice, State, Defense. In this panel, we are going to focus 

on the DHS role in helping stem this violence, to confront its spillover on our borders and within our communities, and to prepare 

for contingencies. 

We welcome Mark Koumans, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

International Affairs, to describe the Department’s interaction with 

its Mexican counterparts; and Marcy Forman, Director of the Office 

of Investigations for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

to discuss how ICE is helping attack cartel networks and organizations. We also welcome back our CBP witnesses from the first 

panel, Acting Commissioner Ahern and Border Patrol Chief 

Aguilar, to discuss CBP’s efforts to address the risk of violence and 

its impact on trade, immigration and border security. 

We also expect to hear about interagency and intergovernmental 

initiatives, such as the Border Enforcement Security Teams, or 

BEST, which have been established in response to violence in areas 

such as Laredo, El Paso, and Tucson. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
371 

We will insert your complete statements in the hearing records 

and look forward to 5-minute oral presentations from Deputy Assistant Secretary Koumans followed by Ms. Forman. We have already heard a statement of that kind from the Acting Commissioner on the first panel. 

Let me first turn to our Ranking Member Mr. Rogers for his comments. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
372 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 474 here 52999A.294
373 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 475 here 52999A.295
374 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 476 here 52999A.296
375 

OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to those of 

you just joining us. 

Before I make a few comments, I want to thank the Chairman 

for honoring our Minority request to convene this separate hearing 

on the Mexican drug war aspect of the border situation, an issue 

that I believe is at the forefront of our homeland security challenges that we face today. 

With that said, let me be clear when I say the current turf battle 

between the Mexican drug cartels is, in fact, an all-out war; 7,000 

casualties, if you will, 7,000 murders since the beginning of last 

year, including the torture and assassination of numerous Mexican 

law enforcement officials. That is as much an indicator of warfare 

as you would need. And this is a war with potentially devastating 

consequences for the United States, but we need to judge these consequences amid facts. 

We have all read the reports of beheadings, kidnapping, tunneling, human trafficking, but we must understand the facts to determine the appropriate response in terms of dollars and force. We 

need to fully appreciate the Mexican Government’s stability, 

strength, and resolve to counter these narcoterrorists, and we need 

a truthful account of how and where violence is actually creeping 

across our border. After all, this war is on our doorstep. 

If this savage criminality is left unchecked, the cartels will only 

continue to expand their influence across the border, exploit our 

trade lanes, and bring their brands of terror into communities 

across our country. And that is something we simply cannot allow 

to happen. 

The escalation in violence and territorial infighting suggest 

Homeland Security’s efforts to improve our border security, coupled 

with the truly courageous actions of Mexico’s leadership, have gotten the cartels’ attention. Unfortunately, this also means things 

might even get worse before they get better. So the challenge being 

presented to Homeland Security by this war is clear. My question 

is whether or not we are up to the challenge. 

And when I ask this question, I am not wondering whether we 

have the proper resources in place to just disrupt this organized 

crime; I am wondering whether we have the tools and the will to 

actually break its back. I realize that is a mighty tough chore, but 

I am certain it is a worthy fight. 

Today I hope we can learn more about the ongoing efforts to 

wage this good fight as well as what more can be done by DHS— 

not only DHS, but by its interagency partners at Justice and State. 

After all, this is an intricate issue that demands the full attention 

of all of those responsible for supporting security here at home and 

within neighbors as strategically important to us as Mexico. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our discussion. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
376 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 480 here 52999A.297
377 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here 52999A.298
378 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here 52999A.299
379 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Koumans. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK KOUMANS

Mr. KOUMANS. Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to join today’s panel on the subject Secretary Napolitano has 

called one of her top priorities that requires our utmost attention. 

I was asked to speak about DHS initiatives with Mexico to address the shared challenge of violence, organized crime, and weapon smuggling across our southern border. The DHS Office of International Affairs is charged with coordinating the Department’s 

international policies and programs, which are often carried out by 

operational components like ICE, CBP, and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

My expert colleagues on this panel can speak in more detail about 

some of the programs they oversee. My testimony will focus more 

broadly on the steps the Department has taken. 

Let me begin by outlining the seriousness of the problem. On 

February 25th, Secretary Napolitano told the Homeland Security 

Committee that Mexico right now has issues of violence that are 

of a different degree and level than we have seen before. 

In January of 2009, there were three times as many murders in 

Ciudad Juarez as in January 2008, so there appears to be no abatement. This bloodshed is the work of networks of organized crime 

that exists along the U.S.-Mexican border. These well-funded and 

well-armed criminal groups traffic in narcotics, firearms, currency, 

and human beings, and commit shocking atrocities to protect their 

commerce. Mexican President Calderon has taken aggressive and 

successful actions to fight these cartels, and the traffickers have 

predictably responded with more brutality. 

Secretary Napolitano has acknowledged Mexico’s courageous battle as well as the DHS’s responsibility to support it, stating that 

the cash that is feeding these cartels is cash that is made off the 

sale of illegal drugs. The weapons are primarily coming from the 

United States. There is an interconnection there. 

DHS brings a range of capabilities and statutory authorities to 

bear on the mission of securing our southwestern border while facilitating the legitimate movement of people and goods. I will highlight initiatives in fighting border violence, armed smuggling, illegal immigration, money laundering, and narcotics and bulk cash 

smuggling. 

The Merida Initiative is the focal point of the U.S. Security cooperation with Mexico, embodying a shared responsibility and commitment to eliminate the threat of organized crime. We envision 

the Merida Initiative as a multiyear program to provide Mexico 

and Central America with equipment, training, and long-term reform assistance to better enable law enforcement agencies to complete their missions. DHS sees Merida as an important tool to multiply capabilities on both sides of the border. The DHS works hand 

in hand with the Department of State, which, as you know, leads 

the Merida efforts to make sure that funds are directed to priority 

areas. 

Let me now turn to some specific DHS initiatives. 

To better coordinate law enforcement efforts, and address violence along the southwest border, ICE leads interagency Border 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
380 

Enforcement Security Taskforces, BESTs, which include U.S. and 

Mexican law enforcement agencies. The ICE attache office in Mexico City has also established Mexican vetted units, 70-plus officers 

strong, that work with ICE to expand criminal investigations and 

target cross-border crimes. 

To combat illicit weapon smuggling, ICE and CBP have spearheaded Operation Armas Cruzadas in partnership with Mexico to 

identify, disrupt and dismantle gun-running criminal networks. As 

is the case in other areas, the equipment and training Merida 

promises to provide will increase Mexican capabilities. For its part, 

Mexico is also taking new steps to address smuggling via pilot programs to screen incoming traffic. 

In the area of counternarcotics, DHS components and their Mexican counterparts work together to disrupt drug-trafficking organizations on land, sea, and air. The Merida Initiative will help enhance our work by supporting bilateral information sharing with 

vetted investigative units, law enforcement training, and interdiction efforts. 

Secretary Napolitano has stressed the need to target the cash 

flow of organized crime. Through Operation Firewall, ICE is 

teamed up with CBP to implement the drug initiative that targets 

both cash smuggling with strategic interdiction operations. 

Finally, to address human trafficking and illegal immigration, 

CBP has implemented Operation OASIS in collaboration with 

Mexican authorities. Under OASIS, the two sides cooperate to identify and prosecute violent human smugglers. Under the Merida Initiative, we in Mexico intend to expand OASIS across the entire 

U.S.-Mexican border. 

In conclusion, I hope these brief descriptions do justice to the impressive efforts of the brave men and women of ICE, CBP, and 

other parts of DHS. They have achieved a remarkable level of cooperation between DHS and Mexican counterparts. This cooperation is supported by the Secretary’s commitment to team up with 

Mexico in its fight with organized crime. 

Secretary Napolitano has already discussed these issues with 

Mexican Ambassador Sarukhan and Mexican Attorney General Medina Mora, and she has announced her intention to travel to Mexico in April to continue these efforts. She has committed DHS to 

do all it can to cooperate with Mexico against these common 

threats. 

DHS is proud to be at the forefront of the strategic partnership 

with our southern neighbor, and we share a responsibility, and we 

have a commitment to assist Mexico in defeating the criminal elements that undermine the rule of law and cause such violence. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
381 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 488 here 52999A.300
382 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 489 here 52999A.301
383 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 490 here 52999A.302
384 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 491 here 52999A.303
385 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 492 here 52999A.304
386 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 493 here 52999A.305
387 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here 52999A.306
388 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here 52999A.307
389 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here 52999A.308
390 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Forman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MARCY FORMAN

Ms. FORMAN. Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of Secretary 

Napolitano and Acting Assistant Secretary Torres, I would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE’s efforts to combat 

cross-border crime. 

Secretary Napolitano is committed to addressing the violence and 

the sociocrime on the border, and augmenting the Department’s existing resources of additional ICE assets to meet the threat of 

weapons and bulk cash smuggling. The ICE-led Border Enforcement Security Taskforce, better known as BEST, leverages the authorities and resources of its federal, state, local, tribal and international partners to combat border violence. 

I would like to share an example that illustrates the critical role 

that ICE has in fighting transnational organizations. 

On August 16, 2007, ICE agents and task force officers from the 

BEST, located in Rio Grande Valley, Texas, were conducting surveillance on Eric Aguayez, a suspect involved in weapons trafficking. Agents observed him exit a residence, place a black duffel 

bag in his vehicle, and drive towards Mexico. Agents then coordinated with CBP to establish an outbound inspection at the Brownsville-Matamoros bridge of entry. A search of his vehicle resulted in 

the discovery of a disassembled .50-caliber semiautomatic rifle and 

a 10-round magazine. This weapon retails for approximately 

$9,000, but is sold on the black market for three times that price 

and is used primarily for military purposes. 

BEST agents were able to link Aguayez to a significant armssmuggling organization. This criminal enterprise supplied weapons 

to the members of the violent gulf cartel security forces known as 

Los Zetas. Aguayez was arrested on Federal smuggling charges and 

subsequently convicted on export charges. 

ICE and the BEST counter the illicit movement of people, money 

and contraband across our borders with a comprehensive mix of 

cross-border authorities and expertise. ICE maintains the largest 

Federal investigative workforce along the Southwest border. ICE 

and the BEST extend the reach of their investigations into the 

heart of Mexico through our ICE attache ́ offices and trusted Mexican partners. 

ICE works closely across agency and international boundaries to 

disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations both in the United 

States and abroad. The following example illustrates how ICE 

leverages its international partnerships to get results. Just last 

week, on March 6, 2009, ICE agents provided intelligence to the 

Mexican Federal Police regarding a residence in Mexico suspected 

of housing weapons, tactical gear, and marijuana associated with 

a violent drug-trafficking organization. The Mexican Federal Police 

executed a search warrant and arrested 15 alleged hitmen. In addition to the arrest, Mexican authorities seized two military-grade 

Colt M–4 rifles with grenade launchers and ammunition. 

Weapons and related materials provided by smugglers to criminal organizations perpetuate the violence along the U.S.-Mexico 

border. ICE contributes to the fight by two bilateral initiatives: OpVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00390 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
391 

eration Firewall, to address bulk cash smuggling, and Operation 

Armas Cruzadas, to address weapons smuggling. 

In June 2008, ICE launched Operation Armas Cruzadas. As part 

of this initiative, DHS and the Government of Mexico agreed to 

partner an unprecedented bilateral cooperation to disrupt the flow 

of weapons from the United States to Mexico. Since the initiation 

of Armas Cruzadas, the operation has netted 104 criminal arrests 

and the seizure of 420 weapons and over 110,000 rounds of ammunition. Armas Cruzadas utilizes the BEST as the multiagency platform to combat weapons smuggling and other transborder crimes. 

Just this past week in Rio Grande Valley, the BEST in Rio 

Grande Valley and CBP officers seized 64 handgun primers and 19 

pounds of smokeless ammunition powder. Collectively these items 

have the ability to produce ammunition. Also seized were over 

1,000 rounds of high-caliber bullets. 

Since July 2005, the 12 strategically located BESTs at our Nation’s southern, northern, and sea borders, have been responsible 

for over 2,000 criminal arrests and the seizure of almost 170,000 

pounds of narcotics, 515 weapons, and over $22 million in cash. 

Operation Firewall targets illicit money couriers who utilize commercial and private transportation bound for Mexico and South 

America to identify the source of their illegal funds and the responsible criminal organizations. Since inception, Operation Firewall 

has resulted in the seizure of $178 million and 416 arrests. Of the 

178 million seized, over 62 million were seized in Mexico, Central, 

and South America. 

The following are examples of successes of Operation Firewall: On July 22, 2008, Mexican Customs seized over $2 million in U.S. 

currencies discovered inside radiator heaters bound for Colombia. 

In November 2008, CBP officers and ICE agents found over 

500,000 in bulk currency in Laredo, Texas, concealed inside the 

rear quarter panels of a vehicle. Also concealed with the currency 

was a Glock .40-caliber handgun, 3 magazines and 100 rounds of 

ammunition. The subject was arrested and charged with bulk cash 

smuggling. 

DHS, under the leadership of Secretary Napolitano, and ICE is 

committed to stemming the cross-border criminal activity associated with the violence through the deployment of the BEST, Operation Armas Cruzadas and Operation Firewall. 

I thank the Subcommittee for all its support of ICE and the law 

enforcement mission. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
392 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here 52999A.309
393 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here 52999A.310
394 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here 52999A.311
395 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 52999A.312
396 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 52999A.313
397 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 52999A.314
398 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 52999A.315
399 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 52999A.316
400 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 52999A.317
401 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 52999A.318
402 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 52999A.319
403 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 52999A.320
404 

BORDER SECURITY RAMIFICATIONS ON CBP MISSION

Mr. PRICE. Thanks to all of you for appearing here and helping 

us address this critical aspect of border security. And that is really 

the question I want to start with, returning to the theme enunciated in my own statement. What are the broader border security 

ramifications of this development on the Mexican side? So much of 

the discussion does have to do with the spillover onto our side of 

the border and incidents of violence, horrific in some cases, that involve U.S. communities and U.S. citizens, but I take it that is not 

the only issue. 

Secretary Napolitano says this situation deserves our utmost attention. There is a broader issue at stake with respect to the Mexican Government’s control of its own territory, a broader concern 

with respect to the kinds of coordination and cooperation that we 

need with that government for a whole range of border security 

functions. 

So let me just pose a couple of questions along these lines. 

Mr. Ahern, I would like you to reflect on the breadth of this concern and how it affects your basic mission, and the kind of charge 

you have to protect the border and all of the ramifications of that. 

And then, Mr. Koumans, maybe you in particular—you and Ms. 

Forman have both done a good job of outlining the current efforts, 

and we appreciate those efforts—but I wonder if you could just 

elaborate for us what it means to give this our utmost attention. 

What are the main ways in which these efforts need to be stepped 

up and accelerated and taken to a different level? 

But, Mr. Ahern, at first I am interested in this broader impact, 

because I don’t think we capture the danger here totally in simply 

looking at the cross-border incursions. 

Mr. AHERN. Thank you for the opportunity to give my thoughts 

on this topic. 

I think, first off, when you take a look at Mexico, you have to 

look at its strategic location to United States, obviously one of our 

closest neighbors in addition to Canada, so just its proximity creates a threat to begin with. 

You also then look at their value as one of our most significant 

trading partners. You see as far as a significant impact that this 

violence can have occurring in Mexico to the production capabilities 

within Mexico, and generating wealth for the economy, and then 

stability for that nation and its cross-border movement of trade 

into the United States. I think that is a key aspect. 

When you take a look at the violence, you are seeing diminishment on the amount of cross-border travel that occurs with a lot 

of people who would routinely go to some of these Mexican communities just south of the border for routine travel and tourism-type 

things. We are seeing that as far as an impact. So that, again, 

leads to the instability that is occurring in these areas. 

When you take a look at it certainly from the threat that it poses 

to our organization, I spoke of the violence on our officers and 

agents, and I won’t cover that point again. That is also a very real 

issue that is out there, not so much as far as the cartel violence 

that is occurring for the fights over the plazas south of the border 

in these Mexican communities, but as far as just the consequence 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
405 

of the drug trafficking, and also as far—as the Chief speaks about, 

as far as the transformation of the border. As we gain more operational control, we are stressing them greatly. So we are seeing 

that manifest itself in violence on our officers. 

But when you take a look at where we are with Mexico, I think 

it is certainly important to note that we have had a significant undertaking with Mexico for the last several years. It is not just as 

far as within the last few months or in the last couple of years 

under Merida. We have been working with them at strategic levels 

in all areas of the government down there and along the cross-border communities to make sure that we provide them with the 

training, the assistance, and the capacity building to make sure 

that they are able to fight this fight as they go forward. 

I think certainly when you take a look at the initiatives that are 

now being considered as we get into this year and beyond, the 

Merida Initiative will certainly add some additional value for training assistance, but also as far as bringing technology and other capabilities to Mexico to continue to sustain this effort as it goes further. I think those will be key aspects going forward. 

Finally, two remaining pieces for our responsibilities within CBP: 

First, making sure that we are, as the Secretary has directed us 

to do, stepping up the southbound efforts going into Mexico; and 

second making sure that we actually have the ability to take off 

some of the drug proceeds going into Mexico that is actually being 

smuggled back as part of the proceeds of this illicit trade going on 

in Mexico. In partnering with ICE in that, we have had over $23 

million in the first few months of this fiscal year. That is substantially higher than last year. Weapons as well. 

One of the things I think this government has to do a better job 

of doing is defining this 95 percent representation that continues 

to get made out there. About 95 percent of the weapons that are 

actually found in Mexico come from the United States. I think 

there is some nuance to that, and we need to continue to drill down 

with the U.S. law enforcement agencies that it is 95 percent of the 

commercially sourced weapons that are actually available in the 

United States that make their way to Mexico, and there are a lot 

more military grade that are coming in from other sources. We 

need to make a better definition so there is not the assumption 

they are all coming from here. 

But those are just some initial thoughts. 

ACCELERATE COOPERATION LEVELS

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Koumans, just briefly, if you can telegraph a few 

areas, and we will explore them further. 

Mr. KOUMANS. If I understood your question correctly, and thank 

you for the opportunity, you asked how to accelerate and how to 

take our cooperation to new levels? 

Mr. PRICE. What are the main dimensions of a stepped-up effort 

as you envision it? 

Mr. KOUMANS. I will try to give a two-part answer. One is on the 

Mexican side of the border; one is on the U.S. side. 

On the Mexican side, the centerpiece of the stepped-up cooperation is the Merida Initiative. It is a long-term partnership in terms 

of training and capacity building and equipment that we would be 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
406 

able to jointly work with Mexico. I want to stress that this is not 

the way it has occasionally been portrayed, as funding that would 

be provided to Mexico directly. I don’t believe any of it is being provided directly to Mexico. 

This equipment that we discussed with them, discussed their 

needs, understand what they are, and then provide the equipment, 

provide the training to them so that it is not a question of cash 

that is being provided to Mexico. I want to make that clear. 

Also, the information and intelligence exchange that comes with 

the closer partnership, I think that is the ramping-up on that side, 

if I could just encapsulate it that way. 

On the U.S. side, I think Acting Commissioner Ahern has mentioned it is the weapons, it is the cash, it is trying to make sure— 

and Secretary Napolitano has asked us to really think outside the 

box, so to speak, if there is more that we could do, whether it is 

with respect to dogs or with respect to southbound inspections? Let 

us just sort of canvass the entire area and see if this isn’t something we can do anywhere. That is an assessment that is ongoing, 

and that is something that she definitely wants to spend a lot of 

time focusing on. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rogers. 

SPILLOVER VIOLENCE INTO THE UNITED STATES

Mr. ROGERS. I am sorry. I don’t think our government is, A, admitting to the truth of what is going on in Mexico; or, B, sufficiently tackling it. I think we are conveniently hiding our head in 

the sands of Cancun beach, and we are not seeing what the real 

problem is. It is a real problem for the United States of America. 

Now, the Intelligence Community, the U.S. Intelligence Community, and DHS both view the escalating violence as a major security 

concern, but they do not yet view this turf war between the cartels 

as a serious threat to the political stability of Mexico or conclude 

that there is notable spillover violence into the U.S. 

Let me point out we just arrested 750 people associated with the 

Mexican drug trade across the United States 2 weeks ago, 750 

members of the cartel from Mexico and in U.S. cities. Don’t tell me 

there are no spillover possibilities in the United States. Every 

major city in this country has legs of the Mexican drug cartel; do 

they not? Anyone want to dispute that? Didn’t think so. 

An estimated 90 percent of the cocaine entering the United 

States transits Mexico from South America. In exchange, it is estimated there is $23 billion a year that flows south from the United 

States predominantly to the Mexican drug cartels, not to mention 

the weapons that go along with it. 

Mexico serves as the main foreign supplier of marijuana, major 

supplier of methamphetamines to the United States. Mexico accounts for only a small share of worldwide heroin production, but 

it supplies a large share of heroin consumed in the United States. 

In other words, it is transiting Mexico. 

Mexican drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug 

market in the U.S. It is Mexico, and it is the drug cartels in Mexico. Now, do you think they bring those drugs and leave them on 

the border with the United States, and that is the end of it? No. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
407 

Of course not. They have to distribute the drugs in the United 

States and receive the proceeds from that and transit the proceeds 

back to the cartels in Mexico. For that you need an organization 

in the United States. 

And they are the dominant supplier of all drugs in the United 

States in every city and town in this country. And yet we have our 

head in the sand saying there is no notable spillover violence into 

the U.S. Give me a break. 

Do you think the killings, and the beheadings, and the torture, 

and the assassinations and the corruption in Mexico is limited to 

Mexico? Of course not. It is a major problem inside the U.S., and 

yet I don’t see us taking it seriously. Please tell me I am wrong, 

Mr. Ahern. 

Mr. AHERN. I think one of the things we obviously led you to conclude is that we didn’t believe there was a certain amount of drug 

activity that actually transits our borders in United States, and the 

criminal enterprise that becomes part of that with the proceeds and 

the weapons that go back south, and that actually leaves a lot of 

crime in the city. That was not the intent of our statement. 

What we were alluding to is that we have not seen the spillover 

in mass quantities of people looking to mass migration out of Mexico or fleeing of individuals from Mexico because of that violence 

coming north across our border. So that was the characterization 

that we were looking to achieve in our statement, not that there 

has not been a result of the drug product that is being sourced or 

transited through Mexico ending up here in the consumption in the 

United States and the whole criminal enterprise surrounding that. 

We are not ignoring that fact at all. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, thank you. And I don’t see a corresponding action. Admittedly the State Department, Justice Department notably, ought to be on this with all four feet. And the BEST groups 

are working. But I don’t think there is a realization by our government yet of the seriousness to the instability of Mexico, and we are 

talking about armed gangs of maybe 100,000 people belonging to 

these cartels, which rivals the Army of Mexico, armed probably better than the Army of Mexico. And the President, God bless him, is 

moving those troops to the U.S. border. I think some 7,000 were 

moved up to El Paso or Juarez just recently. 

So the Mexican Government realizes the difficulties. And, you 

know, you can only imagine what would happen if the gangs took 

over Mexico, the Government of Mexico. It is not beyond comprehension. And the difficulties that that would cause the United 

States are unimaginable. And yet I do not see the U.S. taking this 

thing as serious as they need to take it. 

Let me just close with this, Mr. Chairman, to remind us of what 

we are in for here: the brutal kidnapping, torture, and murder of 

retired Brigadier General Enrique Tello, a high-ranking 

counterdrug official in Mexico, in Cancun a couple of weeks ago. 

They broke his wrists, they broke his elbows, they broke his knees 

in the torturing process, and then finally murdered him; especially 

troubling because it involved a corrupt chief of police in Cancun 

and violated a long-standing cartel tradition of making sure that 

Cancun remains a safe tourist destination and a safe haven for the 

cartels’ operation. They want to keep that place untouched, and yet 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
408 

that is where they tortured and murdered this high-ranking general in the Mexican operation. 

And so, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think we are taking 

this nearly as seriously as we need to take it. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

LICENSED FIREARMS DEALERS

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I can’t help but think that this is a border with bilateral issues, 

and certainly Mexico is one of our largest neighbors next to Canada, is really one of the leading countries in the world. I think it 

ranks 15th in the world in GDP, and it is California’s number one 

trading partner and is obviously very important to our economy, 

and yet a country that is very serious about the problems of 

transnational cartels that are passing through their country and 

corrupting their people. 

But if we were a panel today of Mexican Congress Members, and 

we were having the same hearings, we might look at this border 

a little bit differently, because last year 5,376 people, citizens of 

Mexico, were killed by the cartel. Of those were 850 police and 

military. If we had lost 850 Border Patrol and Marine officers last 

year, we, Congress, would be absolutely livid. Why is this happening? 

And what they would be asking is, what is going on? Why is all 

of this cash from America being able to flow down here to buy this 

stuff, and why are all of these arms—95 percent of the weapons 

seized were American arms. They would be looking at it as an 

American arms cartel. And I think a lot of people, at least in my 

State or in my district, would argue that those guns killed a hell 

of a lot more people than marijuana that was smuggled into this 

country. 

I mean, I think we have to put this into perspective, and I think 

to get it into perspective is we have bureaucracy jurisdictional disputes here. We have 7,600 Federal firearms-licensed dealers in the 

border States. And the ATF is responsible for inspecting those, and 

they don’t get around in less than 5 percent of them. And they 

don’t have the manpower. And so you say, well, it is their responsibility. Well, let us change it, because our Secretary emphasized in 

her testimony the necessity for a broad, multiagency response to 

attack the flow of weapons and money that continues to fuel the 

violence. That is our side. That is us. 

So what are you doing, as law enforcement, to make sure that 

every one of those 7,600 Federal firearms-licensed firearms dealers 

are inspected regularly? And what is your plan to do that this 

year? 

Mr. AHERN. Well, I think certainly from Custom and Border Protection’s perspective, you correctly stated this is not necessarily the 

responsibility of this organization. 

Mr. FARR. Let us make it the responsibility. Can you do that? 

Mr. AHERN. I don’t think that is within our jurisdictional responsibility. 

Mr. FARR. Can you do it if we give you the jurisdiction? 

Mr. AHERN. I think this needs to be looked at in a comprehensive 

way, sir. And I think one of the things—going back to even the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
409 

Ranking Member’s comments, I think that the United States Government has not acknowledged necessarily, or this Subcommittee 

who has actually provided significant appropriations, to taking a 

look at one of the most significant parts of this problem, and that 

is the drug trade coming north from Mexico to the United States. 

Mr. FARR. The Merida Initiative is about investing in the infrastructure of Mexico to handle that problem. I am asking about 

what we are doing in this country to handle our problem. 

Mr. AHERN. I was going to get to that point when I take a look 

at what we have done to actually provide greater responsibilities 

and securities of our border so that the drugs do not come to the 

United States to then turn into proceeds to go back south. That is 

a key part of any strategy. That is going to be an essential component going forth. That is our responsibility, and that is what this 

committee has been very good as far as doubling the funds of our 

organization from 2004 to 2009. 

Mr. FARR. How much funding does the ATF have for inspecting 

those 7,000 gun dealers, and obviously they are on the border because it is good business. 

Mr. AHERN. I don’t have what the funding is for it. 

Mr. FARR. The ICE has 20,000 employees, and CBP has 20,000 

employees. You each have budgets in the billions, and it is about 

this border, it is about transborder stuff. If the ATF can’t do the 

job, then let us put it in the hands of somebody who can that is 

already there along the border. Maybe the ICE can respond to that. 

Ms. FORMAN. Sir, as Commissioner Ahern alluded to, it has to be 

done together with the collective resources. We work very closely 

with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm, ATF, in addressing this, 

and that is the benefit of the Border Enforcement Security 

Taskforces. 

Mr. FARR. Let me just ask the question. What is it going to take 

to inspect all of these gun dealers? If I were a Mexican legislator, 

and all of these people had been killed in my law enforcement and 

military people, I would want to know what the heck the United 

States is going to do. And you haven’t been able to give me an answer. 

Ms. FORMAN. You would have to get with ATF since they have 

the jurisdiction, and they can give a better assessment, sir. 

Mr. FARR. I pity your Ambassador. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thank you. 

We are happy to welcome our Full Committee Ranking Member. 

And, with unanimous consent, we will run him ahead of his colleagues here and invite him to make whatever statement he would 

like at this point. 

STRENGTHEN OUR ABILITY TO COORDINATE WITH OTHER AGENCIES

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very sorry to arrive late, but I was at a hearing regarding 

the Merida Initiative in the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. The 

need for coordination between our Subcommittees and our various 

responsibilities is very obvious. 

Mr. Farr began by raising the right questions regarding some of 

the arms questions, but we have to change the law to give them 

that authority. And we are just beginning to think through what 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
410 

our responsibility is here. It seems to me that it is very important 

for us to know that this is a crisis. 

For the first time in my memory, suddenly the responsible leadership of Mexico is attempting to reach out to the United States in 

a foreign, kind of, policy way. Historically, their sovereignty issues 

have said, we don’t want foreign aid from the United States, et 

cetera. But this problem is so serious in terms of impacting the 

lives of their people and so serious also in terms of dollar flows that 

can corrupt their society. It is obviously a huge problem on our 

side. Even though some people would say ‘‘relatively small numbers,’’ et cetera, my God, what is happening with those drugs to 

kids in Chicago and New York and Los Angeles is unacceptable 

from an American perspective. 

Historically, the border towns along our border, from a Mexican 

perspective, have really been the million-dollar slumlord circumstance. They could have cared less about Tijuana and Juarez, 

et cetera. Mexico City is pretty snooty about their northern border. 

Now, because of the drug circumstance and the challenges, that is 

changing. They are allowing for some serious coordination. And I 

would hope you would give us some ideas as to how we can better 

strengthen your ability to coordinate with other agencies. 

In the other hearing I just came from, I learned that one of our 

problems is the Department of Defense, in some way, puts Afghanistan ahead of the challenges on the Mexican border. I used to chair 

that Subcommittee, the Defense Subcommittee. Today I will tell 

you I think what is going on between our biggest trading partner, 

from a California perspective, and this drug problem makes it our 

number-one challenge. And so I would hope we would re-examine 

what we have done with the law to allow all of these agencies to 

work better together. 

In terms of just equipment, UAVs are being used on both the 

northern and the southern border of the United States reasonably 

effectively. But the Department of Defense is not making available 

helicopters. You can’t chase these people around in trucks, for 

goodness sakes, and yet they are, kind of, awaiting the newest of 

helicopters to come off the assembly line. We have helicopters in 

mothballs that can be pulled out if we give this crisis proportion. 

And I would hope your voices would help us look at our law and 

the agencies that you coordinate with to allow you to better do the 

job I know you want to do. It is killing kids in the United States, 

but it potentially could destroy this great country, our neighbor to 

the south, Mexico. 

So I really come today largely to listen to you but also deliver 

that message. All of us must help us better figure out how we can 

change our law, broaden the regulations otherwise to allow you to 

be more effective at your job. So that is a long way of saying that 

I have great respect for what you are trying to do, but we haven’t 

done a very good job of examining how we can help you do it better. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We welcome your comment. 

Mr. AHERN. I think certainly, to the aspect of UASs, we do have 

six in our inventory now. We are using them very effectively. We 

have been in discussions with the DOD about any additional assets 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
411 

for light helicopters to be able to take a lot of chief’s response 

teams into certain areas. We are still continuing those discussions. 

I think, again, I want to try to make another attempt at talking 

about a comprehensive approach here. We need to make sure as far 

as that we are doing things from a variety of perspectives. We need 

to be looking, as this Subcommittee has funded Customs and Border Protection to the tune of well over $100 million, to go ahead 

and provide service life extension to our P–3 aircraft, so we can do 

more interdiction in the transit zone, which I spoke about in the 

first hearing, where, just in the first few days of January of this 

year, we had four semi-submersible subs that had 25 metric tons 

that did not get into Mexico. 

So you have the ability to have a defense-in-depth strategy, you 

can go ahead and be more successful, take out the transportation, 

take out the violence that is occurring in Mexico by having a better 

defense-in-depth strategy. We are doing more of that again. Thank 

you to this committee for providing the extension for our P–3s to 

keep them up. They are working in coordination with the Navy and 

the Coast Guard through JIATF-South out of Key West. That has 

to be a key component. 

And then certainly, as far as it was spoken about, is we need to 

help Mexico, we need to help build the capacity through training 

assistance and deployment of additional technology and help them 

manage their borders to the south as well as to the north. We are 

prepared to do that under the Merida Initiative. And we will continue to have other initiatives through Firewall and other things 

that we have been doing with Mexico for a number of years to continue to take a full-court press in those aspects as well. 

Again, I don’t think it should be just dismissed, what this Subcommittee has funded for Customs and Border Protection, for 

building 610 miles of fence and doubling the size of the Border Patrol and adding additional assets for ports of entry to make sure 

that we do have a good, strategic defense at our borders to make 

sure that we continue to interdict more and provide that level of 

security here. I think those are just some examples of what we 

need to continue to build that defense-in-depth strategy, not a single solution to this very significant problem, sir. 

WEAPONRY FROM CHINA, INDIA, AND OTHER SOURCES

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we wouldn’t, as a 

Committee, get so wrapped up in the gun control rhetoric here that 

we fail to recognize there are monies being used to buy weaponry 

from China, from India and other number of sources that are major 

factors in their ability—that is, the drug gangs, to exercise themselves in a very violent way. We absolutely must plug in our intelligence agencies in a way that they are really helping us but helping the Mexican Government better understand how we go beyond 

just building a wall between Mexico and the United States. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

STRIKE FORCE CONCEPT AND FUNDING

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I agree with Mr. Ahern. You need a comprehensive approach. But I would like to talk about some solutions. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
412 

Can we state our positions? Sometimes we might not know what 

your jurisdiction is. 

Number one, we are successful in other parts of the world. I said 

that in the last round. And if we want to make a difference here 

in our own borders, that we have not been able to do, it has to start 

at the top. It has to start with the President. And the President 

needs to be able to fund what needs to happen. You have to have 

a plan. 

Now, let’s look at some of the things that work. I think probably 

one of the best organizations that I have seen that probably helped 

us with the issue of terrorism but other issues is JTTF. You all are 

involved. You have Federal, State, and local. You have NSA, you 

have CIA, you have a strike force concept. And when you have a 

strike force concept, it is team work. You know, it is not one agency 

pitted against another. I mean, I have seen personally Homeland 

Security battling with the FBI on some issues, or with the New 

York City Police. So, you know, you need that concept. And do you 

agree with a strike force concept? Because then you have the team 

looking at where you need to go. I am going to ask you that. 

Secondly is the funding. If we don’t take seriously what is happening in Mexico and how it is affecting and impacting our crime, 

our drug gangs in the United States, then we are really saying we 

are going to spend more money in other parts of the world than 

we are right at our own border. If a country can’t control its borders, what can they do? 

And the other issue that I think is extremely important is that 

we need to look at successes. I think we need to look at Colombia, 

those of us who have been involved in intelligence and other areas. 

Colombia is working because of a couple of reasons. One is you 

have a president at the top who is not corrupt and is taking a 

strong position. You have that with Calderon right now. Fox didn’t 

have the power; Calderon does. So we have a window of opportunity to deal with that. 

You have to deal—when are dealing with another country, you 

have to develop the relationships with the people, who you can 

trust and who you don’t, and you have to take out those corrupt 

people, whether it is policemen, military, whatever. But I think 

with Calderon there and his ability to move the troops to the front 

line right now, it makes a difference, with our help. It can only be 

done with our help. 

Intelligence, as Mr. Lewis said, is so important. You need the intelligence, not only to collect it, but you also need it to analyze it 

so we know where our priorities are and where we need to go and 

how we need to do it. 

Now, I have just thrown out some issues. Please comment on 

some of my comments. 

Mr. AHERN. I think, certainly, when you two talk about as far as 

the task force concept, that makes perfect sense to us. And I think 

on probably just about everything you stated there is—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Because you don’t get involved in the jurisdiction issue. Like, Mr. Farr was right; what can you do? Well, you 

can’t because by law you can’t, and you don’t have the resources 

either. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
413 

Mr. AHERN. Right. So I think that makes sense for us to continue 

to work through those. And, as Ms. Forman can speak to, the 

BEST task force is what we are doing jointly with ICE and CBP 

again. We are actually the interdiction agency, which actually feeds 

off a lot of the intelligence and the investigative information. So it 

is in our interest to be closely aligned with a lot of the task forces 

and be part of those. That makes great sense for us. 

One of the final points that you talked about for, you know, intelligence-driven—certainly when you look at the traffic going into 

Mexico of weapons and money, I believe one of the most effective 

ways that we will be successful going forward is to be much more 

intel-driven and investigative-driven. Because, again, people going 

into Mexico can actually predict and they can kind of pulse their 

time when they are going to be trying to smuggle weapons or currency into Mexico. So they can actually hold off, whereas, northbound, they know they have to come through that process for being 

admitted into the United States. There is not that same rigor going 

in the southbound mode. 

That is one of the things the Secretary has challenged us to put 

it together. And, actually, I don’t want to get ahead of the Secretary or the President’s budget, which will be coming forward very 

shortly, but you will see some initiatives in there. And, certainly, 

the Congress will have an opportunity to enhance that, if you see 

so fit. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I agree with that. All you have to look at 

is Iraq and our sophistication now and our ability to take out bad 

guys in Iraq, al Qaeda. One of the things that has occurred in Iraq 

is that we have been able to really hurt al Qaeda. If we use those 

same resources and same focus at the Mexican border, we could be 

able to do the same thing. And we have not done it. And, again, 

it starts at the top, with Congress approving it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Calvert. 

COORDINATION

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to carry on with the theme that seems to be 

coming around here, and that is coordination. Putting aside marijuana, crack cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine, I don’t want to 

dwell on it, but it seems to me thousands of people’s lives have 

been lost to methamphetamine and thousands of families destroyed 

because of drugs, including cocaine and certainly heroin and the 

rest of it. It is a poison that is affecting our country. 

Our jails in California are jammed full of prisoners. We can’t get 

more prisoners in our jails. As a matter of fact, we are going to 

have to do a release, apparently, of so-called nonviolent criminals 

in order to get more room for the criminals, many of which, if not 

the majority, are drug-related. 

And there is a lot of cash involved in this. And we are talking 

about corruption in Mexico, but when you have this much money, 

as Mr. Rogers indicated, $25 billion approximately, in profits from 

this drug trade supposedly moving back south to Mexico, I suspect 

a lot of it stays in the United States. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
414 

And while we are doing this coordination, I remember back years 

ago when we had the problems in south Florida with the Colombian drug trade, the U.S. Treasury had a lot to do with stopping 

that trafficking by using their ability to go after the cash and go 

after the individuals who were distributing both the drugs and 

hoarding the cash and sending it back to Colombia. What efforts 

are we doing to work with Treasury and other agencies to go after 

these folks and to capture them? 

Ms. FORMAN. If I can address that, Congressman, I actually was 

around during the 1980s when Miami had that influx of cash, and 

we are using a lot of the same tools. We work in partnership with 

Treasury. ICE, through the Homeland Security Act, has adopted all 

the authorities necessary to go work with our partners at CBP to 

go after the money that fuels this criminal activity. 

We are using the Bank Secrecy Act. We are using the new authorities under the PATRIOT Act to go after bulk cash smuggling, 

which actually criminalized the smuggling of currency outside this 

country. And the number-one requirement is those criminal organizations who obviously will not report that money going—— 

BULK CASH SMUGGLING

Mr. CALVERT. Let me ask quickly, on this bulk cash smuggling, 

is that primarily going across the border by land, or is it going by 

air, or is it going by sea, or all of the above? 

Ms. FORMAN. All of the above. 

Mr. CALVERT. Is it going back into Mexico, or is it going to other 

third-party countries? 

Ms. FORMAN. Some of it is staying in Mexico. Some of it is being 

transferred through Central and South America. 

Mr. CALVERT. Some of it is staying in the United States being 

laundered into other so-called legitimate enterprises? 

Ms. FORMAN. Yes, yes. Some of it is being disguised in what we 

refer to as trade-based money laundering, where legitimate goods 

are being used and purchased by corrupt individuals and exported 

into Mexico and other countries. 

PUBLIC OFFICIALS’ CORRUPTION

Mr. CALVERT. So this corruption is not just affecting Mexico, it 

is affecting the United States, there is too much money out there. 

Has there been evidence that you have been able to obtain where 

any public officials have been contaminated by this? 

Ms. FORMAN. Not to the best of my recollection. Oftentimes the 

products themselves in this trade-based money laundering 

scheme—the manufacturers and the importers are willingly selling 

to third parties when they don’t know that the origin of the funds 

are actually from narcotics or some other illicit activity. 

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER

Mr. CALVERT. Any other comments from the rest of the panel? 

One of the things I want to mention, AMOC is in my congressional district at the March Air Reserve Base. You mentioned the 

use of ultralights and this technology, and Chairman Lewis mentioned the problems of not using helicopters. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
415 

Wouldn’t helicopters be helpful in these ultralights? I imagine 

you can see them, but there is not a lot you can do when they are 

flying by. Would helicopters be helpful if you had that equipment 

on the scene? 

Chief AGUILAR. Yes, sir, we do have helicopters; of course we 

could always use more. The capability to detect those ultralights 

flying through our borders is what we are working towards also. 

Mr. CALVERT. Could we improve the technology at AMOC to have 

low-altitude detection? 

Chief AGUILAR. They are looking at that, but we believe our best 

shot at it is going to be through our SBI technology that will cover 

that gap that exists currently between what AMOC can do and—— 

ULTRALIGHTS

Mr. CALVERT. Now, what are they primarily putting on these 

ultralights, is it people or drugs? 

Chief AGUILAR. Narcotics. 

Mr. CALVERT. So if they are putting them on ultralights, highpriced narcotics. What is the primary drug that is on these ultralights? 

Chief AGUILAR. What we have seen is marijuana on the southern 

border. 

Mr. CALVERT. Marijuana? 

Chief AGUILAR. Yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. They don’t put methamphetamine, heroin? 

Chief AGUILAR. Not that we have seen yet. Of course, we know 

that there are others that we just have not—— 

Mr. CALVERT. What is your capture rate on these ultralights, is 

it pretty low? 

Chief AGUILAR. Capture rate? We have radar readings. I think 

we have apprehended all of about six. I don’t have the most up-todate numbers on the actual radar readings. I can get that for you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have 

that. 

[The information follows:] 

For FY 2009, there have been a total of 3 ultralights seized. All were transporting 

marijuana. The remains of a 4th ultralight was found, which had been modified to 

transport narcotics. However, no narcotics were discovered at the scene and it is believed that they had already been loaded up and removed. 

Date seized Amount of drug on board 

10/08/2008 ................................................................................................................................ 223 lbs marijuana 

11/28/2008 ................................................................................................................................ 140 lbs marijuana 

12/23/2008 ................................................................................................................................ 350 lbs marijuana 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez. 

COORDINATION WITH ATF

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. 

And let me apologize. I had a death in the family. I just flew in 

just now. 

But, first of all, let me thank you for what you have been doing. 

And I represent more the border than anybody else in Congress. 

And what is occurring in my area, at least on our side of the borVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00415 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
416 

der, has been really much more than what we had seen in the past, 

and it is pretty safe in comparison to what I hear about other 

places. 

I represent Eagle Pass, and they have a pretty good relationship 

with Piedras Negras. I represent Del Rio, and we have a pretty 

good relationship with Acuna. And we have had some little troubles 

there in Presidio a little bit in terms of with the flood and other 

things, but, you know. And, of course, I have parts of El Paso, but 

not the inner-city. In that area, things seem to be going okay. The 

Border Patrol has a good presence, and it has been beefing up. The 

beefing-up has definitely made a difference, at least in that specific 

area. 

And I know that one of the questions that I would have is there 

were three bridges that were closed, that were small, that were not 

official openings, that create some kind of difficulty, not only in 

terms of trade but also just communication with the other side, the 

ones in Lajitas, Lindalu, Boquillas, where people were having dialogue before. You know, I have lived on the border all my life. We 

would go across and eat and come back. We don’t do that anymore, 

mainly because of the time consumption and other problems that 

exist now. 

And so, I think what has happened now is that—and if we are 

going to displace blame, we all need to take responsibility, including the Congress and the Administration and previous Administration, and that is that we need to have more dialogue with Mexico 

and we need to work closely with Mexico in a variety of different 

ways. We have started to do that. It hasn’t happened as much as 

I would like to see it, because it is our number-one training partner 

for Texas, and I hear that it is the same thing for California and 

number three for the Nation. So we have to make sure that we 

keep trade flowing, but at the same time making sure that the cartels don’t win in Mexico. 

I wanted to ask you about your coordination with ATF. I worked 

hard, along with Senator Hutchison, to get some money there to 

ATF and cut the guns going south. We know that Mexico does not 

allow for their citizens to be able to have guns the way they do, 

and those guns are flowing south. We know money is flowing south 

from the sale of drugs. And we know that we are part of that problem; we have an appetite for drugs. I don’t know what it is; they 

have estimated $50 billion to $80 billion appetite that we have. 

And so they are filling that appetite illegally. 

And so, how do we begin to put a stop to that money flowing 

back, those guns flowing back, and those drugs coming in, as well 

as developing those relationships that I think are essential for us 

to secure our borders? 

Ms. FORMAN. Congressman, if I could address that, thank you for 

your question. I think the border enforcement security task forces 

are a very good start, a very good platform for a multi-agency, comprehensive approach to attacking both currency smuggling as well 

as weapon smuggling. 

In response to your question regarding our relationship with 

ATF, we have a very good relationship with ATF. We coordinate 

regularly. Our Armas Cruzadas initiative, targeting weapons going 

south, is done jointly with ATF. We are in the process of renegotiVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00416 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
417 

ating a memorandum of understanding with ATF. And we are 

working side by side. There are participants in these Border Enforcement Security Task Forces. 

So we are using all the authorities of federal, state, and local. 

And what makes these BESTs more unique is the fact that we actually have Mexican participation in five of our BEST on the southwest border. And there is constant flow of communication, realtime communication. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield briefly on that point? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. The only agency that has authority to prosecute 

arms cases for being smuggled out of the U.S. is ICE in the Department of Homeland Security. ATF is an inside-the-U.S. operation. 

ICE could prosecute those smuggling weapons outside the country. 

And I don’t think ICE is doing a doggone thing about it. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. When you talk about the coordination in that 

area, you know, would you respond to that comment that was 

made? 

Ms. FORMAN. Yes. We currently have eight Border Enforcement 

Security Task Forces on the southwest border, 12 in totality nationwide. ATF are participants, actually sitting side by side with 

ICE and our other federal, state, and local partners. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Who is prosecuting the one that came out in the 

New York Times regarding the Phoenix gun sale of those guns that 

were found, you know, that occurred in Mexico? 

Ms. FORMAN. That case is being worked jointly between the Special Agent in Charge Office in Arizona and the Mexican Government. Our office in Arizona shared that information with the Mexican federal police in order for them to effect that enforcement action. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Now, that is the first one that I hear at 

least—and I apologize, there might be others—but that is the first 

one I hear that is, you know, mainly because it was publicized. Are 

there any others that are occurring as we speak? 

Ms. FORMAN. Yes. We have a number of cases that we are working jointly with the Mexican Government, in a number of forums. 

I can get you a list of those investigations, but we have quite a few. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What do we need to do to help you get the job 

done? 

Ms. FORMAN. First, I would like to thank Congress for the funding that they provided for the Border Enforcement Security Task 

Forces in 2008. I think this is a very strong platform, multi-agency. 

The Secretary has identified the Border Enforcement Security Task 

Forces. They are our response to the Joint Terrorist Task Force, in 

terms of identifying and working and targeting organizations involved in trans-border crime. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If I can ask you maybe later on to give us some 

feedback on some recommendations that might be needed if there 

are some gaps in those areas, okay? 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Carter. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
418 

TRACKING THE MONEY

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My office gives me clippings of things of interest. And yesterday 

it was an article about a man who was shot in a prominent and 

popular, according to the Houston Chronicle, restaurant, shot 

exiting this restaurant by drug cartels. He was shot dead in the 

street. And he just happened to be innocent; he wasn’t the guy they 

were hunting. But they were told to shoot somebody who had on 

a Dallas Cowboys sweatshirt, and this guy, unfortunately, he and 

his family came out, and he was shot dead in front of a very popular restaurant, according to the Houston paper. 

They know it was a drug hit because, a day later, in an apartment, the man they were hunting, they really were going to shoot, 

opened the door and was shot three times in the head, which is 

pretty much a standard-hit-type shot by anybody that is shooting 

somebody. 

Now, I was born and raised in Houston, so, as far as I am concerned, it has spilled across the border, okay. 

Now, I have a couple of questions that I just don’t understand. 

If there is $60 billion to $80 billion worth of money being made 

from drug trafficking, you are not telling me they are packing $60 

billion or $80 billion worth of money across that border in cash. It 

can’t be done. It is too bulky. It is worse than marijuana, okay? So 

somebody is wiring money someplace if that kind of money is moving, okay? 

If there is $60 billion to $80 billion moving, is anybody doing 

anything about tracking the money? And how are you tracking the 

money. 

Ms. FORMAN. Congressman, ICE, in conjunction with CBP and 

our other Federal partners, are tracking the money. We have recognized for over 30 years that the lifeblood of any criminal organization is the money. And there are various ways to move that money. 

Due to the stringent regulations now required by the traditional 

banking and nontraditional banking under the Bank Secrecy Act 

and other legislation, these criminals are being forced to use more 

riskier means. In conjunction with our partners, with CBP, we 

have seized millions upon millions of dollars in bulk currency on 

our Nation’s highways heading south, as well as at the border and 

the ports of entry. 

Yes, there are other ways. There is trade-based money laundering. There are other ways to disguise the origins of the funds, 

which we have also developed initiatives to address, such as our 

Trade Transparency Units working in conjunction with our Federal 

partners, to include Mexico. 

Mr. CARTER. I understand we toss around ‘‘billions,’’ around here, 

like honey bees. But the facts are, the numbers that we just heard 

said three times, because I have been listening, is $60 billion to 

$80 billion—with a ‘‘B,’’ billion dollars. So $100 million is a very 

small portion of $1 billion. And if there are $60 billion or $80 billion, somebody is moving money somewhere besides hauling it 

across the border. 

Another question I have, because this came to me from a—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
419 

Mr. LEWIS. Excuse me. Before you leave that—the Judge is 

touching on a very, very important item. If there are ways that the 

law needs to be changed or regs need to be changed to strengthen 

your hand to better coordinate with CBP and other agencies, our 

intelligence agencies—the money is fundamental. To be happy with 

$100 million that may have been stopped doesn’t even begin to 

touch $23 billion a year, for example. One way or another, this 

needs to be a war on money that relates to drugs, because our kids 

are being killed, let alone worrying about Mexico. Thank you. 

PLANS FOR MASS MIGRATION TO U.S. 

Mr. CARTER. A National Guardsman from Texas rode in the airplane with me up here to Washington, and we were talking about 

the border. He had just been stationed working down on the border 

with the Texas National Guard. He said that they have a pool 

going for when the first RPG will be fired in the United States. 

And I imagine you may have heard about that. 

The question is, there are people that are working that border 

who think that somebody will shoot an RPG in the United States 

in the near future, which means a war has moved across our border. They also are afraid that, if it goes westerly, as we say in 

Texas, down there in the northern part of Mexico, it is going to be 

a war. And when it does, a lot of people are going to trek across 

the border, by the thousands or maybe even millions. Joining those 

people will be people who want to come anyway. 

Do we have any contingency plan to deal with the possible reality that Mexico blows up and people start walking across the border, saying, ‘‘I want to be saved from this violence down here’’ by 

the millions? Do we have any plans working on that? 

Mr. AHERN. I will offer one thought, and then others may want 

to go ahead and add to it. 

I know that previously Secretary Chertoff, going back to June of 

this past year, chartered a group to actually come up with contingency plans for each one of our locations along the border. So every 

single one of our ports of entry, every one of our southwest border 

stations and sectors actually have contingency plans if we start to 

see triggers occurring south of the border that could indicate there 

might be a mass exodus from Mexico or a running gun battle, if 

you will, coming across that border, or this predicted RPG coming 

north. 

So we have actually put those plans in place, and they are very 

detailed at this point in time at each one of the locations, so that 

we have a various tiered approach, if you will. And we have presented this to Secretary Napolitano within the first couple weeks 

of her arrival, as well, and we are continuing to enhance it upon 

her request. 

What do we actually need to do to bring additional resources 

within, first, the first responders, if you will, Customs and Border 

Protection at the border. That is, kind of, the first tier of the plan. 

That is then offset by ICE additional resources. We are talking 

about a special response team, we are talking about our equivalence of SWAT teams that we have within the DHS portfolio. 

A critical piece of this going forward is the State and local governments, as well, that are frequently our first responders or addiVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00419 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
420 

tional reinforcements that come in right away. We have seen it 

when we have had some of the shootings over in Columbus, New 

Mexico, and when we had some of the shootings over in Palomas, 

just going back last summer as well. They are there constantly to 

go ahead and reinforce our efforts in those particular environments. 

Then a lot of it then falls on the back of the State governments, 

what more can they bring to the fight through their department of 

public security or the National Guard, if necessary, depending on 

how things tier going forward. 

So those have been very thoughtfully considered at this point, 

and those plans are ready. And, in fact, we had an incident going 

back a couple weeks ago where we actually exercised it based on 

a piece of intelligence that we are fortunate didn’t develop. 

Mr. CARTER. Do you think that, if you call up the Guard, you will 

give them bullets this time, if that happens? 

Mr. AHERN. Depending on what point in time you are talking 

about, they would certainly be armed and ready to go, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mrs. Lowey. 

RECEIPT OF OVERSEAS PASSENGER LISTS

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I get to my question—and I apologize that I was next door 

at another hearing on Mexico—I just want to make one point, Mr. 

Ahern, since you are before us. 

Chairman Price and I toured JFK Airport in New York. While 

CBP’s screening operation for visitors is very impressive, it did not 

receive passenger lists for incoming overseas flights until 30 minutes before takeoff, which leaves CBP offices a small window of 

time to run passenger names against the terrorist screening database. 

Incoming sea vessels must provide CBP information at least 24 

hours in advance. Airplanes should be no different. If the information must be provided at some point, why not do so 24 hours in advance? 

Mr. Ahern, if you can just say ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ do you think it 

should be? And then I will go on to my relevant question. 

Mr. AHERN. Absolutely I do not think so in the air environment. 

You would cripple the airline industry, because they have a lot of 

last-minute travelers who actually do come. 

What I think is a better solution is the Advance Quick Query, 

known as AQQ, where, as people begin the check-in process oftentimes 2 hours in advance, that we have the ability to run them individually, versus what is currently happening when it gets 

batched and sent to us for targeting. 

One of the other things, too, for individuals who require a visa, 

that continuum begins when they go through the consular office for 

screening before they get on a plane. And now the Department has 

created the ESTA, which is the visa equivalent for individuals coming in. So we can query that before they are even given permission 

to travel in the United States. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
421 

So if we want to deal with an already very fragile industry, go 

ahead and tell them that they need to provide it 24 hours prior, 

you would have probably a lesser capacity than currently fly coming to the country. 

PROGRAM COORDINATION WITH MEXICO

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, I obviously strongly disagree with you, and I 

would like to continue the discussion at another time. 

But, relevant to this hearing, as you know, I just came from a 

State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee hearing on the Merida 

Initiative. And I stressed that proper oversight, accountability, and 

increased transparency were essential in the program’s implementation. I would be interested to hear more specifically about how 

our programs will create greater transparency, address impunity, 

corruption in Mexico’s security and justice systems. 

We had a great deal of confidence in the President. He is just focused working hard trying to develop a strong partnership. But I 

would be very interested how we measure progress to ensure the 

DHS programs are effectively being implemented and proper oversight is being conducted. 

Whoever wants to respond. 

Mr. KOUMANS. Thank you, Congresswoman Lowey, for the opportunity. 

I believe the hearing you may have come from is the hearing that 

the State Department is leading, is that correct? 

Mrs. LOWEY. My hearing, State and Operations, right. 

Mr. KOUMANS. Right, yes. And the State Department, of course, 

has the lead for Merida and has asked us—well, they have also the 

lead in determining metrics. Metrics is a key part of it; transparency is, as well. And we certainly want there to be transparency 

and clarity in achieving those metrics. But the State Department 

has the lead on that, and so we have to defer to them. Obviously, 

I think we would all like to see a decline in violence. 

But one metric that will be hard to measure, but one that we 

have already started to see, is the close cooperation and partnership that we are starting to see with our Mexican counterparts. 

Going back to some of the comments that Congressman Rodriguez 

mentioned, and Congressman Lewis earlier, this is an unprecedented partnership. And, as Congressman Lewis mentioned, there 

was some reluctance on the Mexican side in years gone by about 

developing this kind of, in some cases, somewhat intrusive kind of 

cooperation, where we sit down with them and talk to them about 

what exactly they are doing and how they are doing it and say, 

‘‘Well, actually, we do it this way and maybe we can consider working together, and let’s share some of your data, let’s take a look at 

your computer databases and see if we can work more closely together.’’ 

For a country as concerned, you know—the reputation that we 

have heard here from Congressman Lewis is the concern about 

their sovereignty, this a very welcome step, but it is an unprecedented step that the Mexicans have taken. 

And, to go back to Congressman Rodriguez’s comment, that the 

need to partner with Mexico and the need to recognize and to put 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
422 

a priority on this, I, frankly, could hardly imagine a higher priority 

from Secretary Napolitano on this initiative. 

WORKING WITH MEXICO ON SECURITY REFORMS

Mrs. LOWEY. Let me just say this. As I mentioned before, I was 

very impressed with President Calderon’s commitment to institute 

the police reforms and restructure the public security system. But 

I am still interested in knowing, what do you see as the major challenges in working with Mexico to implement these major security 

reforms? 

Mr. KOUMANS. Perhaps Mr. Ahern or Ms. Forman want to address that, as well. But I would say that there are a number of 

challenges. There are structural challenges. There are problems or 

challenges in terms of bureaucracy of what we are doing now, what 

we are in the stage of doing now. 

This may have been mentioned at the State Department’s testimony, as well. Having reached agreement with Mexico, the bilateral agreement in terms of how we would allocate and how the 

State Department would actually disburse the funds, we are now 

at the stage of going line by line through the various proposed 

projects and identifying, sort of, team leaders, the experts in 

whether it be databases or whether it be a weapons issue or the 

nonintrusive inspection equipment that CBP is expected to have a 

key part in leading, just sitting down with them and identifying 

the people on each side to actually go through this. 

And there are considerable challenges, sort of, bureaucratically 

with the Mexicans. But we are making steady progress. And we 

have full confidence that, by fall, that virtually all of it we are looking at now will be well on the way to being implemented. 

TRACKING TERRORIST FINANCING

Mrs. LOWEY. And lastly, Ms. Forman, your testimony mentions 

ICE has worked to attack the criminal proceeds that fund criminal 

organizations. Does ICE work with the Treasury Department offices that track terrorist financing? 

Ms. FORMAN. Yes, we do. We have a key role, working with 

Treasury, in the PCC, the Council on Terrorist Financing. And we 

contribute a lot in terms of bulk cash smuggling. As a matter of 

fact, under the Financial Action Task Force, working side by side 

with Treasury, they have adopted as one of the key elements cash 

courier and the targeting of cash couriers throughout the world. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Or should I go on? 

Mr. PRICE. No. We will move right along. Thank you. 

Mr. Culberson. 

MERIDA PROGRAM FUNDING AND PROJECT LIST

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I could, Mr. Koumans, would you please provide me with a 

snapshot of the amount of money in the Merida Initiative and that 

list of proposed projects that you are going line by line through? 

And my legislative director, Jeff Morehouse, is right here. He will 

work with your staff. Could we have a copy of that right away? I 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
423 

would like to know what the proposed projects are and where you 

are today with that money, in written form. Thank you very much. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Information provided in response to this inquiry 

is classified as ‘‘For Official Use Only’’ and has been retained in 

Committee files.] 

NUMBER OF PEOPLE INTERCEPTED

Also, I want to ask Chief Aguilar, Chief, out of every 100 people 

that cross the border illegally for whatever purpose, how many, on 

average, on the southern border are intercepted? 

Is it my understanding, as a general rule, from working closely 

with you—and I just can’t tell you how much I appreciate the work 

that all of you guys do. We admire you immensely. You truly are 

in our prayers on a daily basis. You are on the front lines of an 

undeclared war unlike any we have ever seen on the southern border, on a scale certainly unlike anything we have ever seen on the 

southern border probably since 1916. 

And I think we are at the point today when we need to send another ‘‘Black Jack’’ Pershing into the southern United States and 

put him in command of a true fast-reaction military force that can 

move up and down that border on the U.S. side. Because we are 

in a state of undeclared war on the southern border that has already spilled over, and it is just utterly unrealistic to think that 

it hasn’t. 

Chief Aguilar, out of every 100 people that cross the border on 

average, how many are intercepted by U.S. law enforcement? 

Chief AGUILAR. It all depends on the area where we are speaking 

to. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure. It is very different from area to area. 

Chief AGUILAR. It varies. In those areas where we have effective 

control and we have operational control, things of that nature, it 

will vary anywhere from as high as 80 percent that we do apprehend, where we have means of measuring how many got away from 

us at that immediate tier. 

But, of course, we have a defense-in-depth tier where ICE will 

work with us, in Phoenix for example, make additional apprehensions. We have our checkpoints, our transportation checks and 

things of that nature. 

We have other areas, unfortunately, where we need to gain 

greater control. And our effectiveness rate, which is what we call 

it, is as low as 30 to 40 percent, even in those areas where we can 

tell what is crossing there. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Mr. CULBERSON. And one of the areas that is most effective, Mr. 

Chairman and Mr. Rogers, that we have talked about before in the 

committee, that I have had the pleasure of working with my 

friends, Ciro Rodriguez and Henry Cuellar, in Del Rio and Laredo, 

we have implemented with support of the Border Patrol in implementing Operation Streamline, which is a zero-tolerance policy 

strongly supported by the local community because the crime rate 

has just dropped, as Ciro said. 

In the Del Rio area, for example, Ciro, you have seen over a 60 

percent decline. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
424 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I can only speak for my district. I don’t include 

any other cities. But in my area it has been working, and they 

have done a tremendous job in that area. And still there are some 

things that need to be occurring. And the resources to the local 

communities there have been extremely helpful. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I am happy to yield back and share my 

time with you, Ciro, on this, because it is a great success story. 

This is, Mr. Chairman, the win-win solution that I think we are 

looking for, is this program that is operating in Mr. Rodriguez’s 

district, Operation Streamline. 

It has the effect of, Ciro, the crime rate has dropped dramatically 

in Del Rio. In the Laredo area, you have seen a dramatic drop in 

the crime rate. And it is simply because the law is being enforced, 

existing law. We have sent you some additional recourses. 

But the effect has been, Chief, isn’t it correct, in the Del Rio 

area, you are at that essentially 80 to 90 percent arrest rate? 

Chief AGUILAR. Yes, sir. I would qualify that as one of those 

areas, yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. In the Del Rio sector. And then in the Laredo 

sector, where we also have Operation Streamline ramping up, 

aren’t you at about a 50 or 60 percent arrest rate? 

Chief AGUILAR. About 60. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sixty percent in Laredo. 

It is win-win, Mr. Chairman. The local community is very supportive because their kids can play in the streets again. And we are 

working on getting it rolled out in the Rio Grande Valley. 

Chief AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are at about a 25 to 30 percent arrest rate 

down there so far. 

Chief AGUILAR. In some areas, yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. In the Rio Grande Valley. But it is cranking up. 

Now, as you move further west, Mr. Chairman, in the west Texas 

area, which Ciro also represents, some of that rugged mountain 

country, there is not as many people crossing because it is a big 

country and very hot. 

But, now, as you move further west, and of course in the El Paso 

sector, what is the arrest rate in El Paso? 

Chief AGUILAR. In El Paso proper right now, it is probably sitting 

between 50 and 60 to 65 percent. New Mexico, which is part of El 

Paso sector, is actually higher. It is probably closer to 70 to 75 percent. 

Mr. CULBERSON. In where? 

Chief AGUILAR. In New Mexico. 

Mr. CULBERSON. In New Mexico, right. Now, then we move into 

the Lordsburg—that is the Lordsburg sector? 

Chief AGUILAR. That includes Lordsburg. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE CONT’D

Mr. CULBERSON. That is Lordsburg. 

Now, the sector just immediately to the west, the Tucson sector, 

is a real problem, Mr. Chairman. And this is one that I have been 

out and personally visited with and we have talked to the committee about before. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
425 

And this has not changed, to my knowledge, Chief. It may have 

improved a little bit. But you remember, just 12 months ago, when 

I visited the Tucson sector—this is an incredible fact, Mr. Chairman, to wrap up—is that if you are arrested in the Tucson sector, 

crossing into the United States illegally, carrying less than 500 

pounds of marijuana, you have a 99.6 percent chance of never 

being prosecuted and never going to jail for more than a few hours, 

which is a source of great frustration to your Border Patrol agents, 

isn’t it, Chief? 

Chief AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And that number has not changed much, has it? 

Chief AGUILAR. No, not at this point. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So Tucson is wide-open? 

Chief AGUILAR. Tucson is being worked. We are having our challenges there. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are doing your best, but it is the U.S. prosecutor, Mr. Chairman. And that is my other subcommittee, is Commerce Justice. We are going to continue to work on that. 

The point is, Mr. Chairman, to wrap up very quickly, is that 

there are wildly different levels of enforcement. The border is wideopen in Tucson. We found the solution in Texas, and it is real simple: It is law enforcement. 

SPILLOVER VIOLENCE INTO THE UNITED STATES

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir. 

Well, we have completed the second round. There is obviously a 

lot of interest in this and a lot of Members still on the scene here, 

so we are going to undertake a third round of questioning. And we 

will try to keep the questions and, we hope, the answers maybe a 

little briefer. But, nonetheless, there is a lot left to talk about, and 

so, with your indulgence, we will move ahead. 

We earlier had a discussion, several exchanges having to do with 

the spillover of violence. And I think it is fair to say that the point 

at issue there was not whether spillover violence was occurring at 

some serious level or whether we should be concerned about it, I 

don’t think there is any question about either, but whether, in looking at the effects of the development of these drug cartels and the 

level of violence in Mexico, whether spillover violence was the only 

thing we had to be concerned about and what other ways our border security efforts might be impeded by this development within 

Mexico, quite apart from how much of it was specifically spilling 

over into American communities. That was certainly my intention, 

and it is what I would like to pursue right now. 

And maybe the way to get at this would be to ask you to reflect 

on the recent situation in Juarez, Mexico. We have all read the 

press accounts of this terrible situation where the local chief of police resigned after a threat from the drug cartels to assassinate a 

couple of officers every day until he resigned. And under that kind 

of extreme duress, the police chief resigned. Now, the Mexican military has moved in there and has some presence there. 

But maybe it would help us get a handle on this if you would 

reflect on that situation as perhaps an example of what we are 

dealing with here and the threat to our border security efforts. I 

mean, in a situation like that, how do you assess it, and how are 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
426 

your efforts affected? Is there a power vacuum on the Mexican 

side? The military is, of course, moving in, but how are your operations affected and your effectiveness impacted by a situation of 

that sort? 

Maybe that rather extreme example can help us understand 

what is going on here and that this isn’t merely a matter of how 

much violence literally spills over into American communities. 

Ms. FORMAN. Chairman, we agree with you. I mean, it is very 

difficult. There are challenges we have to face under those circumstances. That is why we recognize this to be a shared responsibility. I mean, Mexico has things they need to do, and we have 

things we need to do on the southwest border and our interior offices to address the vulnerabilities that are allowing the drug 

trade, the weapons to go out, the money to go out. 

And that is why we, collectively, and not just in the United 

States, have to work closely with our partners in Mexico to address 

in totality the entire picture. ICE and DHS all have offices in Mexico, working with the Mexican Government. We have units we 

work with. We have border liaison offices. We have created secure 

networks to share timely information with our Mexican counterparts and for them to share with us timely, so we can take a comprehensive law enforcement approach in addressing some of these 

problems. But it is a challenge. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, that is clearly an alarming situation, where, in 

this case, the local police leadership was intimidated into resigning 

and removing from the scene. Are we in any position to offer assurances and to somehow work more effectively with authorities up 

and down the line in Mexico to prevent that kind of outcome? Because it seems to me this outcome sends all the wrong signals, 

quite apart from the situation it may create on the ground. 

TYPES OF BORDER VIOLENCE

Chief AGUILAR. Mr. Chairman, we work very closely, whether it 

is Border Patrol officers at the ports of entry, ICE, ATF, and everybody else. We work very closely with the Government of Mexico. 

I think one of the challenges that we are facing is the type of violence. I talk about defining the border violence that we talk about. 

Right now, to our good fortune, as Americans, I believe that most 

of the violence that we are seeing on the south side is what we call 

DTO-on-DTO, drug-trafficking organization on drug-trafficking organization. And then it spills over into the chiefs of police and 

things of this nature, which of course is not a good thing. 

The second type of violence that we see is assaults against our 

officers, whether it is a Border Patrol agent between the ports of 

entry or an officer at the port of entry or a state and local or tribal 

officer, because we have had all of those attacked to some degree 

over this timeline. 

And then we are very sensitive to the potential migration that 

is going to happen, whether it is legal or illegally, because of the 

violence that is stemming in Mexico. 

The spillover that I think we have to be very careful with in engaging correctly is a quality-of-life issue. That spillover that Ranking Member Rogers talked about and that the gentleman mentioned from North Carolina, I think that is a spillover of that drugVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00426 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
427 

trafficking organization culture in carrying out what it is they are 

doing in our country. That is very unacceptable also. 

Mr. PRICE. Absolutely. And, as Mr. Rogers stressed, the number, 

750, of persons arrested all over this country with this operation 

accelerated. That is a number that gets one’s attention. I mean, 

that counts as serious penetration. 

SYNERGY BETWEEN ALL AGENCIES

Chief AGUILAR. And the only thing—I know that the question 

was asked earlier, what more can we do comprehensively. It has 

to be a comprehensive approach, where every applicable law, regulation, statute, or policy synergizes to the degree that we can for 

focus on that border. Because it all comes down to the border. It 

is that synergy between ATF, ICE, DEA, us, every other three-letter agency out there that can apply not just to existing laws, rules, 

and regulations, but the policies and how we focus those resources. 

Now, that is domestically and, very importantly—and this is a lot 

harder to do, in my opinion—internationally, to gain all the efficiencies and create that density of effort to fight against those cartels, these criminal organizations. 

INTERAGENCY CHALLENGE OF GUN RUNNING

Mr. PRICE. I want to turn to Mr. Rogers, because we do need to 

move along here. But, just again, reflecting on earlier discussion, 

the obvious interagency challenge of the gun-running and gunsmuggling headed the other way is one that I don’t think we 

achieved a very satisfactory resolution of here this morning, in 

terms of our understanding. And it clearly is a challenge to the 

Secretary and to the administration going forward. 

So I simply want to stress that, yes, there is ATF jurisdiction, 

there is CBP jurisdiction, there is also ICE jurisdiction over the 

smuggling per se. And so a lot of this does reside—a lot of this responsibility is going to reside within DHS. And, to the extent the 

smuggling of these weapons is a major component of this interagency challenge, then it is going to—you know, the buck does 

stop, I think, with your Department and with the Secretary. And, 

of course, it is encouraging that she understands that and has announced her intention to take this on. 

Mr. KOUMANS. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think that might lead 

directly to—well, I thought it would be appropriate to add to 

what—or to capture some of our conversation in the way that Secretary Napolitano expressed it, which is a four-step process. 

First is working more closely than ever with State and local law 

enforcement. And, obviously, having just come from being a Governor of a border State, it is something that she feels very strongly 

about and something that we have started to ramp up in the recent 

days and weeks. 

Second is working more closely than ever with Mexico, and we 

see that day to day. And that is also where Merida comes in and 

the capacity building, the assistance there. So that we hope that 

in the coming months and years that we will be better positioned 

to deal with the situation as you explained it, the unsatisfactory 

situation of where they feel under such pressure. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
428 

The third step is the southbound issue, weapons and cash heading south and the ramping up of that. 

And fourth is the contingency plan that Mr. Ahern already explained. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, thank you. 

JIATF TASK FORCE MODEL

And it has been mentioned here in passing, sort of, the JIATF 

task force in Key West, which we have had for several years, trying 

to manage the war against drugs in the Caribbean—a coordinated 

effort between all of the relevant agencies, which has been very 

greatly successful. 

I hope these BEST initiatives, the Border Enforcement Security 

Task Force, I hope they are modeled on the JIATF task force in 

Key West. Is it or not? 

Ms. FORMAN. It is modeled in the sense that it is multi-agency 

and it is a comprehensive approach. It is also modeled on the Joint 

Terrorist Task Forces, applying all the authorities of its participants to go after—— 

ASSAULT WEAPONS

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I hope so. You have ICE, you have Border 

Protection, you have DEA, ATF, FBI, Coast Guard, U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, and so on, and the Justice Department. That is a good start. 

I just hope that it is funded to the level it needs to be. 

Now, the fiscal 2010 budget, I am told, will reportedly include $45 million enhancement for ICE and CBP to address the outbound 

smuggling of weapons and bulk cash. I am not sure that is enough. 

But that initiative builds on the success of what was called Operation Armas Cruzadas, which was an ICE-led, bilateral, MexicoAmerican law enforcement and intelligence-sharing operation between ATF and Mexican law enforcement. 

So maybe there is help on the way. Everyone is saying, and it 

is true, we will not solve this thing without across-the-government 

cooperation within the U.S. Government and within the Mexican 

Government. And I can’t say enough about how good I feel about 

the President of Mexico and the job he is tackling. 

But, now, bear in mind, apparently the heavy volume of shipments of weapons from the U.S. are apparently small weapons, 

handguns, but the cartels are relying upon the use of Chinese assault rifles and AK–47s, neither of which can be purchased legally 

in the U.S. Am I correct on that? Does anyone have a fact on it? 

Ms. FORMAN. The assault weapons are not legally purchased in 

the United States. 

Mr. ROGERS. Right. Do we know whether or not the heavy weapons that the drug cartels are using in Mexico are Chinese-made? 

Ms. FORMAN. There are some Chinese-made weapons also being 

utilized. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, now, are there any American heavy assault 

weapons being used? 

Ms. FORMAN. I would have to go back and research that for you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Surely you know. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
429 

Ms. FORMAN. There are U.S.-made weapons being used, in addition to Chinese- and Israeli-made weapons. That is what we have 

seen in some of the seizures, yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you know how they got there, where they came 

from? 

Ms. FORMAN. Some of them were purchased here in the United 

States. 

Mr. ROGERS. Illegally. 

Ms. FORMAN. Illegally. 

Mr. ROGERS. And ICE has jurisdiction for that very crime, do 

they not? 

Ms. FORMAN. For the export, yes, yes, we do. 

Mr. ROGERS. And what is ICE doing about it? 

Ms. FORMAN. ICE has established initiatives to address, in partnership with our federal, state, and local and foreign partners, the 

export of these weapons as well as the bulk currency. And we have 

done that in many platforms, using the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, using intel. Armas Cruzadas was based on an 

intel-driven, strategic-type information, working with ICE intel, the 

Department information and intelligence, and CBP’s intel, to go 

after those vulnerabilities that are supplying these types of weapons. 

And that was phase one of Armas Cruzadas. Phase two is the implementation, the enforcement arm of those individuals who are 

purchasing or having other individuals purchase these type of 

weapons. 

ARMAS CRUZADAS

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we know that—or we think that there will be 

a $45 million enhancement requested in the 2010 budget to fight 

this very thing. But there needs to be enhancements to the other 

agencies—State, Justice, and so on, maybe DOD. We don’t know 

whether they are going to be enhanced or not, do we? 

But CNN reported just the other day that the President, President Obama, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral 

Mullen, met this past Saturday to discuss options for assistance to 

Mexico from the U.S. military, with specific interest by the President in surveillance technology, among other things. 

Do you know anything about that, any of you? 

Well, it is time for our agencies to work together, because we are 

confronted with a massive problem, and we all admit that. And 

with a country that is as important as Mexico is to us, for any 

number of reasons but including economically—almost a fourth of 

all of the inbound containers into the U.S. come out of Mexico. It 

is an enormous trading partner. It is a strategic partner. It is the 

place where terrorists can try to gain entry to infiltrate into the 

U.S., so it is a national security matter. 

And I want to—actually, Mr. Chairman, we are preaching to the 

wrong choir here. We ought to have ICE before us, and we ought 

to have ATF and DEA and law enforcement agencies. And we have 

been pummeling these poor people here today on a matter about 

which they do not have jurisdiction, by and large. 

So thank you for putting up with us today. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
430 

Mr. PRICE. That is true. But they are members, however, of a department that, in a number of its aspects, will have the responsibility here. So we hope our concern gets transmitted. We are sure 

it will. 

Mr. Farr. 

GUNS GOING INTO MEXICO

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to follow up on both your questions. Because what 

is different about this Subcommittee than in the past is this is a 

Subcommittee hearing about border violence, which has essentially 

increased to a point where we really haven’t been discussing that 

much in the past. We have been dealing with the cartels and the 

supply side of trying to cut off the supply. The difference here is 

now there are a lot of weapons on the border that haven’t heretofore been. And they are there because of the cartels being able 

to get their drugs into this country. We buy them, and we generate 

billions of dollars for them. And a lot of those funds are turned 

around to buy weapons inside the United States. 

So the violence is—you know, we are the supply side of the guns. 

And I think none of the members have gotten a clear answer to 

that question of, what are we doing to essentially stop the U.S. gun 

cartel from going into Mexico? And I think we ought to hold up the 

request for additional money until we get a comprehensive response. 

What is it going to take to stop the guns from getting into Mexico? It is illegal to take them in, just like it is illegal to bring guns 

and drugs into the United States. So what are we going to do on 

our side of the border to stop guns from going into Mexico? 

And until we get what is needed—I don’t care whether it is— 

whoever writes it, I think Director Foreman perhaps, respond to 

the Subcommittee in writing on what it takes to do that, whether 

it is ATF or ICE or Border Patrol or whatever. Because the answers are that you are all working on these agreements. And that 

is not what we want to know. We want to know, what is it going 

to take to stop the guns from going that way that are illegal? 

So if you can get that in writing, I would appreciate it, and I 

think the Subcommittee would too. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
431 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 580 here 52999A.321
432 

But I really want to shift my questions to the commissioner regarding—in your testimony, you said that you apprehended 

720,000 people last year. ICE told us the other day that they detain 440,000. Are those the same people? Are we counting them 

twice? You are counting them as apprehendees and they are counting them as detainees? 

APPREHENSIONS

Chief AGUILAR. The 723,000 that I pointed out was the apprehensions between the ports of entry by the United States Border Patrol 

last year. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. And how many of those led to conviction? 

Chief AGUILAR. There was prosecutions of some of those. 

Some of the ones that we talked about in Operation Streamline, 

I don’t have that exact number. The year before last, I believe it 

was 53,000. I will get you the numbers for last year on those. 

Mr. FARR. So we know how many we are detaining, but we don’t 

know how many we are convicting? 

Chief AGUILAR. Oh, no, no. We have them. I just don’t have it 

with me. No, I can give you those figures, absolutely. 

Mr. FARR. Because if we are really trying to go after the bad 

guys, it doesn’t seem like we are detaining an awful lot of dishwashers rather than bad guys. 

Chief AGUILAR. We are detaining a lot of people that are causing 

clutter, chaos, and vulnerability, sir, on the border, that are taking 

up the time of our officers as opposed to concentrating on the people that are looking to get into this country to bring us harm. That 

is why we are working to mitigate that down. 

Now, for example, we are up by about 48 percent our narcotics 

apprehensions this year. We are down by illegal immigrant apprehensions by about 28 percent. Because we are not spending a lot 

of time on the illegal aliens, we are able to address the other 

threats, narcotics trafficking being one of them. 

Mr. FARR. And in the law, that is your highest priority, isn’t it? 

Chief AGUILAR. Absolutely. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. That is good. I would appreciate to find out how many 

we actually lead to prosecution and conviction. 

Chief AGUILAR. We will get you that number. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 

Representative FARR. Of the 723,000 apprehensions which took place in 2008, how 

many were prosecuted? 

Of the 723,000 apprehensions which took place in 2008, the Border Patrol referred 

49,971 cases for federal prosecution. Of this number, 46,671 were accepted for federal prosecution. In addition, the Border Patrol referred 197 cases for state and local 

prosecution, of which 189 were accepted. 

What about this number, versus the you apprehend and they detain? Border Patrol apprehends 720,000; ICE detains 440,000. 

Chief AGUILAR. I am not sure where that number is coming from, 

440,000. 

Mr. FARR. Well, both days, the leading witness in the opening 

statements, you know, claiming the success, ICE, they will detain 

440,000 people this year. And the issue was, you know, where are 

you going to place them and what is the process afterwards and all 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
433 

that other stuff. So I just find it is kind of different that these are 

big numbers. 

And, you know, there are over a million people a year that are 

essentially brought into custody and have to be housed for a moment or detained for a moment or apprehended and done something with. That is a lot of volume of people. And is it really those 

numbers, or are you counting—is it you are detaining and apprehending 300,000 more—the Border Patrol is apprehending 300,000 

more people than ICE is? Are they the same numbers, that is what 

I am trying to get at? 

I know they go after warrants, but they have a very failed—they 

are only getting about 20 percent of the warrants they are going 

after, and the rest is bycatch. 

Chief AGUILAR. The numbers that the Border Patrol apprehends—of those, certain numbers get prosecuted, which the U.S. 

Marshals then detain once prosecution occurs. 

Of that 723,000, there is another universe that is detained by 

ICE, on our behalf, for administrative deportation, administrative 

adjudication, of which goes into that 440,000, if that figure is correct. I don’t know that figure. 

In addition to that—and I won’t speak for ICE, but ICE has their 

own investigative and apprehension activity that then they detain 

also for purposes of adjudication, administrative functions, not 

prosecutorial. 

Mr. FARR. Well, perhaps what we ought to do is get the numbers 

down as to what is apprehended and then given over to ICE. I 

mean, we shouldn’t be counting those people twice. 

Chief AGUILAR. I can tell you that they are not being counted 

twice. They are for purposes of arrest versus arrest or detention 

versus detention. 

Mr. FARR. Okay, well, we will look forward to those. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. CULBERSON. 

PROSECUTIONS AND ARRESTS IN TUCSON SECTOR

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To follow up a little bit on Mr. Farr’s question, and if I could ask 

each of the witnesses to keep the answers as short as you can, I 

have a series of questions I need to ask, and my time is limited. 

Chief AGUILAR, I wanted to continue working our way down the 

southern border. In the Tucson sector, less than—excuse me, let me 

say it this way. In the Tucson sector, 99 percent of the people arrested by either the Border Patrol or other Federal law enforcement are never prosecuted in the Tucson sector. 

Chief AGUILAR. I can’t answer for others, but for Border Patrol 

that would be about correct, yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Let that sink in, members. That is incredible. 

Ninety-nine percent of the people arrested by the Border Patrol in 

the Tucson sector are never prosecuted; they are immediately released. 

Now, think about this number. Now, Chief, out of every 100 people that cross illegally in the Tucson sector, how many is the Border Patrol arresting, a third? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
434 

Chief AGUILAR. That would be a rough guess for Tucson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. So, think about that. We are only arresting one out of three. And of those one out of three, 99 percent of 

those are going free and they are never prosecuted. 

So it is true, Chief, that Tucson is wide open? 

Chief AGUILAR. Tucson is our most challenging sector as we 

speak, yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. You would agree with that statement, 

the Tucson sector is wide open? 

Chief AGUILAR. It is our most challenging sector, and we are 

working very hard. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are very gracious and diplomatic. 

But, Mr. Chairman, the point of this is—— 

Chief AGUILAR. I would clarify that, for prosecution purposes in 

specific, it is wide open. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And that is what matters. As the word gets out, 

these guys are not the brightest bulbs in the world, but they figure 

out real quick if they go to my friend Ciro Rodriguez’s district and 

they cross into Del Rio, they are going to be hammered and they 

are going to be arrested. Eighty percent of the people that cross in 

the Del Rio sector are arrested and prosecuted, and they are deported. And, of course, women and children, Sam, these guys use 

good common sense. They are not throwing women and children in 

jail. They are doing this as good, thoughtful law enforcement officers should, and with the support of the local community. 

In the Laredo sector, they have a 60 percent now arrest and 

prosecution rate. And that is of everybody crossing. I mean, everybody—you guys are picking up almost everybody. 

Chief AGUILAR. In the areas where we are focusing on—— 

ARRESTS AND PROSECUTIONS IN YUMA

Mr. CULBERSON. That is right. You are picking up almost everybody. West Texas, again, that is big open country. 

Now, in the Yuma sector, you have implemented Operation 

Streamline, and you are at close to 80 to 90 percent arrest and 

prosecution rate in Yuma. Is that correct? 

Chief AGUILAR. Actually, in Yuma, that is our pride when it 

comes to prosecution programs. About 98% of persons apprehended 

are delivered a consequence other than a voluntary return. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. And 98 percent of the people apprehended are prosecuted in the Yuma sector. You think, again, you 

are intercepting about a third of those that cross? 

Chief AGUILAR. In the Yuma sector, we are a lot more effective. 

We are probably at about 90 percent. Yuma has a 90% enforcement 

rate—includes apprehension and turn back. 

ARREST RATE IN IMPERIAL VALLEY

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, that is astonishing. They are arresting nine out of 10 people that are crossing Yuma and a 98 percent prosecution rate. 

Now, moving right next door, in Imperial Valley sector, what is 

your arrest rate? And, of those arrested, what is the prosecution 

rate? ELC arrest rate—66% 08 ELC prosecution rate—FY08 0.4% 

FY09—0.5% 65% 09 YTD 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
435 

Chief AGUILAR. I don’t have that figure with me, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is pretty low. 

Chief AGUILAR. It is low. I don’t have that figure. 

PROSECUTION RATE IN SAN DIEGO SECTOR

Mr. CULBERSON. It is very low. 

And in the San Diego sector, other than where the area where 

the fence is, of those that you arrest, what percentage are prosecuted? 

Chief AGUILAR. San Diego, I would have to get that back to you. 

In San Diego zones 8 through 15 the Border Patrol had a 50% consequence tate (other than a local voluntary return) to aliens apprehended within those zones. 

[The information follows:] 

Representative CULBERSON. For the areas in the San Diego Sector that does not 

have any infrastructure, what is the apprehension rate? Of that amount, what percentage is convicted? 

CBP can only provide apprehension statistics by sector, not areas within the sector that have or do not have infrastructure. In FY 2008, San Diego Sector Border 

Patrol made 162,390 apprehensions. CBP does not compile conviction rates, DOJ 

would have those statistics. However, we do know that in our priority enforcement 

area in the San Diego Sector, 50% of the illegal aliens apprehended in FY 2008 suffered a consequence other than a voluntary return to Mexico, which could have included prosecution and conviction. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. If I could, Chief—and my time is limited, 

and I got one or two follow-ups, Mr. Chairman, and I can wrap this 

up for the subcommittee—but if you could get that to me in writing, Chief, I would really appreciate it so I can share it with the 

committee. 

And if I could ask all of the witnesses, isn’t it true that the safest 

areas of the border are those areas where current law is being enforced rigorously and uniformly under Operation Streamline? 

Those sectors that I just went through, certainly the areas where 

the United States is safest, where we are actually securing the border, winning the war are those sectors where the chief just indicated you have an 80, 60 percent, 90 percent-plus arrest and prosecution rate. Isn’t it true that those are the safest areas of the border where we are actually winning the war? 

Chief AGUILAR. Those are the areas where our activity levels are 

very low, yes, sir, and quality of life is higher because of the legal 

incursions being minimized. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The quality of life is significantly better because 

of the apprehensions in law enforcement. Would all the witnesses 

agree with Chief Aguilar’s statement. 

Ms. FORMAN. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. There you go, Mr. Chairman. 

If I could, on that note, this is really—Texas has always understood this. It is just about law enforcement, to protect quality of 

life, to make sure that kids can play in the streets, so that people 

can come here legally to work, so that the United States is safe, 

so that we are actually deterring the spillover of what is actually 

a civil war in northern Mexico, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
436 

Would all the witnesses agree—would your best recommendation 

be to the subcommittee that we get behind the Border Patrol, our 

U.S. Marshals, our law enforcement officers, and implement Operation Streamline from San Diego to Brownsville? Wouldn’t that be 

the most effective way to secure the border? Start with the fundamentals, enforce existing law, rigorously, uniformly, fairly in Operation Streamline from San Diego to Brownsville, wouldn’t that be 

the best way to secure the border? 

Chief AGUILAR. A prosecution program like Operation Streamline 

across the border would certainly be a very big part of a comprehensive enforcement model, yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The best place to start. If you are flat on your 

back, the best thing to do is get on your feet. This is the best way 

for us to get back on our feet. 

Would all the witnesses agree with Chief Aguilar? 

Mr. AHERN. I would not say that the prosecution solely. Certainly 

there has to be a—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is a starting point. 

Mr. AHERN. Again, there has to be many layers of that program. 

First we need to have a good deterrent system in place. We need 

to make sure we have got a stable border with, again, tactical infrastructure technology—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah, but deterrent is prosecution. 

Mr. AHERN. Well, that is certainly one of them—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. If I am going to smuggle, I am going to go 

through Tucson because it is wide-open. I am not going to go to Del 

Rio. 

Mr. AHERN. It needs to be comprehensively thought through. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But you have to start with prosecution, uniform, 

right? 

Mr. AHERN. Every element of the strategy has—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Beginning with enforcement of the law. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez. 

SIZING TECHNOLOGY STATUS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me ask you, I know that in last few sessions 

there has been a lot of talk about the fence. And I know we have 

moved on some of those areas and the locations. 

Where are we at right now in terms of technology—and I guess 

Chief Aguilar—in terms of the technology that is needed? I know 

that in some cases, yes, the fence makes sense; in others, it doesn’t. 

And we really need to beef up in much better technology in those 

areas. 

Where are we at on that? 

Chief AGUILAR. The SBInet director was here for the last hearing. All of Arizona will be done, covered by the technology that we 

are shooting to have in place by 2011 if we get the budgets that 

we are looking for. 

But that is not all we are doing, sir. In addition to that, we are 

purchasing what we refer to as commodity purchases of technology 

that is literally off the shelf, but stand-alone, not a part of the system. One of the examples we gave earlier, we have 40 ground surveillance units—we call them MSSs, mobile surveillance systems— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
437 

that give a team of agents basically the ability to detect and identify and classify and tag and track any kind of illegal incursion for 

an area of between eight to 12 miles along our border. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And those are moveable? 

Chief AGUILAR. Yes, sir, those are mobile. And we have 40 of 

those in our cadre right now. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think some of those would be something that 

would be really important. I recall before, in my previous congressional district, going to the border. And it seemed like—and it was 

in Roma and Rio Grande—that every time I came in, they would 

catch an 18-wheeler coming in with drugs and marijuana mainly. 

And I was very blunt when I told them, ‘‘What is this? Are you 

staging this for me or what?’’ And they said, ‘‘No. I have to be honest with you’’—and these were in the ports of entry, so it wasn’t 

anything that you had to do with. And he says, ‘‘We just don’t have 

the dogs around this time when you are coming in.’’ So the mobility 

of that and moving around makes a lot of sense in terms of being 

able to capture some of that. 

Chief AGUILAR. That, in fact, with that same capability that you 

are describing, VACAS and backscatter machines, we are now 

starting to get at our checkpoints away from the ports of entry. 

In addition to that, of course, we are maintaining our remote 

video surveillance systems in such a fashion that, when SBInet 

does get to the 272 locations that we have right now, we will be 

able to tie that in to SBInet. We have thousands of sensors on the 

ground. So we are constantly building up the technological capability. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So are you saying we won’t be there until about 

2011? 

Chief AGUILAR. 2011 for the State of Arizona. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Where about in terms of west Texas, where I am 

at? 

Chief AGUILAR. I am trying to think. Right now we have added 

some of those mobile surveillance units over in your part of the 

country, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And let me ask you, in addition to that, are 

there any other moveable, mobile types that you can quickly move 

from one area to another? Because I hear mainly that where Border Patrol usually gets in and they stay there. Do you have any 

ones that can beef up real quickly from one week to another or be 

transferred across to the northern border, for example? 

Chief AGUILAR. In fact, some of the mobile surveillance systems 

are, in fact, going to the northern border by the end of this year 

as part of our Northern Border Project. Any one of those 40 could 

literally be moved anywhere in the country on a moment’s notice. 

SPILLOVER VIOLENCE INTO THE UNITED STATES

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. In terms of the spillover, what do we have 

in terms of actual number of cases that have actually—as a result 

of what is going on in Mexico, actually have occurred and we have 

had problems on this side? Besides direct drugs that come over, 

you know. 

Ms. FORMAN. Congressman, I can get you those numbers. I can 

just tell you that our approach is to attack the entire continuum 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
438 

of transnational organized crime, pushing the borders out and 

working with our foreign governments, working with our interdictors with CBP, and then working on the interior. It has to be a totality to disrupt and dismantle these criminal organizations. And 

that is our approach in every one of our investigations, is to cut off 

the head of the snake as opposed to just the tail. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah. And I know that there is no doubt that 

things are getting more serious in Mexico, and we need to do whatever we can to protect our borders and also work with Mexico. And 

so I will be looking for any types of recommendations that you 

might have on the Merida effort, in terms of working with them as 

to what is best that would benefit us in the long term from that 

perspective. 

Okay, thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Well, I want to thank all the Members for not only attending and 

staying with us through a long hearing but also posing some important questions. 

And certainly want to thank our witnesses from panel one and 

panel two for being so forthcoming and also for the good work you 

are doing and the help you have given us in charting the course 

going forward. 

I do want to just say, before we break up here, that I want your 

agencies, CBP and ICE, to jointly produce for us some information 

on this southbound flow of weapons that I think—I don’t know who 

is pulling this together, but I think we are as good a candidate as 

any to get some transagency information here, and of course get 

what you need from ATF as well. 

And what we are looking for here is, first of all, I think, a delineation of the different agency responsibilities for this matter, what 

the relevant laws are. But also help us sort out the dimensions of 

this problem. What kind of weapons are we talking about? There 

has been some ambiguity about that here today. What kind of 

weapons are we talking about? What kind of range of legal and illegal weapons, in terms of U.S. purchasers being able to buy them? 

And then what the relevant agency is for dealing with the problem, 

whether it is an illegal purchase problem or a smuggling problem 

or something else. 

We know that you have this under advisement, and so, if you 

could share with the committee an insertion for the record of that 

sort, I think that would be very helpful to us. Clearly, this has 

come up a number of times today, and we are in need, I think, basically of just good information, to begin with. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Information provided in response to this inquiry 

is classified as ‘‘For Official Use Only’’ and has been retained in 

Committee files.] 

Well, we could go on, but we won’t. We thank you for your time 

and your testimony today. And we look forward to working with 

you, as we put the 2010 budget together. Thank you. 

And, with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
439 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 52999A.322
440 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here 52999A.323
441 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here 52999A.324
442 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here 52999A.325
443 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 52999A.326
444 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 52999A.327
445 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 52999A.328
446 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 52999A.329
447 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 611 here 52999A.330
448 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 612 here 52999A.331
449 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 613 here 52999A.332
450 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 614 here 52999A.333
451 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 52999A.334
452 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 52999A.335
453 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 52999A.336
454 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 618 here 52999A.337
455 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 619 here 52999A.338
456 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 620 here 52999A.339
457 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 621 here 52999A.340
458 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 622 here 52999A.341
459 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 623 here 52999A.342
460 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 624 here 52999A.343
461 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 625 here 52999A.344
462 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 626 here 52999A.345
463 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627/700 here 52999A.346

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(465) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009. 

HEALTH SERVICES FOR DETAINEES IN U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) CUSTODY 

WITNESSES 

JAMES T. HAYES, JR., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF DETENTION AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

JOSE H. RODRIGUEZ, MD, MBA, CHE, CAPTAIN, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH 

SERVICE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF IMMIGRATION HEALTH SERVICES, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

ALICIA PUENTE CACKLEY, DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

DORA SCHRIRO, SPECIAL ADVISOR TO SECRETARY NAPOLITANO ON 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee will come to order. 

We are pleased to have this morning four witnesses concerning 

health services for detainees in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. We have before us Jim Hayes, the Director of 

Detention and Removal Operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, otherwise known as ICE; Captain Jose 

Rodriguez, Director of the ICE Division of Immigrant Health Services; Ms. Alicia Puente Cackley, Director of the Health Care Division at the Government Accountability Office, or GAO; and Ms. 

Dora Schriro, Special Advisor to Secretary Napolitano on ICE Detention and Removal. We welcome you and look forward to your 

testimony this morning. 

The purpose of this hearing is to investigate the health care services ICE provides to individuals held in its custody at detention 

centers around the country, and to discuss efforts that DHS will 

make to improve those services. Over the past several years, there 

have been troubling media reports about detainee deaths that appear to be preventable had the individuals in question been given 

appropriate and timely medical attention. 

Certainly not every death is preventable or avoidable; however, 

the incidence of death among ICE detainees, as well as the conditions under which some of those deaths occurred, raises serious 

questions about the health care provided by ICE for those it detains. I am concerned that cases of preventable deaths in ICE custody may only be the most glaring examples of breakdowns in the 

detainee health care system. 

When ICE holds individuals in Federal custody, it has the responsibility to treat those people fairly and humanely and to proVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00465 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
466 

vide access to necessary medical care when requested. Unfortunately, ICE and the local and contract prisons it uses to detain illegal immigrants do not always seem able or willing to fulfill that 

responsibility. 

In several recent examples, individuals have died of late-diagnosed or undiagnosed cancerous infections even though they had 

repeatedly requested and been denied more comprehensive medical 

examinations. 

There are troubling reports of ICE personnel in Washington, 

D.C. denying medical services for individuals held in detention centers around the country, often based on little more than a faxed 

treatment request from a detention center doctor. 

Other investigations of ICE medical services have shown a failure to provide physical examinations of all new detainees although 

ICE standards require such exams to be completed within 14 days 

of intake. A lack of transferable medical records, as well as the policy that removes all medicines from detainees upon intake, has also 

resulted in medical problems, particularly for those suffering from 

chronic conditions such as HIV infection, diabetes, and hypertension. 

Lest anyone try to deny the problem, let me share some statistics. Nine detainees have died in the first 5 months of fiscal year 

2009. If deaths continue at this rate, more detainees will die in ICE 

custody this year than at any time since 2004. Eleven detainees 

died in ICE custody in fiscal year 2008. And of the 90 detainees 

that died since fiscal 2004, 6 have died at privately owned detention centers, 8 have died after being transported to a hospital or 

other treatment location, 22 have died at Federal facilities, and 54 

have died at local prisons or jails. 

This distribution of deaths suggests a problem that is both pervasive and ongoing. While it doesn’t prove causality, I think it is 

worth noting that at least 60 percent of the deaths occurred at local 

prisons and jails, even though fewer than 50 percent of detainees 

are held there. 

Last summer Senator Byrd, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Senator Byrd and 

I requested the GAO investigate these and other troubling symptoms of poor health services for ICE detainees. In particular, we 

asked GAO to review the bureaucratic structure providing medical 

services to detainees, including an investigation into why responsibility was transferred from the Department of Health and Human 

Services to ICE in the fall of 2007. 

Further, we asked GAO to identify the health care expenditures 

made by ICE over the last several years. We also asked GAO to 

evaluate the mortality rates for ICE detainees in comparison to 

others held in Federal custody, such as those within the Bureau of 

Prisons System. Ms. Cackley, we look forward to hearing about 

what you found. 

In the 2009 Appropriations Act, Congress provided $2 million for 

ICE and the DHS Office of Health Affairs to hire outside experts 

to review the ICE medical system and to offer recommendations on 

how it could be improved. I understand that this contract has not 

yet been awarded, which I find unsettling, given that the funds for 

it have been available for more than 5 months. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
467 

Mr. Hayes, Captain Rodriguez, Ms. Schriro, I would like for you 

explain how you plan to use these funds, when the study will be 

initiated, and what you will do with the recommendations that are 

made. 

In the broader context, I would like to hear from our witnesses 

about what can be done in the short term and over the longer term 

to reduce the rate of deaths and other medical problems at ICE detention facilities. 

Past reports by the GAO, the DHS inspector general, and others 

have recommended such changes as an electronic medical records 

system; an independent oversight and appeals board; standardized 

reporting on detainee morbidity and mortality; and more rigorous 

inspection and standards compliance reviews. Which of any of 

these recommendations has ICE implemented? Why, if these recommendations have not been implemented, have they not been undertaken? And what else do DHS and ICE plan to do to improve 

health services that ICE provides? 

These are significant issues that literally involve matters of life 

and death. I am sure that you all understand that our government 

has a moral obligation to ensure the well-being of those in its custody. So I hope that our witnesses from ICE and DHS will explain 

what the agency is doing to improve its health services for detainees. I expect GAO to have some concrete observations and recommendations for strengthening those improvements. 

We will ask each of you to summarize your written statements 

in 5-minute oral presentations. We will reprint your full statements 

in the hearing record. 

Mr. Hayes and Captain Rodriguez, I will ask you to speak first 

about the current state of ICE detainee health services. Ms. 

Cackley, you will follow the ICE witnesses, explaining the work 

that you and your team have just completed. And then, Ms. 

Schriro, we will then ask you to discuss how you and Secretary 

Napolitano expect to address these and any other issues you have 

discovered about ICE detainee health care. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
468 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 710 52999B.001
469 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 711 52999B.002
470 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 712 52999B.003
471 

Mr. PRICE. Before we hear from our witnesses, I want to turn to 

our Ranking Member, Al Rogers, for any comments he wishes to 

make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to our distinguished guests. 

ICE has a legal and moral obligation to care for the safety and 

well-being of all those in its custody. I think I speak for all of us 

when I say that our goal should be to prevent any death. One 

death is too many. So, I sincerely appreciate the efforts of those appearing before us today, as well as the thousands of ICE personnel 

in the field, to ensure the agency lives up to the solemn duty of 

providing sufficient health care for all of its detainees. 

I must stress that ICE is, in fact, performing a humanitarian 

mission as it provides basic and essential medical services to its detainees, some 11⁄2 million since the agency was created in 2003. In 

most of these cases, ICE is likely providing what amounts to the 

first real health care these individuals have been given for their 

entire life. 

As I understand it, each and every detainee is required to undergo a thorough medical screening; and, for those remaining in ICE 

custody at least 14 days, a comprehensive physical exam, as well 

as additional and specific medical treatment, as is indicated. 

That is full health care coverage at the American taxpayers’ expense and at a level of quality that far exceeds what might otherwise be available to many of these individuals, evidenced by a mortality rate that is substantially lower for ICE detainees than for 

U.S. prisons and jail populations, U.S. hospitals, even the general 

U.S. population as a whole. 

The bottom line is that providing for the safe and humane confinement of the hundreds of thousands of detainees that pass 

through ICE detention facilities each year is an unquestioned requirement and priority—a priority that is reflected by a doubling 

of budgetary resources over the last 5 years, from $74.3 million in 

fiscal 2004 to a projected $151 million in ICE’s 2009 budget, and, 

I might add, a priority that this subcommittee most certainly supports. 

Now, as the Chairman has stated, ICE’s performance in this area 

has been punctuated by some unfortunate deaths and illnesses. 

Today I hope to learn more about these tragic cases. How ICE addressed these situations and what the agency is doing to try to prevent such incidents from ever occurring again. 

We thank our witnesses for appearing today. We look forward to 

discussion on this critical issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
472 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 716 here 52999B.004
473 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 717 here 52999B.005
474 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 718 here 52999B.006
475 

Mr. PRICE. Gentlemen, please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF JAMES HAYES/ICE–DRO 

Mr. HAYES. Good after morning, Chairman Price, Congressman 

Rogers, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is 

Jim Hayes, and since September 2008, I have been Director of Detention and Removal Operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement. It is my privilege to appear before you today to discuss the detention process and medical care and treatment of ICE 

detainees. 

DRO’s core mission is the arrest, detention, and removal of inadmissible and deportable aliens. In doing so, we enforce laws that 

have been enacted by the Congress. Our authority to arrest and detain aliens is contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

In carrying out our mission, one of our highest priorities is to 

provide a safe, secure, and humane detention environment for detainees, including providing health care to those in our custody. We 

take this responsibility very seriously, and I assure you that I am 

personally committed to ensuring that ICE detainees are treated 

humanely and receive adequate medical care for the duration of 

their time in custody. 

I look forward to working very closely with Secretary 

Napolitano’s special advisor, Dr. Doria Schriro, who is here today, 

to review and implement recommendations made by the Department’s Working Group on Detainee Health Care, which considered 

detainee health care improvements. The working group included 

the Office of Health Affairs at DHS, and individual external medical experts reviewed their report. 

Further, Chairman, as you noted, this committee funded an assessment of medical care provided to ICE detainees that will be 

performed by our Office of Professional Responsibility in consultation with the Department’s Office of Health Affairs. We look forward to cooperating fully with that review. 

ICE uses detention as a tool to ensure that aliens amenable to 

removal from the United States are, in fact, removed. In fiscal year 

2009, the ICE detention program is funded for 33,400 beds. Currently ICE estimates that more than 440,000 detainees will spend 

some time in ICE custody this year. The vast majority of these detainees will be in ICE care for approximately 30 days or less prior 

to their removal from the United States. 

ICE uses both internal and external programs to ensure that all 

facilities we use to house detainees provide safe, humane conditions of confinement, including private contractors and an internal 

group within our Office of Professional Responsibility. 

To further ensure that any deficiencies identified in any facility 

that we use are immediately addressed, in January of this year I 

directed that any deficiency be immediately reported to me for review so that I can closely track the progress in correcting them. 

It has always been ICE’s policy to address and correct deficiencies involving life and health safety issues immediately. However, I believe that this higher level of visibility will speed remediation efforts. 

To ensure detainees receive medical treatment in accordance 

with community standards of care, my office partners with U.S. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
476 

Public Health Service commissioned officers to provide or arrange 

for health care in 23 detention facilities that ICE uses, including 

all 7 ICE-owned service processing centers. During fiscal year 2008, I spent more than $128 million on detainee health care, including basic and advanced care for detainees 

at the above-mentioned facilities, as well as advanced care for detainees housed at other detention facilities. 

Since the creation of ICE in 2003, more than 1.7 million individuals have passed through ICE detention facilities. Last summer we 

began developing plans to add health records to our modernization 

of detainee records, with the goal of tracking all health care provided to all detainees in ICE custody. 

Mr. Rogers, as you mentioned, each detainee receives an initial 

health screening once they come into ICE custody. These initial 

health screenings have proven, in some cases, to be lifesaving. 

In the 5 months since I became the permanent DRO Director, I 

have reviewed our detention system, including the health care delivery system currently used. We are faced with a variety of challenges, including the fact that 90 percent of our detainee population has generally not received adequate health care prior to entering ICE custody; the fact that of the detainees medically 

screened by DIHS in fiscal year 2008, 34 percent were identified 

as having chronic medical attention, including hypertension and diabetes that was previously undiagnosed; the fact that we face a 

lack of available detention space in areas that we are busiest, 

southern California, New England, and right here in the Mid-Atlantic region; as well as the fact of rising health care costs for our 

generally poor health population. 

However, the mortality rate for ICE detainees in 2008 was 2.7 

deaths per 100,000 detainees. As GAO reported, given the generally poor health of detainees in ICE custody, the comparatively 

low death rate among ICE detainees provides evidence of the extraordinary measures that ICE takes to prevent the death of any 

ICE detainee in our custody. 

When a death does occur, ICE reports it immediately to our own 

Office of Professional Responsibility and the DHS Office of Inspector General to determine if an investigation into the circumstances 

of the detainee’s passing is warranted. Facilities are also required 

to report all deaths to the local medical examiner or coroner’s office, who will conduct an autopsy, if required. 

DIHS also conducts an independent review of some in-custody 

deaths based on individual circumstances, and I am proud to report 

that this year we will begin recording all deaths in ICE custody to 

the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Despite steady improvement and increased investment in recent 

years, I believe our detention management system can be further 

strengthened. We have recognized the need for such improvement 

and have taken significant steps in working toward our goal of having the safest detention management system in the United States, 

if not the world. I look forward to working with Dr. Schriro to build 

upon this progress. 

Our comprehensive detainee health program is based on comprehensive medical care, sound management, continuous review, 

and process improvement. Our detention oversight procedures work 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
477 

to ensure a safe, secure, and humane detention environment. ICE 

detention and medical service processes are continually monitored 

by both internal and external experts, with the ultimate goal of 

providing the best possible conditions of confinement and health 

care to those in our custody. As I mentioned at the start of my 

statement, the well-being of our detainees is among our highest 

priorities and most important responsibilities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
478 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 725 here 52999B.007
479 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 726 here 52999B.008
480 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 727 here 52999B.009
481 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 728 here 52999B.010
482 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 729 here 52999B.011
483 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 730 here 52999B.012
484 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 731 here 52999B.013
485 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 732 here 52999B.014
486 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 733 here 52999B.015
487 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 734 here 52999B.016
488 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 735 here 52999B.017
489 

Mr. PRICE. Captain Rodriguez. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN RODRIGUEZ/ICE–DIHS 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking 

Member Rogers, distinguished members of the committee. My 

name is Captain Jose Rodriguez. I am a family physician and a 

commissioned officer of the U.S. Public Health Service, currently 

serving as the Director of ICE’s Division of Immigration Health 

Services since October of 2008. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. 

The mission of DIHS is to protect America by providing health 

care and public health services in support of immigration law enforcement. DIHS consists of U.S. Public Health Services, GS employees, and contracted medical staff. Our medical staff has provided health care and made medical recommendations about medical and mental health treatment of detainees in ICE facilities 

since ICE was created. The PHS officers are detailed from the Department of Health and Human Services to DHS. These health professionals exercise their independent medical judgments about all 

matters pertaining to a detainee’s health care, and seek to ensure 

that everyone they see receives appropriate medical treatment consistent with accepted community standards of care. 

DIHS is responsible for protecting America’s borders utilizing 

disease screening and prevention controls for ICE detainees 

through the administration of a comprehensive health care delivery 

system incorporating medical, mental health, and environmental 

services. ICE, through its National Detention Standards, requires 

that each detainee receive an initial medical screening, including a 

mental health and dental examination, within 12 hours of arrival 

into custody. Those remaining in ICE custody for at least 14 days 

also receive a comprehensive health assessment, which includes a 

detailed medical history and a complete medical examination. 

Many of these detainees learn of a medical ailment or receive 

medical care and treatment for the first time in their lives through 

this comprehensive screening. In fiscal year 2008, of the 236,006 

detainee screenings, 81,352 detainees, or approximately 34 percent, 

were identified as having chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, or a mental illness. Some detainees suffer from multiple chronic conditions. 

Each DIHS-staffed facility has a written plan for the delivery of 

24-hour emergency health care or immediate outside medical attention. All facilities have arrangements with nearby medical facilities 

or health care providers for health care not provided within the facility. When an ICE detainee is hospitalized, the hospital assumes 

medical decisionmaking authority on all treatment matters. 

Each DIHS clinic has a mechanism that allows detainees to request health care services provided by a physician or other qualified medical officer in a clinical setting. Detainees, including those 

who are illiterate or do not speak or read English, can receive assistance in filling out the request slip to access a health care provider. 

Patients are treated in accordance with nationally recognized 

standards and guidelines. Individuals who have acute or chronic 

health care needs are referred to a primary care provider for evalVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00489 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
490 

uation and medical treatment. Those found to have an infectious 

disease are placed in an appropriate health care setting and receive 

treatment for their condition. 

Access to health care outside of DIHS facilities are available to 

detainees when their needed medical care cannot be provided on 

site. DIHS oversees the financial authorization of the off-site specialty and emergency care for all detainees in ICE custody, wherever they are housed. 

The demands on DIHS to provide mental health care services for 

detainees continue to grow with the size of the detainee population. 

To address these mental health needs, the psychologists and social 

workers of DIHS have provided some 27,000 combined patient encounters for psychological services. One of our initial developments 

in the mental health area has been the development and implementation of a training program on suicide prevention for DIHS 

staff members to increase their awareness of early indicators for 

potential suicidal behavior. 

The DIHS Epidemiology Branch monitors tuberculosis cases to 

ensure continuity of care, whether the detainee is to be released 

into custody in the United States or returned to his or her country 

of origin. Between January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2008, ICE coordinated the repatriations to home countries of individuals with active 

or suspected active tuberculosis. DIHS seeks to minimize threats to 

public health domestically and globally and prevent transmission of 

drug-resistant or multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis. 

DIHS is committed to providing quality medical care to detainees. To help ensure that consistent and quality care is provided, all 

facilities run by DIHS maintain accreditation from three nationally 

recognized accrediting bodies to ensure the quality of health care 

meets industry standards: The American Correctional Association, 

the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and the 

Joint Commission. 

Detainee facilities are also assessed by using ICE National Detention Standards to ensure that adequate and appropriate medical 

care is provided to detainees. All DIHS health care providers are 

required to be licensed and credentialed under the same guidelines 

as those serving in other Federal and community facilities. 

DIHS continues to make improvements to ensure that consistent 

quality medical care is accessible to all ICE detainees. This is accomplished through regular and frequent communication with ICE 

DRO leadership and enhancements to existing programs. DIHS is 

actively participating in the Electronic Medical Record Workgroup 

that is evaluating several electronic health care record systems for 

deployment in the near future. 

Thank you for allowing me to provide testimony before your committee today. I will be happy to answer any questions you have at 

this time. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
491 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 741 here 52999B.018
492 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 52999B.019
493 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 52999B.020
494 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 52999B.021
495 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 52999B.022
496 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 52999B.023
497 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 747 here 52999B.024
498 

Mr. PRICE. We will now turn to the GAO report. 

Ms. Cackley, you may proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MS. CACKLEY/GAO 

Ms. CACKLEY. Thank you. Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be with 

you today as you examine health care for immigration detainees in 

the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. 

Health care for detainees has been an issue of concern as cases 

of poor health outcomes and even deaths of ICE detainees have 

come to light. My remarks this morning are based on a report we 

prepared for the subcommittee, which you released yesterday, entitled ‘‘DHS: Organizational Structure and Resources for Providing 

Health Care to Immigration Detainees.’’ 

My remarks will cover two key areas that you asked us to examine. The first is ICE’s organizational structure for providing health 

care to detainees. The second is ICE’s annual spending and staffing 

for detainee health care, as well as the number and types of services provided. We did not address the quality of care that detainees 

in ICE custody receive. 

As our first graphic shows, ICE mainly uses three types of facilities to house detainees. Of the three facility types, intergovernmental service agreement facilities, or IGSAs, are the most common. ICE uses 514 IGSAs, which are generally State and local jails 

under contract with ICE to hold detainees. 

As the next graphic shows, the majority of the population is 

housed at IGSAs. In fiscal year 2007, almost two-thirds of the detainee population was held in IGSAs. The remaining ICE detainees 

were held at 15 service processing centers and contract detention 

facilities. 

I need to note that ICE is not able to provide reliable data on 

the number of unique individuals it detains each year. Throughout 

our work, we use data on the number of beds ICE used on an average day during the fiscal year, or what is called the average daily 

population, because this is the only reliable measure that ICE 

could provide. 

In general, ICE organizational structure for providing health 

care to detainees differs by type of facility. At the largest facilities, 

staff from the Division of Immigration Health Services, or DIHS, 

provide health care services. DIHS is comprised of contract employees and officers from the U.S. Public Health Service Commission 

Corps. 

About half of all ICE detainees receive health care at facilities 

staffed by DIHS providers. In contrast, some IGSA facilities engage 

on-site clinicians, while others have no health care staff on site and 

rely on community providers to deliver care. 

Until October 1, 2007, HHS and DHS had agreements that enabled the use of DIHS medical personnel to provide detainee health 

care. DIHS is no longer a component of HHS, and Public Health 

Service officers are now detailed to DHS. 

DHS officials reported that ICE now has a component named 

DIHS that provides health care services to detainees. However, 

DHS could not provide us an organizational chart to show DIHS’s 

placement within the agency. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
499 

During our work, ICE officials told us that its facilities are not 

required to keep standardized records or to report routinely on detainee health care. Although facilities are responsible for transferring detainees’ medical information when detainees are transferred, the completion of these medical transfer summaries are not 

monitored. 

In terms of resource utilization, we found that it was difficult to 

get a complete picture of health care spending, staffing, and services provided to detainees. Data are not available on many of the 

health care expenditures incurred by IGSAs. Likewise, data on 

medical claims submitted by community medical providers could 

not be reported by facility type, such as IGSAs. 

Given those caveats, ICE’s available data on health care spending, staffing and services provided generally indicated growth in all 

three areas. The available data for medical claims and DIHS program operations showed that from fiscal years 2003 through 2007, 

spending on detainee health care rose by 47 percent. Over the 

same period, the average daily population increased by about 40 

percent. Likewise, the number of DIHS health care staff and the 

number of services they provided both increased during this time. 

In conclusion, some aspects of DHS’s organizational structure 

and its current management practices may affect the agency’s ability to oversee spending, staffing, and services for detainee health 

care. Our work identified a number of areas that may merit additional study. These include ICE’s ability to account for the number 

of individuals in custody; reporting relationships between DIHS 

and ICE; IGSA health care recordkeeping and reporting requirements; ICE ability to ensure the transfer of medical records when 

detainees are transferred between facilities; ICE’s ability to identify expenditures incurred by IGSAs for detainee health care; and 

ICE’s ability to identify medical claims expenditures by facility 

type, such as IGSAs. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions you or members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We will return to those findings when we 

do turn to questions. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
500 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 753 here 52999B.025
501 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 754 here 52999B.026
502 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 755 here 52999B.027
503 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 756 here 52999B.028
504 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 757 here 52999B.029
505 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 758 here 52999B.030
506 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 759 here 52999B.031
507 

Mr. PRICE. Dr. Schriro, welcome. Please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. SCHRIRO/ICE–DRO 

Ms. SCHRIRO. Good morning, Chairman Price, Congressman Rogers, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is 

Dora Schriro. I am the newly appointed Special Advisor on Detention Removal Operations to Secretary Napolitano at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Secretary created this position 

to focus exclusively on the significant growth in immigration detention over the last 5 years and its related issues at ICE. 

Just prior to joining DHS, I served as director of the Arizona Department of Corrections in Governor Napolitano’s administration. I 

also led the Missouri Department of Corrections. In both States, we 

put systems in place to find and fix the root causes of concern, cutting new lawsuit filings about conditions of confinement by greater 

than 70 percent. I also have considerable experience working with 

pretrial detainees, first as assistant commissioner of the New York 

City Department of Corrections, and later as warden and then commissioner of the St. Louis City jails. In each of these jurisdictions 

alternatives to confinement were also of concern, and great strides 

were made. 

I am otherwise active in making improvements; participating, for 

example, in an ABA workgroup that reviewed and revised standards for the treatment of prisoners and detainees. 

I appreciate the similarities and the differences in civil detention 

and criminal confinement. It has informed my early assessment 

during my first several weeks of work and will continue to do so. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you this morning 

to share my early impressions about the medical care and treatment of immigration detainees, including deaths in DRO custody, 

and to outline steps for a course of action to bring about the 

changes we all want. 

Within ICE, Detention and Removal Operations oversees the apprehension, supervision, and removal of inadmissible and deportable aliens. DRO provides, either directly or by contract, as has 

been testified, for the safety and well-being of detainees pending 

their removal with policies, processes, and appropriated funds. Its 

affirmative obligation to ensure appropriate medical care is afforded to detainees in its custody regardless of location includes a 

medical screening within 12 hours; a physical exam within 2 weeks 

of detention; timely and appropriate responses to emergent medical 

requests; medical care suitable to the anticipated length of detention; and a plan to continue care after removal, as warranted. 

As documented in GAO reports, among others, we know that this 

does not always happen. Likewise, since the inception of ICE in 

2003, there have been 90 detainee deaths in ICE custody, including 

76 natural causes, 13 by suicide, and 1 by accidental overdose. Despite gains made over time, in several recent accounts the medical 

or custodial care provided appeared contrary to DRO policy. 

DRO has an average daily census approaching 33,400 in detention, and as many as 17,000 in the community on supervision on 

any day. By year’s end, over 400,000 will have been detained, its 

size rivaling that of any other system. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
508 

DRO, however, unlike its pretrial counterparts, oversees as many 

as 350 detention facilities, of which relatively few are under its direct control. Its delivery of health care is shared by DIHS and several hundred State and local partners with which DRO maintains 

intergovernmental agreements. As we have heard, DIHS is the direct care provider to many of the population, with the remainder 

receiving routine health care on site by IGSA providers or others, 

and emergent and specialty care off site through DIHS. DRO expended about $128 million through per diem payments in 

DIHS during fiscal year 2008 for the medical, dental, and mental 

health care afforded. DRO is expected to get larger in the immediate future. ICE plans to increase its detention capacity by 1,400 

beds during fiscal year 2009. 

We recognize that we need to do more, quickly. Concern has been 

expressed within government and by the community for some time 

about the medical care and treatment that ICE detainees receive 

and detention deaths in custody. In my view, there is reason for 

concern. There is also real possibility for measurable, sustainable 

improvement. The fiscal year 2009 appropriation provided for $2 million to ICE 

to undertake immediately a review of the medical care provided to 

people detained by DHS. This is an important opportunity for ICE 

to convene stakeholders and subject matter experts to build upon 

the body of knowledge already in print, including a recently completed report by the DHS working group that was formed last summer. 

While this review gets underway, I will complete my overview of 

written materials and continue to tour facilities in every part of the 

country, speaking with staff and detainees wherever possible, and 

meeting with my colleagues in State and local enforcement and 

nongovernmental organizations in each area that I visit. And to inform future budget and planning for a delivery system consistent 

with medically accepted community standards of care, DRO and 

DIHS will redouble its collection of data, yielding more news and 

less noise. 

Last, Secretary Napolitano has asked that I submit preliminary 

findings and recommendations to her shortly, and I am prepared 

to do so. I anticipate that an assessment will be ready for your review shortly thereafter, and that it will include deliverables upon 

which you can count. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chair. We can make a difference, and we 

will. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank very much. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
509 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 765 here 52999B.032
510 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 766 here 52999B.033
511 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 767 here 52999B.034
512 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 768 here 52999B.035
513 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 769 here 52999B.036
514 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 770 here 52999B.037
515 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 771 here 52999B.038
516 

MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR DETENTION FACILITIES

Mr. PRICE. Thanks to all of you. 

We will turn to the questions now. And I would like to focus initially on one aspect of this challenge, which is the question of timely access to medical care. There have been disturbing reports, as 

you know, including last summer’s inspector general report, that 

indicate some detainees have had to wait weeks or months to receive simple requested medical care. Generally this seems to be because the facility in which they were detained either does not have 

an on-site doctor or nurse, or because a doctor or nurse is available 

only sporadically on a part-time basis. 

Recently the Washington Post highlighted how a man in ICE 

custody in Virginia complained of sharp pains in his back and abdomen, but was not examined by a doctor for more than a week, 

and, according to the article, the man later died of a bacterial infection that could have been and should have been caught. 

Mr. Hayes and Captain Rodriguez, I would like to ask you in 

turn to help us understand the situation here. What kind of medical standard or requirements are imposed on the different categories of facilities, the Federal facilities, the privately owned, and 

the intergovernmental service agreement facilities, that house individuals in ICE detention? Are all facilities required to have doctors 

or nurses on staff at the facility? If not, what kind of arrangements 

are they required to have? And what kind of standard are they 

supposed to observe for timely medical attention? 

Captain Rodriguez in particular, does ICE routinely measure the 

amount of time its detainees have to wait for medical care so there 

can be some indication of whether the standards are being met? If 

so, what is the figure that you have? And do you maintain separate 

statistics for, again, the different classes of facilities; the Federal 

facilities, the privately owned, and the IGSA facilities? 

Mr. Hayes, if you will begin. 

Mr. HAYES. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. 

All facilities are required to have a medical authority that governs the care that is provided in that facility. They are also required to have plans in place to provide routine care, day-to-day 

care, emergency care. 

One of the things that we began doing just a few months ago, 

in consultation and together with DIHS, is reviewing weekly cases 

that we believe are involving individuals who are faced with significant medical conditions. It is our first step toward building a 

real medical risk classification system. 

One of the challenges that goes to a number of your points that 

we face has to do with our ability to collect data, our data management information systems that we are actively working to improve. 

That is the whole point behind the electronic health record system 

is to be able to capture information related to the delivery of health 

care to every detainee who comes into our custody, regardless of 

what type of facility it is; whether it is an intergovernmental service agreement facility, a contract detention facility, or one of our 

own facilities. 

And so the goal where we want to get to is where every detainee 

that comes in and receives these screenings is classified based on 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
517 

risk, and therefore, once we identify detainees with a particular 

risk, we can move them, if need be, to a different facility in a location or with a community around them that can provide a better 

standard of care. 

Certainly I think Dr. Rodriguez can discuss some of the things 

that DIHS does and some of the things that DIHS is prepared to 

do when it becomes aware of cases in those IGSA facilities where 

DIHS is not. Certainly we are as well—— 

AVAILABILITY OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL ON SITE

Mr. PRICE. Excuse me. Just one question that springs from your 

comments. Do these facilities now have the kind of medical personnel on the premises or available to even contemplate that kind 

of initial screening and that kind of initial categorization? 

Mr. HAYES. Currently they are required to be in a position to 

provide health care. It does not require a specific on-premise personnel, per se. That is what is laid out in most of the IGSA contracts and in the detention standards. Now, we are actively reviewing all of the IGSA contracts that we currently have to make them 

much stronger for the health and the care of our detainees. 

And then I will leave it to Dr. Rodriguez to answer the questions 

that you specifically posed to him. 

TREATMENT AUTHORIZATION REQUESTS

Captain RODRIGUEZ. When it comes to the standard for access of 

care, all the care that cannot be provided on site by the facility, regardless of IGSA or DHS staff facility, goes through a process 

called the TAR request, which means Treatment Authorization Request. Depending on whether that request for medical care is part 

of our benefit package, then if it is, it is approved automatically; 

if it is not, then it is our medical director who will then either approve or disapprove based upon only medical necessity. 

Some of these approvals have to do with lack of information on 

the TAR request, and then they are sent back to a facility so they 

can provide more information that will allow for that TAR request 

to be approved. I can tell you that our last statistics for approval 

of the TAR show that we have approved 98 percent of the TAR requests, so most of them are not disapproved. And the ones that are 

disapproved are based only on lack of information to make a determination or because of the request is for what we consider to be 

not medically necessary or elective care. 

TIME IT TAKES TO GET MEDICAL CARE

Mr. PRICE. What about my question about whether you have accurate measurement of the amount of time it takes for detainees 

to get medical care? Do you have those statistics; do you gather 

them; and do you have them separately for these different kinds of 

facility? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. We do not, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayes, tell us, what happens to a detainee within 12 hours 

of his or her apprehension. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
518 

Mr. HAYES. Within 12 hours of booking into an ICE facility, they 

receive an initial intake screening, which will be a visual observation, as well as documentation of their medical history, being asked 

questions related to any pain or suffering that they may be currently undergoing. They will be asked if they are currently taking 

any medication, anything of that nature. And certainly I think the 

doctor—if you want more in-depth information, Captain Rodriguez 

can speak to even more in depth on that process. 

Mr. ROGERS. Captain Rodriguez, what happens to the detainee in 

the first hours of his or her detention, medically? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. As was mentioned by Mr. Hayes, they receive an initial what we call intake screening, consisting of simple 

medical questions that address issues about past medical history, 

medications, anything that is medically related. It does not involve 

at that time a medical hands-on examination. It is just based on 

a series of questions. 

Also they are going to receive screening for tuberculosis, either 

by doing a skin test or by having X-rays, which is what happens 

in most of our facilities. And also, if the detainee—in this case, female detainees between the age of 10 and 55, they get a pregnancy 

test also. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, 90 percent of the detainees come from 10 of 

the world’s most underdeveloped countries; is that not correct? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is correct, sir. 

BASELINE INCIDENCE OF ILLNESS AND DISEASE

Mr. ROGERS. So you would expect to see a lot of illness and disease amongst the people that you apprehend, is that not correct, 

because of that? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. So I am assuming that you are going to find all 

sorts of mental, dental, physical illnesses amongst this group of 

people. 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. Much higher than amongst the general population 

of, say, this country, right? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Have there been times when, because of your examination of these people, that you have saved lives, do you think? 

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Yes, we have. We have found conditions 

that, if not treated within weeks or months from the diagnosis, 

they would have died, regardless of whether they will be in the 

general population or in our facility. So those screenings have been 

lifesaving for these detainees. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the 

examination that you give a detainee upon their arrest, as to 

whether or not your examination is the first they ever received in 

their life? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Yes. Most of these have had no type of medical care in their lives, not even going to a doctor or clinic, outpatient clinic. So we are sometimes the first time they see a physician who do an examination on them. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
519 

Mr. ROGERS. What percentage of the detainees that you bring in 

are getting their first examination in their life? What percent? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. I don’t have those numbers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Give me a guess. Half? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. I would say more than that, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Three-fourths? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Probably. 

Mr. ROGERS. Two-thirds. 

Mr. HAYES. If I may, Mr. Rogers, it is definitely information we 

want to begin collecting because of the very fact that you point out, 

that we don’t have numbers to quantify it, but in the medical opinion of the DIHS experts that are screening these individuals, it is, 

in fact, many instances the first time in years or their lives that 

they have been seen by a medical doctor and asked these types of 

questions. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would assume that in the course of those examinations, you discover hypertension, diabetes, tuberculosis, asthma, 

HIV/AIDS, seizures, dental needs, heart disease, what have you, 

right? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. For example, people have 

even gotten a procedure such as a bypass or stent placement for 

heart disease that they would not have dreamed to receive in their 

native countries because they were not diagnosed and they have a 

potentially lethal heart disease. 

Mr. ROGERS. Have you intervened in those types of cases? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Yes, we have, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. With what? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Sending them to a specialist who will perform the surgery. 

Mr. ROGERS. Cardiac surgery? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. Has that happened other than once? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. I don’t know the numbers, but I know of a 

few, sir. 

MORTALITY RATES

Mr. ROGERS. The mortality rate in 2008, as has been described, 

is 2.7 deaths per 100,000 detainees. Mr. Hayes, can you compare 

that to other mortality rates that might be relevant to this discussion? 

Mr. HAYES. Well, GAO recognized in their report that our mortality rate was lower than other prison populations. However, one 

of the factors that makes it difficult to compare is the fact that we 

have been talking about for the last couple of minutes, which is our 

population is generally in poorer health certainly than the prison 

population of other prison populations in the United States. 

Mr. ROGERS. If I could just briefly, quickly, because it is relevant. 

I have before me here a chart that shows the detainee mortality 

rates from 2004 to 2008. I think this was supplied to me by ICE. 

Mr. HAYES. I believe so. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is that accurate, Mr. Hayes? 

Mr. HAYES. I believe it is. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
520 

Mr. ROGERS. I would like to enter that in the record, Mr. Chairman. It shows the mortality rate has decreased from 10.8 per 

100,000 in 2004, down to 2.7 in 2008. 

And, secondly, the ICE health care spending that this subcommittee has approved for the Department from 2004 to 2009, 

$74 million in 2004, to $151 million for the current fiscal year. Is 

that accurate? 

Mr. HAYES. I believe it is, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would like to enter that in the record, too, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Those charts will be entered in the record. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
521 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 782 here 52999B.039
522 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 783 here 52999B.040
523 

Mr. PRICE. Now we return to Mr. Rodriguez. 

STANDARDIZED RECORDS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. Thank you very much. 

If I gather anything—I want you to tell me if I am correct or 

not—from the GAO, is that you indicated that there are no standardized records; that the picture is vague; that health care records 

are not being kept appropriately, or not there. Is that correct? You 

don’t have a good feel for what is occurring. 

Ms. CACKLEY. When I say that there is no standardized recordkeeping, I mean that there is no standardized—it is not that no 

records are being kept, it is that they are not being kept in a standardized way. So, in some places there may be electronic records, 

and in other places there may be paper records, and they can’t 

be—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. You are having difficulty gathering and 

making an assessment. 

Ms. CACKLEY. Exactly. 

LISTING OF DEATHS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. Mr. Hayes, you indicated that—I think 

I quoted you right when you said that not all deaths are listed. 

Mr. HAYES. I am sorry? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. When you talked about and reported in 

terms of the deaths and the low death rates, but did you also indicate that not all the deaths were listed? 

Mr. HAYES. No. I am sorry. I don’t recall saying that. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. So all the deaths are listed. 

Mr. HAYES. When you say ‘‘listed’’—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. I think I picked that up from you when 

you were talking. 

Mr. HAYES. I am sorry, reported. I was talking about all deaths 

being reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Office of the Inspector General, the local health authorities. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. They are? 

Mr. HAYES. They are, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. Was that picked up from the GAO, all 

the deaths that occur within all the different existing groups? 

Ms. CACKLEY. The information that we had on the deaths was information that was given to us by ICE. We didn’t do any separate 

confirmation. 

REPORT ON DEFICIENCIES

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. You didn’t confirm. 

You indicated also, Mr. Hayes, that you were also following up 

to get a report on your deficiencies. Were any other deficiencies 

outlined based on your reports that you received that were not indicated by the GAO? 

Mr. HAYES. Again, this began in January of this year. I directed 

this process to happen. And the process as it happens now is there 

is a closeout every time a detention facility is inspected by either 

a private contractor or our own Office of Professional Responsibility. And what I have directed is that if a deficiency is identified 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
524 

in any standard in any facility, that it be reported to me the same 

day so I can personally track the progress on correcting those deficiencies or, if necessary and warranted, make a determination 

where immediate action is necessary. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. Does the GAO have a list of those deficiencies that have been outlined? 

Mr. HAYES. No, sir. I believe the GAO conducted their work last 

year, and this has only been ongoing since January. 

FAMILY HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. I am concerned about two types of facilities. Of course, I am concerned about the others, but one is 

where the families are being held—we have one, the Hutto facility 

in Texas—in terms of how they would get access to health care. 

The second is, we also have facilities where only young people 

were there, under 18. I know we have one in San Antonio, and others. I know we are talking about health care, access to health care, 

but one of the—I know they didn’t have appropriate legal access to 

attorneys, especially the young people that don’t have their parents 

with them. Some were 5 years old, others are a little older. In order 

for them to get any kind of service, I think that they would need 

legal services. Do you know in terms of how that is coming about 

in those types of facilities? 

Mr. HAYES. In the facilities that you reference, where juveniles 

are held, they are actually managed by the Office of Refugee and 

Resettlement. And that is within, I believe, the Department of 

Health and Human Services. And so we are responsible, actually 

required by statute, to turn juveniles over to them within 72 hours 

of their arrest. 

HUTTO FACILITY

When you reference family detention facilities, if I may, I know 

you are talking about the Hutto facility. And we have a facility, 

Berks facility, in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The reason why the 

facility in particular in San Antonio became necessary was because 

of the desire to end the policies of catch and release along the 

southwest border, as well as to end the practice of tremendously 

horrific exploitation of minors by violent alien smugglers who were 

using children to pretend that they were family units and therefore 

expecting release upon arrest by the Border Patrol. 

We have done a tremendous amount of work in making sure that 

the facility in Hutto not only conforms to the standards, but really 

exceeds the standard in many ways in both the amenability of 

medical care, as well as just a family-friendly atmosphere. It is not 

your typical detention setting. We understand that there are certain special differences when we are talking about detaining family 

units, in particular children, and we have made great strides to 

make sure that Hutto is as friendly and as convenient an atmosphere to be detained as possible. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ of Texas. Dr. Schriro, I would just make a comment that I would ask you to please follow up, especially on those 

sites that we have families being held, as well as those sites where 

we have just young people that are being held, not only in terms 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
525 

of access to quality care or appropriate care, but also in terms of 

legal services. 

With that, I will stop. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Calvert. 

DEATHS IN ICE SYSTEM

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for having this hearing. I think it is important because obviously perceptions here in the United States and outside of our country are extremely important. 

With that, Mr. Hayes, is this correct; a statistic that you gave us, 

approximately 1.5 million people have gone through the system, 

ICE system, since the beginning and there have been approximately 76 natural caused deaths and approximately 13 suicides? Is 

that a correct number? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. I think perfection in any organization is a noble 

goal whether you are in business or in government. And, Dr. 

Schriro, you have the experience with both Missouri and the State 

of Arizona. What was the statistic approximately per death per 

100,000? Do you have that number available? 

Ms. SCHRIRO. Mr. Calvert, I do not—— 

Mr. CALVERT. Did it exceed 2.7 deaths per 100,000? 

Ms. SCHRIRO. I believe that it did. We, like all State systems, report also to the Department of Justice, the Bureau of—— 

Mr. CALVERT. If you could find that number in the future and 

submit it for the record, I would appreciate it. But your belief is 

that it exceeded 2.7 per 100,000 both in the State of Missouri and 

in Arizona? 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. Calvert: If you could find that number in the future and submit it for the 

record, I would appreciate it. But your belief is that it exceeded 2.7 per 100,000 both 

in the State of Missouri and in Arizona? (1027–1030) 

Provided by the Department of Homeland Security: Yes. According to the most recently published U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report, the mortality rate per 100,000 state prisoners on June 30, 2006 was 219 for 

the State of Missouri and 202 for the State of Arizona. 

Ms. SCHRIRO. Both the actual and proportionate deaths for the 

size of this population is appreciably small. 

VACCINES

Mr. CALVERT. Dr. Rodriguez, obviously you have a significant 

number of people that are going through the system every year. If 

you have determined that a detainee has never received medical 

care in their life, are vaccines provided for the individuals? Are you 

doing any of that kind of preventative medical care? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Usually we provide for acute and chronic illness on any patient care that is required at the facility, but we 

don’t routinely provide the vaccinations because usually they have 

to be provided as part of a protocol. So just one shot isn’t going to 

provide the protection. And if the country to which they are being 

returned cannot follow through with that, then you haven’t accomplished much when it comes to vaccinations. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
526 

TUBERCULOSIS

Mr. CALVERT. I see. One of the comments you made in your testimony I would like to follow through on, and that is the issue of tuberculosis, especially drug-resistant TB. And you have found a 

number of cases that have been going through your detention centers. Do you work with the Center of Disease Control when you 

find a case of tuberculosis? Do you report that to the CDC? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Yes. Our epidemiology unit has contacts 

with the CDC and also they have—even though a network of treatment centers in different countries to which these detainees might 

be deported to, to ensure that they have continuity of care and they 

can continue the treatment that has been started in the U.S. 

Mr. CALVERT. Does the Center for Disease Control—once you 

have a detainee, do you determine where they have been in the 

United States to see if, in fact, any infections have been transmitted to other populations? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Well, we try to get as much information as 

possible, despite we find out sometimes the detainees may not be 

forthcoming in telling us where they have been sometimes, because 

they don’t want to expose other friends or family members to detention. So it is sometimes difficult to collect all the data that we 

might need. 

Mr. CALVERT. To your knowledge, is there any evidence of tuberculosis now resurging back into the general population of the 

United States, especially in the Southwest? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. I have no such information. 

Mr. CALVERT. Any evidence of any other disease that could be 

transmitted, such as—have you ever come in contact, say, with malaria? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. No, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. Any other disease, contagious diseases? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. No, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, for this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayes, how big is ICE? What is the budget? 

Mr. HAYES. The agency budget—forgive me—off the top of my 

head, it is somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 billion. 

Mr. FARR. And how many people are in ICE? 

Mr. HAYES. It is approaching 20,000, sir. I am sorry. I don’t have 

the number. 

Mr. FARR. It is a big law enforcement agency. 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir. 

ORAL SCREENING

Mr. FARR. I want to follow up on what Mr. Rogers said. You said 

that each and every detainee is given an oral screening? Is that 

what I heard? 

Mr. HAYES. That is the expectation. Obviously we are aware of 

instances where it may have been delayed, but that is our expectation. 

Mr. FARR. And are the oral screenings in the detainee’s native 

language? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
527 

Mr. HAYES. There are either officers available who are native 

speakers in that language—— 

Mr. FARR. Do they have officers that speak Triqui and the Indian 

dialects of Mexico that are non-Spanish speaking? 

Mr. HAYES. Generally, no. But we do have translation services 

available through private contractors. So in the instance where 

someone—— 

Mr. FARR. That is the telephone kind? 

Mr. HAYES. Generally, yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. So then you try to do the oral screening and then from 

the oral screening you determine whether they ought to have a 

physical exam or further screening? 

Mr. HAYES. That can lead to that more quickly. All detainees will 

have that prior to their 14th day in custody. But certainly where 

more serious conditions are noted in the initial intake, then that 

would prompt more immediate action, depending on the type of the 

condition, the severity—— 

Mr. FARR. But not every detainee sees the doctor? Those oral 

screenings are done by officers or by staff? 

Mr. HAYES. It could be done by someone other than a doctor, yes. 

Mr. FARR. So the doctors just see the referral cases, right? 

Mr. HAYES. I will leave it to Dr. Rodriguez to specifically state 

when a doctor gets involved. 

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That would be at the time when the physical exam is performed, which, like I mentioned, is a detailed medical history and also a hands-on physical examination. 

Mr. FARR. That doesn’t occur with everyone, only the detainees 

that are still detained after a certain period of time? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. If they are detained 14 days or more, they 

would get that. 

Mr. FARR. After 2 weeks, then they would have that exam? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. 

FACILITY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES

Mr. FARR. I looked in your chart here. Roughly of the 529 facilities, do you have a common operating process so that every one of 

those facilities goes by the same standards and procedures? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. The only standard we have is going to be 

the intake screen within 12 hours and the physical exam done 

within 14 days. 

Mr. FARR. All that is done in every single facility? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is our policy. 

Mr. FARR. That is your policy, but—— 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. But, of course, like—it was mentioned before that some facilities have been found to be deficient and some 

other facilities got too big in one of those two areas. When we identify that, we go to the facility and ask them to correct that. 

Mr. FARR. It seems very complicated. You have 414 that are 

intergovernmental agencies that could be anything from local law 

enforcement to private, you have eight service processing centers 

and seven contract detention facilities. It seems to me that one of 

the things you want to do is make sure that for all the questioning 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
528 

you are getting here, that the protocol is exactly the same in all 

of them. 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. The problem is that at some of these facilities, they are only required to comply with State standards and 

that can vary from one State to the next. And the only thing that 

we expect them to be consistent with would be the intake screening 

and the 14-day physical. 

DETAINEE CHARGES

Mr. FARR. Are every one of the detainees charged, Mr. Hayes? 

Mr. HAYES. They are being held on immigration violations, so 

they are booked in for removal proceedings. 

Mr. FARR. Unlike prisons, where inmates are serving a sentence 

or awaiting trial, these detainees are not. They could challenge and 

everyone could ask for a trial, could they not? 

Mr. HAYES. They could. They have the option of going through 

removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Some of the detainees that we are holding have already been ordered removed 

and are pending either our acquisition of travel documents or our 

ability to make travel arrangements for them. Additionally, obviously, some of these individuals have been fugitives; so they have 

been ordered removed, and we found them and they are awaiting 

removal to their own country. 

Mr. FARR. And you expect 440,000 to be detained this year up 

100,000 from last year? That is a big number increase. 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. How many of those people are being detained because 

you arrest them on warrants? 

Mr. HAYES. They are all arrested on warrants of arrest. 

Mr. FARR. No. You arrest people just because they open the door 

and they don’t have papers, they are undocumented. 

Mr. HAYES. They are all detained for committing immigration 

violations. 

Mr. FARR. But they are not all detained because they have an 

outstanding warrant. 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Some of those cases of warrant of arrest will 

be filed after the arrest. That is correct. 

Mr. FARR. No more questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Carter. 

CHALLENGES UNIQUE TO FAMILY FACILITIES

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent the T. Don 

Hutto detention facility. It is in my district. It is about 15 miles 

from my house. I have visited the facility many times and my staff 

has visited as well. Can you talk to us about the specific challenges 

that are unique to family facilities and what ICE has had to do, 

including some of the things we have had to do to convert and 

make sure that T. Don Hutto is meeting its responsibilities? 

Mr. HAYES. Some of the specific challenges—obviously your traditional prison settings aren’t appropriate for children, and it can be 

certainly somewhat challenging to find such an environment and to 

create such an environment where it doesn’t appear to be a traditional detention setting. However, we felt it necessary based on 

some of the things that we saw, trends with regard to alien smugVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00528 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
529 

glers and their usage, exploitation of minors coming over the border with their goal of being released if the Border Patrol believed 

that they were a family unit. 

I can tell you that the cost of operating the facilities in Hutto 

and Berks are greater than the cost of most of our other facilities. 

And certainly the health care costs there are greater too, because 

with children you are dealing with a vulnerable population in 

terms of opportunistic infections. And maybe Dr. Rodriguez can 

talk to the specific pediatric needs that are dealt with there. 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Yes. In these facilities, one of our main concerns is the mental well-being of these children because they may 

have gone through who knows what kind of emotional trauma on 

their way to the United States. So that is why we have probably 

twice as many social workers, psychologists and that kind of mental health personnel in that facility than anywhere else in the Nation. We also want to provide them—and some don’t appear to be 

like they are in a correctional facility, if you will, because of course 

that will add to the emotional trauma that they go through. So 

that is why they are provided with schooling that is age appropriate, sources for them to have entertainment that is appropriate 

for the age group, and everything that probably you might expect 

to see in any U.S. school system. 

Because I have been once also to Hutto. I was very impressed 

with what I saw there. And it doesn’t look like your are entering 

a correctional facility. It looks like some kind of a private school 

where you have computer labs, you have all kinds of things provided to those children. And it looks like a family-type setting, not 

a correctional facility. We believe that is important for those children’s families so that they can move away from whatever experience they had, especially emotionally, and carry on with their lives 

in a healthier way. 

Mr. CARTER. They have organized sports activities, they have 

cartoon characters on the walls. The painting is more family friendly. They have game rooms that would be a game room at the 

YMCA or anyplace else. 

On this issue of health care, when I was visiting, they had a fulltime nurse at that facility. And the Lone Star Circle of Care provided doctors and nurses anytime they had to go outside of the facility. And they had the health department doctors regularly in and 

out of that facility. And when screenings are made, a question was 

asked—if it is a health screening, some type of health professional 

does that screening, a nurse, a nurse’s aide, somebody with some 

training. It is not just an intake officer that gives an X-ray and tuberculosis skin test. Or is it? I don’t know the answer to that question. 

SPECIAL SCREENING FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, that is correct. We have developed a 

special screening tool for mental health problems that we really 

don’t—haven’t used in your facility because we believe that that 

kind of a facility requires a higher level of screening to make sure 

that the family as a whole is healthy enough, and, if they are not 

healthy enough, that they can receive the type of mental health 

service that they require as a family unit. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
530 

Mr. CARTER. They have gymnasium facilities and all types of facilities; is that correct? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Serrano. 

RESOURCES AND TRAINING

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this hearing. One of the dangers in this back-and-forth between Members of Congress and the panel is that it becomes a 

numbers discussion rather than a discussion about people. So it 

seems to me that I also should mention numbers. 

If you analyze this and say, well, we are not doing badly, we are 

doing the same or better than the general prison population, well, 

that is not correct because those folks stay there longer. So if a 

prisoner or an inmate dies or has a severe medical condition while 

serving a 5-year sentence, that is not the same as some situations 

where a person stays a day with you or a week with you or a 

month with you and has the same result. 

Secondly, there seems to be a lot of emphasis—and rightfully so 

in a way—on people detained while coming here. But not all the 

folks that are at these detention centers are people that were 

caught on their way here. Some have been here a long time. In 

fact, the German immigrant who died in Virginia had been here 42 

years out of his 48 years. So obviously this was not a person detained. This was a person who was here, who probably was no different health-wise than the rest of the American population. He 

wasn’t introducing anything on himself or to the population at the 

detention center. So I think the numbers are important. 

Now, I know that there is an attempt by you folks to do better, 

or at least to take care of these problems. But my question to you, 

at the risk of having you behave like all Federal agencies and say 

we need more resources, is do you have the resources to do what 

you are supposed to do? And that is one question. 

And my second follow-up question would be in the cases where 

people cannot identify or have no ability or don’t care about a person’s complaint about a pain, a condition, can we train those folks 

to understand the way a doctor would? If I came to you and said 

my back hurts—and knowing me I would complain about everything hurting—but you as a physician would say, okay, let us talk 

about that. But I suspect a prison guard or detention center employee may not know how to react to that. So what are we doing 

to make sure that when a person says I am in pain, I am hurting, 

I have a problem, someone doesn’t say what the New York Times 

and other papers have reported, basically, you know, you are out 

of luck. 

Mr. HAYES. I will take, obviously, your first question with resources and I will try not to behave bureaucratically. But the fact 

of the matter is we have grown tremendously. We went from detaining just over 18,000 people on a daily basis in 2003 to where 

we are at 33,400 now. One of the challenges was providing health 

care, and that is why in 2007 we arranged for this new agreement 

with the division of immigration and health services and they have 

grown tremendously. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
531 

I think, obviously, some of the things that we have done over the 

course of the last couple of years, such as contracting out the inspections of these facilities, are important. It is important because 

prior to doing that, these inspections were conducted by our own 

deportation officers on a collateral duty basis. So 2 weeks out of the 

year, they would go and inspect a particular facility, and we found 

that that was not the level of expertise that we wanted to tell us 

in a very transparent way whether or not a facility was meeting 

our standards and our expectations, as well as our detention facilities inspection group. 

These are things, including the enhanced health care that we are 

seeking to provide, that are going to be resource-intensive. It will 

require more resources as we continue to increase this population. 

But certainly the Congress has been very generous when it comes 

to appropriating funds to allow us to deal with these issues. 

With respect to the training, I completely agree with you. And 

I don’t want to have lay people trying to diagnose certain things. 

I don’t want our detention enforcement officers to have to feel like 

they have to diagnose things or make medical determinations. And 

we are exploring ways that we can make it much easier for detainees to have immediate, direct contact with trained health professionals, or at the very least, department personnel to immediately 

signal that they have some type of problem that they feel isn’t 

being taken care of or appropriately addressed. 

I appreciate your comment that you recognize that we are and 

have been working very hard over the last 2 years to make these 

improvements. And as I sit here before you, I tell you we are not 

satisfied. There are more improvements that we can make and we 

are in the process of doing that. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

TREATMENT OF PREGNANT WOMEN

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Actually I wish that all detained children were being housed in 

these nice day-care centers, as was described by Mr. Carter and by 

Dr. Rodriguez. But unfortunately, we are still getting reports that 

children are being kept overnight in border jails, that they are 

being put in cells with adults, often don’t even have blankets to 

keep them warm. 

So perhaps one of the problems is that when you evaluate these 

different facilities—this is my understanding—that these yearly 

evaluations, they are given 30 days’ notice that they will be evaluated, and perhaps if these were just drop-ins without any notice 

you may be able to pick up some things that are not obvious in the 

30 days the facilities have to prepare for your visit. 

The one thing that I wanted to raise is the treatment, the actual 

treatment of detainees, particularly pregnant women. And I want 

to just give you one example, which is really a horrific example, of 

Juana Villegas who was an 81⁄2-month-pregnant Mexican detainee, 

who went into labor last July. At the hospital she remained 

chained to her bed by the foot and the wrist until the final stages 

of her delivery, even though the nurses asked for the handcuffs to 

be removed. The officers refused to do that until just about the 

time of delivery. Afterward, Ms. Villegas was taken back to the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
532 

county jail where she developed infections in both breasts because 

officers denied her the use of a breast pump. She was also separated from her baby for 2 days. 

So can you explain how you justify this type of treatment for 

pregnant women and do you intend to recommend changes in policies with regards to the detention of pregnant women by, for example, considering expanding the use of parole for women who do not 

pose a flight risk, particularly pregnant or nursing mothers? 

Mr. HAYES. If I may, I would like to respond to the first issue 

that you posed, and then I will move onto the second. With respect 

to the drop-in or the unannounced inspections, I completely agree. 

I think that is one of the best ways that you can really get a true 

feel of what is going on at a facility is when they don’t have time 

to prepare. That is one of the things our detention facilities inspection group will do. Whether I request it or the assistant secretary 

can request it, they will do unannounced inspections. 

Additionally, one of the reasons why I directed that all deficiencies be immediately reported to me is because I wasn’t satisfied 

with the 30-day notice either. I want to know immediately about 

deficiencies to determine if there is more immediate action that 

should be taken, as in past inspections, you know, there could have 

been. 

With respect to Ms. Villegas, is that a case out of Tennessee, I 

believe? 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I believe so. 

Mr. HAYES. I researched that case. And actually she was not in 

ICE custody when that occurred. She was in the custody of the 

county. At the time of her release from the county, we processed 

her and did place her on a form of alternative to detention, actually 

placed her out on an order of supervision. The treatment, if accurate, was certainly regrettable, but it did not occur while she was 

in ICE—— 

CONTRACTS WITH COUNTY JAILS

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. But that brings up the point that you contract with these county jails and these officers in order to house 

these detainees; and therefore, in having these contracts or these 

agreements, you do not ask these local governments to adhere to 

any standards. 

So I think that brings up another point that perhaps you need 

to look at so that whoever you have agreements with, they are 

using the standards of DISH, which, by the way, even DISH detainee standards do not have the force of law, which is one reason 

why you have all these discrepancies and I have introduced a bill 

to address that issue. 

STANDARDS OF CARE

Mr. Rodriguez, as has already been highlighted, detention facilities across the country are often failing to meet even basic standards of care. And in a 2008 article, The Washington Post quoted 

an e-mail sent by a Division of Immigration Health Services doctor 

who expressed concern that the DIHS mission of—and this is a 

quote: ‘‘Keeping the detainee medically ready for deportation often 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
533 

conflicts with the standards of care in the wider medical community.’’ End of quote. 

He then went on to say again quote, ‘‘I know in my gut I am exposing myself to the U.S. legal standard of care argument.’’ 

Are you aware of these concerns that doctors have? And what 

recommendations do you have to address the concerns and to improve the quality of health care at ICE detention facilities? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. DIHS is the medical authority on all health 

matters relating to detainees. Nobody else in ICE has used their 

authority to circumvent our recommendation when it comes to recommended health care for a particular detainee. So what we do, we 

inform them of the medical condition of the patient, what the treatment that is required is, and we make sure that once the decision 

is made to either release or deport the detainee, we provide information about where that person is fit to be deported or released. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. So you don’t agree with the concerns raised 

by the doctors? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. In the 4 months I have been the director, 

I haven’t seen that situation happen. And I meet regularly with 

DRO leadership and they know that I am the medical authority 

and they should not go against our recommendations when it 

comes to providing health care to our detainees. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Perhaps you should find the doctor and—— 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. I would like to know who that person was 

so I can have a conversation, yes. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. 

ICE SCREENING PROTOCOLS

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this important meeting. 

I believe that in response to Congressman Farr, Dr. Rodriguez, 

you said there was first an oral exam and then hopefully a physical 

exam within 14 days, correct? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. 

Mrs. LOWEY. But what if the detainee doesn’t know he has an 

infectious disease, which is probably the case most of the time? 

Why isn’t there an immediate physical exam? And does ICE need 

more money to be able to do this? How long is the average wait 

before a detainee has his first—he or she has the first physical examination? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Let me see if I understand the question. You said why don’t we perform the physical exam before 

the—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. You said you perform an oral exam. 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, within the first 12 hours. 

Mrs. LOWEY. And it is probably if the detainee doesn’t know they 

have an infectious disease, they are not going to say I have TB or 

I have—they probably don’t even know it. So isn’t this very dangerous to wait 14 days? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Let me clarify that. We go through a questionnaire which is just asking about health issues. They get a dental evaluation and they also get testing for tuberculosis, which is 

done via skin testing or via chest X-rays. So it is not just an oral 

exam like has been said. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
534 

Mrs. LOWEY. I thought you said that they have to wait 14 days. 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is for the head-to-toe complete detailed 

CCR exam and for a detailed medical history. They do get the brief 

health treatment through questioning. They get the tuberculosis 

testing and they get a dental exam, plus they also get—if they are 

a female within the ages of 10 to 55, they get also a pregnancy test. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Now, do you feel that those tests that they get immediately, not having to wait 14 days, are adequate to prevent the 

spread of an infectious disease? Are you saying that all the potential infectious disease tests are covered maybe at the beginning and 

not for 14 days? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. No, I am not saying that. But if we were to 

test for any possible infectious disease that there is, we would have 

to do a whole battery of blood tests. And I don’t think even in the 

civilian sector or in the community it is done on a regular basis on 

anybody, except based on patient complaints. 

Mrs. LOWEY. So let me just clarify, following up on Mr. Farr. 

When a person is detained and placed in a facility, you have not 

done at that point sufficient tests so that you can say publicly we 

feel confident that every person who is admitted does not have an 

infectious disease. There may be some infectious disease that you 

are not testing for? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Okay. Could you tell me at how many facilities are 

there backlogs for medical appointments? How long is the average 

backlog? As you know, The Washington Post reported in May 2008 

that a facility in Pearsall, Texas had a backlog of 2,097 appointments. And I would be interested to know, again, what steps are 

currently in place, not just from our questions here, to make a determination if a detainee has an infectious disease? And if a detainee is found to be carrying a disease, what procedures are in 

place to prevent the disease from spreading? What do you do with 

that person? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Let me see if I remember all the—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. No, just—okay. I don’t want to confuse you. Let me 

continue with the—if someone is found to have an infectious disease, they come in with a hacking cough, what are the current policies with that person? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Okay. I guess the most important example 

of that would be somebody with tuberculosis. Okay. We have in our 

facilities—and they have the patient isolation rooms where we used 

to segregate those patients from the rest of the population to prevent any potential spread of tuberculosis to other detainees. And 

they are put there even if we just suspect that they have that illness, even before we can prove by either a chest X-ray or a culture 

that they do have tuberculosis. Because, of course, when it comes 

to testing with skin testing, that just means that the person has 

been exposed to the disease, not necessarily that they have an active case of tuberculosis. But we try to be very proactive and aggressive in trying to separate them from the rest of the population 

until we can determine that they actually do not have a contagious 

form of tuberculosis. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, my time is up. I am just very pleased that 

many of these issues came up, Mr. Chairman. And I am hoping 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
535 

that we can, Mr. Chairman, pursue adequate responses to what 

many of us have suggested are very, very serious challenges. 

Thank you. 

MORTALITY RATES

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Before we begin the second round of questioning, I wanted to make sure we don’t lose a point raised by both 

Mr. Calvert and Mr. Serrano regarding the statistical challenges 

here just in assessing where we are. 

One of the findings of the GAO analysis is that mortality rates 

for ICE detainees cannot be easily compared to penal inmates, 

other penal inmates, be they Federal or State institutions, given 

the differences in the age and the origin of the life history of the 

population. I think beyond that, there has been some testimony before the Judiciary Committee in this House by Dr. Homer Venters 

of the Bellevue/NYU program for survivors of torture. And he recommended that the standardized mortality rate calculation take 

into account the length of detention, precisely the point that Mr. 

Serrano was raising. 

So rather than get into that in too much detail at this point, I 

would appreciate, Ms. Cackley, if you could maybe elaborate your 

testimony with respect to that particular problem, the controlling 

for the length of detention and reflect on the issue as it has been 

raised here about how comparable these figures really are? 

Ms. CACKLEY. I would be happy to. We did find that it was not 

possible to compare the death rates amongst the detainee population with either the U.S. Marshals Service or the Bureau of Prisons populations. And exactly as has already been discussed and a 

result of the fact that we don’t know enough about the total population, the age distribution, the health histories, the difference in 

the amount of time that people are in custody and all of those 

things, would need to be standardized so that an accurate comparison could be made, both—a death rate is a—the numerator is the 

number of deaths and the denominator is amongst the whole population. But those populations are so different that you need to do 

a statistical calculation to compare them accurately. 

TREATMENT AUTHORIZATION REQUEST (TAR) PROCESS

Mr. PRICE. Dr. Schriro, as you get back to us on this, I would 

think that the Department would also want to take these factors 

into account in the interest of an apples-to-apples comparison of 

these numbers. 

Let me turn to some findings of the GAO report and, in particular, the kind of reporting that takes place from the IGSA facilities, the State’s contracted at the State and local level. We have 

discussed already at some length the various kinds of facilities we 

are dealing with here. There appears to be perhaps a special problem with respect to the IGSA facilities. ICE, as I understand it, requires these facilities to fax a so-called treatment authorization 

form to Washington, D.C. If the on-site doctor believes the detainee 

requires more medical care than the facility can provide. There 

have been a number of reports however, that suggest that these 

forms are reviewed by nurses who never examined the patients, 

who may deny the treatment requests without review by medical 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
536 

doctors, and that the requesting physicians have very little if any 

ability to appeal these denials. 

Last summer there was just an almost unbelievable case highlighted by the television show 60 Minutes, a man in ICE custody, 

whose doctors requested for 10 months that lesions on his genitals 

be biopsied, only to have those requests denied. The man was later 

released from ICE custody, received an immediate diagnosis of cancer, had his genitals amputated and died a year later after the cancer had spread to other parts of his body. 

Now, Captain Rodriguez, is the treatment authorization request 

still the primary method by which ICE manages the health care 

provided to detainees in these IGSAs? And who does review these 

requests? And how are the denials decided? And what rights of appeal do the on-site doctors have? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. We still use the entire process to authorize 

care of those facilities when the care is not available at the facility. 

First of all, the requests are reviewed by a nurse. Because if the 

requested procedure or consultation is within our benefit package, 

then it is going to be automatically approved. So it doesn’t require 

any higher level of review. If it is not there or the nurse has a 

question about whether it should be approved, then he goes to the 

director, who is the physician, and only the physician has authority 

to deny a health-care request that is submitted by the facility. 

Mr. PRICE. So the nurse does not have the power to deny? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Correct. But the nurse can ask a facility to 

submit any clarifying information if she feels that the request is incomplete. So that is one of the reasons why—was incomplete on 

number two—well, because that was seen by the director and the 

director felt that it was not a problem. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, the case I cited, it is hard to believe that anyone 

wouldn’t think this was a legitimate case. But beyond that, you are 

telling me that either a case is approved by this nurse through this 

screening process or there is a medical officer who reviews the 

case? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. In your opinion, has that been a reliable routinized 

process or has there been some slippage? 

Captain RODRIGUEZ. Well, in the 4 months I have been in the division, I have not seen any cases that rose to that level. That happened before my time. And I can tell that I don’t know how that 

happened. I can tell you that. But since I have been in the division, 

we have made sure that we respond within 72 hours, and that 

there is no request that are required, treatments that have been 

denied by our division. 

Mr. PRICE. Dr. Schriro, the best I can do at this moment is to 

suggest that this whole situation appears to be ripe for your review 

as you come into the Department, whether this is a problem of the 

scope that has been suggested by some of these reports. And in any 

case, what kind of review process needs to be maintained going forward from these IGSAs in terms of authorizing treatment? One 

issue is surely cost control, but it clearly needs to be more than 

that. There needs to be some assurance that legitimate health 

problems are being attended to. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
537 

Ms. SCHRIRO. Mr. Chair, I agree. What I have heard in various 

remarks and questions from the members of the subcommittee is 

concern that there is not yet one system in place, and that we all 

share the expectation that there ought to be common expectations 

and common characteristics, regardless of the location to which you 

are assigned pending your removal. So having reliable data and 

making apples-to-apples comparisons and being able to base future 

budget and other planning decisions on that reliable information 

that we have all been discussing is going to be critical. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

MORTALITY RATES

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I think we have to keep in mind that this is 

the detention program for people who are illegally in the country. 

It is not a health program. We are not talking about a health 

screening program here or a hospitalization. We are talking about 

detaining illegals before they are deported and whether or not we 

are furnishing adequate medical health while they are in our custody. I think we have to keep that in mind when we talk about how 

we are screening and are not screening people. 

But the basic fact remains—and, Ms. Cackley, I think you would 

have to agree—that the chart that shows the detainee mortality 

rates from 2004 to 2008 is quite remarkable, is it not? 

Ms. CACKLEY. Mr. Rogers, the mortality rate that—we did not attempt to calculate a mortality rate because we didn’t feel that we 

had an actual population—— 

Mr. ROGERS. I am showing you what the facts are. What is your 

comment on the reduction in the mortality rate from 10.8 in 2004 

to 2.7 in 2008? That is quite remarkable, is it not? 

Ms. CACKLEY. I don’t know what the basis of that calculation is 

because I don’t have the population numbers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, assuming this is correct, which it is, is that 

not remarkable? 

Ms. CACKLEY. It is a significant decrease, yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Now, Mr. Hayes, how many detainees have you 

handled since 2004? 

Mr. HAYES. I believe the number, sir, is greater than 1.7 million. 

Mr. ROGERS. 1.7 million people. And you have had 90 deaths, correct? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And only seven of those were females, correct? 

Mr. HAYES. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. And 17 are Cuban. And they died of such things as 

sudden cardiac death, coronary artery disease, AIDS, cardiac arrhythmia, brain tumor glioblastoma or whatever. Ninety people out 

of a million, what? 

Mr. HAYES. Seven. 

Mr. ROGERS. A million 7. To me that is remarkable. I don’t know 

what we are complaining of here. In fact, I think we ought to be 

complimenting you for this tremendous reduction. How did you 

achieve that it? 

Mr. HAYES. Well, I mentioned some of the things that we have 

done to increase the oversight on how we provide medical care to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
538 

detainees. Certainly a big step was increasing the percentage of facilities where DIHS is and I think that has a lot to do with it. 

Mr. ROGERS. I have a list of the people who have died in—detainees who have died, their names, their sex, their date of birth, their 

country of origin, the date they died, the facility where they died, 

the autopsies and the cause of death. Is there anything wrong with 

that becoming a public list? 

Mr. HAYES. I honestly would have to deflect to the Department’s 

general counsel, but we can certainly get back to you with an answer, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am prepared to file the list, unless it would violate 

some privacy provisions or what have you. 

Mr. Chairman, I will tender the list. And if it is appropriate, it 

might be good to be a part of the record. 

Mr. PRICE. Based on appropriate review, we will put it in the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
539 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 821 52999B.041
540 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 822 52999B.042
541 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 823 52999B.043
542 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 824 52999B.044
543 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 825 52999B.045
544 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 826 52999B.046
545 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 827 52999B.047
546 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 828 52999B.048
547 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 829 52999B.049
548 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 830 52999B.050
549 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 831 52999B.051
550 

Mr. ROGERS. These people died all over the country. I am looking 

at Middlesex, New Jersey, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 

South Carolina and so on. It seems to me that what we need to do 

is to be sure that you are providing, with whatever funds we can 

give you, the best medical treatment you can provide under the circumstances that we are dealing with people who are here illegally, 

who are being detained previous to deportation, and that we are 

not running a medical clinic, we are running a detention facility, 

whether it be State, county or Federal. Is that not correct? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir. Our goal is to provide the most adequate 

level of medical care that the detainees in our custody need. 

Mr. ROGERS. I don’t think you are hurting for money. Are you? 

Do you need more money? 

Mr. HAYES. No, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. I didn’t think so, because you have got $151 million for the current year. That is up from $60 million in 2005. So we 

have almost tripled your budget in these last 3 or 4 years. And if 

money is the problem, let us know. But all of you are saying, are 

you not, that we don’t need more money thrown at this problem? 

Anybody disagree with that? 

Mr. HAYES. I am not prepared to disagree with you, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. I bet your budget officer would like to ask you that. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t see any problem here. We have got 2.7 per 

100,000. I know it doesn’t compare—you can’t compare apples to 

oranges, but the mortality rate in the BOP is 16 per 100,000. In 

U.S. hospitals, it is from 11 to 16 deaths per 100,000 patients. And 

so I know none of those are comparable. But 2.7 out of 100,000, 

dealing with 1,700,000 people, to me is remarkable that we are 

doing as good as we are. Not perfect, but pretty doggone good. I 

yield. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I would like to ask our GAO witness— 

not orally, but just for the record—for an elaboration of one statistic I think you can evaluate apples-to-apples, and that is within 

the figures that Mr. Rogers cited. What about the distribution of 

those deaths between the Federal and the contract facilities and 

the IGSAs? There does appear to be a disproportionate number in 

the IGSAs. 

Ms. CACKLEY. We would be happy to provide that analysis. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
551 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 834 52999B.052
552 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 835 52999B.053
553 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 836 52999B.054
554 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking at the big picture here. Everybody arrested in the United States, whether they 

are here legally or illegally, is entitled to a trial by jury and is innocent until proven guilty. What is remarkable about the immigration system is it works almost totally voluntarily, that people decide to be deported. So detainees really haven’t been convicted of 

a crime. They are charged that they did not have appropriate papers. And if you want to challenge that, you can go out and hire 

lawyers. 

I think the bigger problem here is, how do you better prioritize 

your workforce and manpower force? This issue is important because the California State prison system is dealing with a Federal 

court order, saying that the state has not been providing the kind 

of care that people should get, and therefore we ought to let a lot 

of people out of prison. The prisons are just overcrowded and I can 

see logically at someplace this comes to that—there are 11 million 

estimated undocumented people here. You are rounding up 

440,000. Of those, only one in four you are intentionally going 

after. The others are just are there, they don’t have papers. 

You know, in the fishing business, we call that by-catch. When 

you go after the intended person, you also just pull in others. So 

three-quarters of the people that are being detained are not the 

people that ICE is looking for. And that is why you get this 

pushback from communities and local law enforcement. They don’t 

want you in there busting somebody who is just a dishwasher and 

doing their job and staying out of trouble. When you take the dishwasher out of the community, as you have in our community, there 

have sometimes been children in the house. Both parents have had 

to leave and make arrangements for the children. The children are 

American citizens so they can stay here or go home if there are 

young children. 

I know you have been successful in getting voluntary detentions 

just by sending letters to people saying, show up at the detention 

center at the ICE station or leave the country. And immigrants 

have left the country, not wanting their kids to know that they 

were taken by law enforcement. So there are all kinds of social 

issues here. 

So my interest here is in making sure that, one, we ought to be 

professional in how we treat people, regardless of whether they are 

legal or illegal. That is the American way. Secondly, that I think 

you ought to try to concentrate, Mr. Hayes, on really going after 

only people with warrants. 

The failure rate on warrants that are given for people who have 

failed to report or failed for other reasons, that really have a court 

order, is pathetic. You ought to focus on that workforce that you 

have. That is where you ought to concentrate it, because I think 

if you are just going to go up and grow and grow more people— 

440,000 you think is going to be the number you are going to detain this year—I would be curious to know how many of those 

440,000 have warrants and where the failure rate on ICE to find 

the people that the court has ordered to remove. And I think that 

is where the priorities ought to be because that is what the priority 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
555 

in law, Congress wrote the law to say that the highest priority for 

ICE is to remove people with criminal involvement. 

Jail checks are very important. Those people are obviously not in 

jail if they haven’t done something wrong. And it was really hard 

to get people to do jail checks. So I think that if you essentially do 

the job that—in a priority way that is laid out in the law, you are 

going to have less of these other kinds of incidents. And the way 

it came off, and I am sure that you didn’t mean it that way, that 

these people with these illnesses would have died anyway, whether 

they were detained by us or not, and I am not sure that that is 

correct. 

I was in the Peace Corps and I know what it is in the culture 

of poverty where people don’t understand the terms that you use 

in their own language because they have never—particularly if 

your culture isn’t oriented to having been examined by a doctor and 

never having been asked those questions before, it is very difficult 

to respond to them in a proper way. 

So I hope that the emphasis here, Mr. Chairman, on this committee is that we focus on ICE’s role to really go in and to remove, 

prioritize removing those that are undocumented, and less emphasis on sort of the innocent bystander who, for no purposes, caused 

any crime or has done anything wrong. 

They do have undocumented papers and that is why we are trying to do immigration reform. So you are in a tough situation. If 

you could respond to what it would take to round up more people 

under warrant than you have been doing, what would make that 

more successful? 

ICE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

Mr. HAYES. There are a couple of points that I think I can respond to. First of all, we agree that our officers should at all times 

conduct themselves as professionals and we hold our officers and 

agents to the highest standards. And our officers, it is my belief, 

the deportation officers, immigration enforcement agents, men and 

women of the Federal Protective Service and the Special Agents 

with our Office of Investigations, are dedicated public servants who 

do conduct themselves professionally. Our data actually shows that 

the success that we are having in actually identifying and arresting 

fugitives and criminals is increasing from 70 percent in fiscal year 

2007 to, thus far this year, 85 percent of arrests made through our 

Fugitive Operations Program have been individuals who are either 

immigration fugitives or criminals or both. 

FUGITIVE OPERATIONS PROGRAM

Mr. FARR. How does that percent go to your 440,000 you told the 

committee? 

Mr. HAYES. Last year we made approximately 34,000 arrests in 

the Fugitive Operations Program. This year we anticipate that that 

percentage will be higher. A great deal of the people who are going 

to come through our custody, however, will come into your custody 

through our work in the Criminal Alien Program. And that is 

where you mentioned the jail screening, the jail checks. 

We have greatly, through the generosity and determination of 

Congress, been able to expand that program from where in fiscal 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
556 

year 2006 we identified 64,000 illegal aliens or individuals who 

were in violation of immigration law in U.S. jails and prisons to 

over 260,000 last year identified individuals in U.S. jails or prisons 

who were either in the country illegally or subject to removal proceedings. That is, within our enforcement platform, the highest priority that we have is to identify those criminal aliens who are in 

U.S. jails and prisons. 

Additionally we believe that for some of those individuals, deportation has not proven an effective enough deterrent. So we began 

a program in fiscal year 2006 to target the most egregious recidivist criminal aliens, those individuals who come to the United 

States, commit crimes, get deported and come back again. And 

starting from zero in fiscal year 2006, we secured 3,000 convictions 

last year for those types of individuals. And we expect that that 

number will grow higher this year. So I hope that gives you some 

comfort in the fact that we are targeting the worst of the worst, 

people who are demonstrated public safety threats. 

Mr. FARR. In your own testimony, that is essentially just 10 percent of the number of people that you are rounding up. And I think 

that those statistics need to be flipped. 

Mr. HAYES. Sir, actually if I may, more than 34,000 arrests in 

the Fugitive Operations Program, and we anticipate charging as 

many as 280,000 through the Criminal Alien Program this year, I 

would suggest that makes up the bulk of the people we expect to 

target this year and have in our populations. 

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

Mr. PRICE. This subcommittee will on April 2nd have a hearing 

on immigration enforcement priorities. So we will return to those 

matters at that time. Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I assumed we were having a hearing on that subject and I understand Mr. Farr’s concern. 

An officer goes in search of a warrant violation or comes across 

someone who has got another violation, maybe an international 

warrant, an outstanding criminal warrant, an outstanding fugitive 

warrant. As a law enforcement officer, they are supposed to enforce 

the law, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. CARTER. And just because they don’t have an ICE warrant 

to give them, it doesn’t mean when they go to question them and 

discover other issues that would cause them to be detained—it is 

their responsibility to go forward with that detention; isn’t that 

right? 

Mr. HAYES. It is a sworn obligation, yes, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. This woman in Tennessee that was mentioned, was 

she under other criminal charges besides an ICE warrant; or do 

you know? 

Mr. HAYES. She was pending criminal charges during the time 

that incident occurred. 

Mr. CARTER. So she would have been treated by that sheriff’s 

deputy or police officer like any other American citizen charged 

with a crime and who was ill and had to go to the hospital? The 

reason I say that is because we have to take people to the hospital 

all the time out of our county jails, and I used to have to oversee 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
557 

a county jail for 20 years. And, yes, they are not going to leave that 

hospital room; and if they don’t have the ability to put an officer 

sitting at the door, then they may put some type of detention to 

the bed, because they are under criminal charges pending in the 

courts. 

Mr. CARTER. So that wasn’t an ICE issue, it was a criminal justice issue that the lady was handcuffed to the bed. 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. I can’t obviously speak to that Department’s policy. 

Mr. CARTER. Whether or not that policy is material or not, it is 

generally the policy of almost every prison system that I have ever 

run across in any State or in any county jurisdiction. They are 

going to make sure those people don’t leave. 

Mr. HAYES. What I can say, she was not in ICE custody when 

that incident occurred. 

Mr. CARTER. It wasn’t an ICE issue. 

When we talk about those contract folks, that would include 

county jails, right? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir. 

MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR COUNTY JAILS

Mr. CARTER. So, if a county jail has got a bunch of people in 

there—and I guess I address this to the GAO—if we have to come 

up with different standards, will that change imposing new medical 

standards on county jails and local police holding tanks? In other 

words, if we are going to come up with new standards to your studies of medical treatment for people who are being held and turn out 

to be of an immigrant status, will we then be imposing those standards clear down to the level of the city jail of Austin, Texas, or the 

county jail of Williamson County, or will it just be for the ICE facilities? 

Because the questions I am hearing are contract people, and they 

fall within the category of contract people. They get paid the day 

for the time that those people are in there by ICE. 

So my question is: When we impose these standards, is that 

going to be an imposition upon every incarceration facility in the 

United States? 

Ms. CACKLEY. GAO isn’t recommending imposing standards on 

the other facilities. The work that we did was to point out the differences in the organizational structure of the different facilities 

and the implications for ICE’s oversight of the facilities. But we 

didn’t do the work to look at the standards. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. So did you take into consideration that the 

contract people might be local county jails? 

Ms. CACKLEY. Absolutely. We understood that the contract people 

were, in many cases, State and county and local jails. 

Mr. CARTER. You are just basically giving statistical evaluation—— 

Ms. CACKLEY. We were asked to describe the structure, the organizational structure, and what the implications were for oversight. 

Mr. CARTER. So there could be clearly different standards that 

just are the mores of that community. 

Ms. CACKLEY. Absolutely. We expect that there would be different standards, and the question for ICE is what do they know, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
558 

and how do they oversee the care that is being given to the detainees. 

Mr. CARTER. I think that is it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Serrano. 

CUBAN IMMIGRATION

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is a running gag between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Wolf of Virginia about my ability to bring up the issue of Cuba or Puerto Rico 

at every hearing. I didn’t do that today. Mr. Rogers did. I thought 

you said 17 Cubans. Is that what you said? Which sparks my attention. I thought Cubans enjoyed—I know this is a general immigration issue—a special immigration status and therefore do not 

get detained. 

So, just on a general immigration issue, the 17 Cubans who died, 

these were folks who were living in this country and then were 

going to get deported. But then Cubans don’t get deported because, 

again, they enjoy a special immigration status. So what are we 

talking about here? 

Mr. HAYES. Obviously, without having specific direct knowledge 

of each of those cases, generally the people from Cuba that we have 

in custody are individuals who we have encountered through the 

criminal justice system, and they go through removal proceedings, 

as would anyone else from other foreign countries if they have committed violations of immigration law. 

Mr. SERRANO. But I am saying Cubans do not commit violation 

of immigration law. The minute they touch ground here, they stay. 

And if they can throw a curve ball or a fast ball, they are encouraged to stay through a third country. I know it is funny, and it is 

funny to me, too, but it is true. The two Hernandez brothers, one 

is here as a Costa Rican, the other one is here as a Dominican, because they didn’t make it to land. Had they made it to land here, 

then they would be here fleeing whatever a pitcher who throws 100 

miles an hour flees. 

Mr. HAYES. The status that is confirmed upon them when they 

make it to land can be taken away by an immigration judge for certain criminal violations. 

Mr. SERRANO. So I am saying they are not detained. My whole 

point is they were not detained because they got into the country 

illegally, since Cubans don’t come into the country illegally. They 

are all legal. These were folks who were living here for a while, 

committed a crime, and now somebody is going to try to deport 

them; is that correct? 

Mr. HAYES. In these cases, why they are detained and why we 

would detain anyone from Cuba is because of the mandatory detention statute. So these are people who committed a crime or crimes 

that make them subject to mandatory detention during the 

postorder removal period. So, during a period in which an immigration judge issues an order, we have 90 days, which is the 

postremoval period, extending to 180 days. We are required to detain them for 90 days even though, as you correctly point out, removal is not likely with respect to Cuban nationals. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
559 

Mr. SERRANO. All right. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to push 

on this point. This is just an issue that we maybe should look at 

later, because my understanding of the law is that any Cuban who 

gets here can stay here. So I don’t know at what point—and Cubans who commit crimes here usually pay for their crime here. 

They don’t get deported as such. That is my understanding. So this 

is somewhat bizarre. And if it ends up with 17 deaths, then that 

is even more bizarre, because these are not folks coming over from 

Cuba with health problems. These people have been living here, 

had acquired health problems here. So it is all very strange. 

Mr. PRICE. Maybe we could just ask for you to look at those figures and, first of all, confirm that it is true; and secondly, offer 

whatever explanation you can for how this apparent anomaly 

would occur. 

Mr. HAYES. Certainly. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. So I did bring up Cuba. 

Captain Rodriguez, I was born in Puerto Rico. Were you? So we 

brought up Puerto Rico. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

With that, I want to thank each of our witnesses this morning 

for each bringing a very distinctive contribution to this hearing. We 

appreciate your service to the country and your work on what I 

think we all acknowledge is a difficult and challenging issue. We 

also appreciate your commitment to note flaws and deficiencies and 

to work for improvement. We pledge to cooperate with you to that 

end. That certainly is our intention in calling the hearing, and it 

will be very much on our mind as we write next year’s appropriations bill. 

With that, again, thank you, and the hearing is adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
560 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 851 here 52999B.055
561 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 852 here 52999B.056
562 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 853 here 52999B.057
563 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 854 here 52999B.058
564 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 855 here 52999B.059
565 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 856 here 52999B.060
566 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 857 here 52999B.061
567 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 858 here 52999B.062
568 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 859 here 52999B.063
569 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 860 here 52999B.064
570 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 861 here 52999B.065
571 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 862 here 52999B.066
572 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 863 here 52999B.067
573 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 864 here 52999B.068
574 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 865 here 52999B.069
575 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 866 here 52999B.070
576 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 867 here 52999B.071
577 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 868 here 52999B.072
578 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 869 here 52999B.073
579 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 870 here 52999B.074
580 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 871 here 52999B.075
581 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 872 here 52999B.076
582 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 873 here 52999B.077
583 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 874 here 52999B.078
584 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 875 here 52999B.079
585 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 876 here 52999B.080
586 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 877 here 52999B.081
587 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 878 here 52999B.082
588 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 879 here 52999B.083
589 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 880 here 52999B.084
590 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 881 here 52999B.085
591 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 882 here 52999B.086
592 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 883 here 52999B.087
593 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 884 here 52999B.088
594 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 885 here 52999B.089
595 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 886 here 52999B.090
596 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 887 here 52999B.091
597 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 888 here 52999B.092
598 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 889 here 52999B.093
599 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 890 here 52999B.094
600 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 891 here 52999B.095
601 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 892 here 52999B.096
602 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 893 here 52999B.097
603 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 894 here 52999B.098
604 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 895 here 52999B.099
605 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 896 here 52999B.100
606 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 897 here 52999B.101
607 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 898 here 52999B.102
608 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 899 here 52999B.103
609 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 900 here 52999B.104
610 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 901 here 52999B.105
611 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 902 here 52999B.106
612 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 903 here 52999B.107
613 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 904 here 52999B.108
614 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 905 here 52999B.109
615 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 52999B.110
616 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 52999B.111
617 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 52999B.112
618 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 52999B.113
619 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 52999B.114
620 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 911 here 52999B.115
621 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 912 here 52999B.116
622 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 52999B.117
623 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 52999B.118
624 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 52999B.119
625 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 52999B.120
626 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 917 here 52999B.121
627 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 918 here 52999B.122
628 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 919 here 52999B.123
629 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 920 here 52999B.124
630 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 921 here 52999B.125
631 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 922 here 52999B.126
632 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 923 here 52999B.127
633 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 52999B.128
634 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 52999B.129
635 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 926 here 52999B.130
636 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 927 here 52999B.131
637 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 928 here 52999B.132
638 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 929 here 52999B.133
639 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 930 here 52999B.134
640 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 931 here 52999B.135
641 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 932 here 52999B.136
642 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 933 here 52999B.137
643 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 934 here 52999B.138
644 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 935 here 52999B.139
645 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 936 here 52999B.140
646 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 937 here 52999B.141
647 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 938 here 52999B.142
648 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 939 here 52999B.143
649 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 940 here 52999B.144
650 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 941 here 52999B.145
651 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 52999B.146
652 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 943 here 52999B.147
653 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 944 here 52999B.148
654 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 945 here 52999B.149
655 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 946 here 52999B.150
656 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 947 here 52999B.151
657 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 948 here 52999B.152
658 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 949 here 52999B.153
659 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 950 here 52999B.154
660 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 951 here 52999B.155
661 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 952 here 52999B.156
662 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 953 here 52999B.157
663 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 954 here 52999B.158
664 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 955 here 52999B.159
665 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 956 here 52999B.160
666 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 957 here 52999B.161
667 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 958 here 52999B.162
668 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 959 here 52999B.163
669 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 960 here 52999B.164
670 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 961 here 52999B.165
671 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 962 here 52999B.166
672 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 963 here 52999B.167
673 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 964 here 52999B.168
674 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 965 here 52999B.169
675 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 966 here 52999B.170
676 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 967 here 52999B.171
677 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 968 here 52999B.172
678 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 969 here 52999B.173
679 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 970 here 52999B.174
680 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 971 here 52999B.175
681 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 972 here 52999B.176
682 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 973 here 52999B.177
683 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 974 here 52999B.178
684 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 975 here 52999B.179
685 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 976 here 52999B.180
686 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 977 here 52999B.181
687 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 978 here 52999B.182
688 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 979 here 52999B.183
689 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 980 here 52999B.184
690 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 981 here 52999B.185
691 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 982 here 52999B.186
692 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 983 here 52999B.187
693 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 984 here 52999B.188
694 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 985 here 52999B.189
695 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 986 here 52999B.190
696 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 987 here 52999B.191
697 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 988 here 52999B.192
698 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 989 here 52999B.193
699 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 990 here 52999B.194
700 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 991 here 52999B.195
701 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 992 here 52999B.196
702 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 993 here 52999B.197
703 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 994 here 52999B.198
704 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 995 here 52999B.199
705 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 996 here 52999B.200
706 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 997 here 52999B.201
707 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 998 here 52999B.202
708 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 999 here 52999B.203
709 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1000 here 52999B.204
710 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1001 here 52999B.205
711 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1002 here 52999B.206
712 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1003 here 52999B.207
713 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1004 here 52999B.208
714 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1005 here 52999B.209
715 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1006 here 52999B.210
716 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1007 here 52999B.211
717 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1008 here 52999B.212
718 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1009 here 52999B.213
719 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1010 here 52999B.214
720 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1011 here 52999B.215
721 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1012 here 52999B.216
722 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1013 here 52999B.217
723 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1014 here 52999B.218
724 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1015 here 52999B.219
725 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1016 here 52999B.220
726 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1017 here 52999B.221
727 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1018 here 52999B.222
728 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1019 here 52999B.223
729 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1020 here 52999B.224
730 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1021 here 52999B.225
731 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1022 here 52999B.226
732 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1023 here 52999B.227
733 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1024 here 52999B.228
734 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1025 here 52999B.229
735 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1026 here 52999B.230
736 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1027 here 52999B.231
737 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1028 here 52999B.232
738 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1029 here 52999B.233
739 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1030 here 52999B.234
740 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1031 here 52999B.235
741 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1032 here 52999B.236
742 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1033 here 52999B.237
743 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1034 here 52999B.238
744 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1035 here 52999B.239
745 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1036 here 52999B.240
746 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1037 here 52999B.241
747 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1038 here 52999B.242
748 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1039 here 52999B.243
749 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1040 here 52999B.244
750 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1041 here 52999B.245
751 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1042 here 52999B.246
752 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1043 here 52999B.247
753 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1044 here 52999B.248
754 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1045 here 52999B.249
755 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1046 here 52999B.250
756 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1047 here 52999B.251
757 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1048 here 52999B.252
758 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1049 here 52999B.253
759 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1050 here 52999B.254
760 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1051 here 52999B.255
761 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1052 here 52999B.256
762 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1053 here 52999B.257
763 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1054 here 52999B.258
764 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1055 here 52999B.259
765 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1056 here 52999B.260
766 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1057 here 52999B.261
767 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1058 here 52999B.262
768 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1059 here 52999B.263
769 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1060 here 52999B.264
770 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1061 here 52999B.265
771 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1062 here 52999B.266
772 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1063 here 52999B.267
773 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1064 here 52999B.268
774 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1065 here 52999B.269
775 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1066 here 52999B.270
776 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1067 here 52999B.271
777 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1068 here 52999B.272
778 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1069 here 52999B.273
779 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1070 here 52999B.274
780 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1071 here 52999B.275
781 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1072 here 52999B.276
782 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1073 here 52999B.277
783 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1074 here 52999B.278
784 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1075 here 52999B.279
785 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1076 here 52999B.280
786 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1077 here 52999B.281
787 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1078 here 52999B.282
788 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1079 here 52999B.283
789 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1080 here 52999B.284
790 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1081 here 52999B.285
791 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1082 here 52999B.286
792 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1083 here 52999B.287
793 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1084 here 52999B.288
794 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1085 here 52999B.289
795 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1086 here 52999B.290
796 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1087 here 52999B.291
797 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1088 here 52999B.292
798 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1089 here 52999B.293
799 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1090 here 52999B.294
800 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1091 here 52999B.295
801 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1092 here 52999B.296
802 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1093 here 52999B.297
803 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1094 here 52999B.298
804 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1095 here 52999B.299
805 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1096 here 52999B.300
806 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1097 here 52999B.301
807 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1098 here 52999B.302
808 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1099 here 52999B.303
809 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1100 here 52999B.304
810 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1101 here 52999B.305
811 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1102 here 52999B.306
812 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1103 here 52999B.307
813 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1104 here 52999B.308
814 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1105 here 52999B.309
815 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1106 here 52999B.310
816 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1107 here 52999B.311
817 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1108 here 52999B.312
818 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1109 here 52999B.313
819 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1110 here 52999B.314
820 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1111 here 52999B.315
821 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1112 here 52999B.316
822 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1113 here 52999B.317
823 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1114 here 52999B.318
824 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1115 here 52999B.319
825 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1116 here 52999B.320
826 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1117 here 52999B.321
827 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1118 here 52999B.322
828 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1119 here 52999B.323
829 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1120 here 52999B.324
830 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1121 here 52999B.325
831 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1122 here 52999B.326
832 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1123 here 52999B.327
833 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1124 here 52999B.328
834 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1125 here 52999B.329
835 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1126 here 52999B.330
836 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1127 here 52999B.331
837 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1128 here 52999B.332
838 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1129 here 52999B.333
839 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1130 here 52999B.334
840 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1131 here 52999B.335
841 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1132 here 52999B.336
842 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1133 here 52999B.337
843 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1134 here 52999B.338
844 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1135 here 52999B.339
845 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1136 here 52999B.340
846 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1137 here 52999B.341
847 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1138 here 52999B.342
848 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1139 here 52999B.343
849 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1140 here 52999B.344
850 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1141 here 52999B.345
851 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1142 here 52999B.346
852 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1143 here 52999B.347
853 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1144 here 52999B.348
854 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1145 here 52999B.349
855 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1146 here 52999B.350
856 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1147 here 52999B.351
857 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1148 here 52999B.352
858 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1149 here 52999B.353
859 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1150 here 52999B.354
860 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1151 here 52999B.355
861 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1152 here 52999B.356
862 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1153 here 52999B.357
863 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1154 here 52999B.358
864 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1155 here 52999B.359
865 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1156 here 52999B.360
866 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1157 here 52999B.361
867 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1158 here 52999B.362
868 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1159 here 52999B.363
869 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1160 here 52999B.364
870 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1161 here 52999B.365
871 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1162 here 52999B.366
872 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1163 here 52999B.367
873 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1164 here 52999B.368
874 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1165 here 52999B.369
875 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1166 here 52999B.370
876 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1167 here 52999B.371
877 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1168 here 52999B.372
878 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1169 here 52999B.373
879 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1170 here 52999B.374
880 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1171 here 52999B.375
881 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1172 here 52999B.376
882 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1173 here 52999B.377
883 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1174 here 52999B.378
884 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1175 here 52999B.379
885 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1176 here 52999B.380
886 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1177 here 52999B.381
887 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1178 here 52999B.382
888 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1179 here 52999B.383
889 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1180 here 52999B.384
890 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1181 here 52999B.385
891 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1182 here 52999B.386
892 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1183 here 52999B.387
893 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1184 here 52999B.388
894 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1185 here 52999B.389
895 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1186 here 52999B.390
896 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1187 here 52999B.391
897 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1188 here 52999B.392
898 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1189 here 52999B.393
899 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1190 here 52999B.394
900 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1191 here 52999B.395
901 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1192 here 52999B.396
902 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1193 here 52999B.397
903 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1194 here 52999B.398
904 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1195 here 52999B.399
905 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1196 here 52999B.400
906 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1197 here 52999B.401
907 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1198 here 52999B.402
908 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1199 here 52999B.403
909 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1200 here 52999B.404
910 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1201 here 52999B.405
911 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1202 here 52999B.406
912 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1203 here 52999B.407
913 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1204 here 52999B.408
914 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1205 here 52999B.409
(915) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2009. 

PRIORITIES ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW 

WITNESSES 

MARCY M. FORMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT [ICE] 

DAVID J. VENTURELLA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SECURE COMMUNITIES, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT [ICE] 

MICHAEL AYTES, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

CHAIRMAN PRICE OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. 

Our hearing today focuses on the Department of Homeland Security’s priorities for enforcing immigration laws. We have delayed 

the beginning this morning in anticipation of floor votes. Those 

floor votes, obviously, have not yet occurred, so we will go ahead 

and begin. Unfortunately, though, it is quite likely that we will 

have to take a recess, at some point, to cast a series of votes, so 

let us proceed. 

Let me cite some figures that suggest that DHS’s immigration 

agencies have set several new records in Fiscal Year 2008, but then 

I want to cite an additional list, which raises some questions that 

I hope we can discuss today about some of the details beneath the 

surface of these numbers. 

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement [ICE] deported 369,409 

people, the most in any year in U.S. history. ICE held an average 

of 37,429 people in immigration detention per day in Fiscal Year 

2008, more than any prior year on record. 

ICE initiated 1,191 work site enforcement investigations and arrested 6,287 people, the largest number since the formation of 

DHS, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [CIS] enrolled 

63,592 companies in the E-Verify program, more than tripling the 

number of participants in a computer-based system that verifies 

the work eligibility of new hires. 

These are remarkable figures, and they result from the significant investment the Subcommittee has made in ICE and CIS budgets since 2003, as well as the good efforts of other players. 

The figures also reflect how hard employees at DHS have worked 

to meet the goals set by the Department leadership. 

But rather than simply trumpeting new records set by DHS, this 

hearing also lets us review the broader implications of our investments in these programs. 

This Subcommittee has made billions of dollars available for ICE 

and CIS since 2003. The questions we must all ask are: Have these 

huge investments produced what our country needs and expects 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
916 

from the agencies enforcing our immigration laws? Is DHS 

prioritizing its resources most appropriately? 

A closer examination of the data may give some pause. Since 

2002, ICE has increased the deportation of noncriminals by 400 

percent while criminal deportations have only gone up 60 percent. 

Of the nearly 370,000 people deported by ICE, less than a third, 

or 114,358, had ever been convicted of a criminal offense; this, despite the fact that up to 450,000 criminals eligible for deportation 

are in penal custody in any given year, according to ICE’s figures. 

Less than one-quarter of those interdicted by ICE’s fugitive operations teams last year have actually been convicted of criminal offenses. Over three-quarters of those arrested in ICE work site enforcement raids last year were not charged with any crimes, save, 

of course, illegal presence in this country, and while CIS has 

worked to improve the accuracy of E-Verify, the most current system audit found troubling inaccuracies that prevent people from 

working, including the fact that one in 10 naturalized citizens are 

told, erroneously, that they cannot be employed in the U.S. 

Since becoming Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have emphasized that ICE should have no higher priority than deporting those 

who have proven their intent, and their ability, to do harm and 

have been convicted of serious crimes. 

In 2008, we gave ICE $200 million to identify incarcerated criminal aliens and remove them, once judged deportable. Last year, we 

directed ICE to use $1 billion of its resources to identify and remove aliens convicted of crimes, whether in custody or at large, 

and mandated that this be ICE’s number-one mission. 

I continue to believe in the wisdom of this course and want to 

know how ICE plans to make more progress in identifying criminal 

aliens and deporting them once their sentences are complete. 

Since her confirmation, I have been encouraged by Secretary 

Napolitano’s public statements that she shares this perspective. We 

must make sure that the Department is setting the right priorities 

for immigration enforcement. 

Similarly, this Subcommittee has provided generous appropriations to CIS for improving the accuracy and usefulness of E-Verify. 

However, more than $120 million, or three-quarters of the funds 

appropriated over the last two years, remain unspent. 

So what we have, at present, is a government database that 

sometimes falsely tells citizens and other residents they cannot 

work while a fair amount of money to fix the problem gathers dust. 

I want to know what is being done to address this issue. 

Another area of concern to this Subcommittee is the role of local 

authorities in enforcing immigration law. While I think local law 

enforcement should support and cooperate with ICE, the terms of 

that relationship have to be defined very carefully. To that end, we 

mandated in the 2009 Appropriations Act that DHS better oversee 

local immigration enforcement agreements and make certain that 

their terms were being honored. 

Finally, I want to address recent reports that ICE released immigrants arrested in a worksite enforcement raid in Washington 

State. Yesterday, after comments on this issue from our Ranking 

Member, I met personally with ICE to get the full story. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
917 

While ICE’s ongoing investigations limit what we can discuss in 

an open hearing, press reports that this represents a new policy, 

amnesty or otherwise, are simply not accurate. 

As part of its investigation, ICE has employed a longstanding 

law enforcement tactic by granting temporary immigration status 

to certain individuals, which does not permanently change the status of these immigrants. It is a tactic utilized in many past investigations, and it does not represent, as far as we can tell, any 

change in work site enforcement policy. 

We are expecting that one of our ICE witnesses, Director Marcy 

Forman, will address these issues further in her testimony. However, I do want to make it clear that we must be careful not to compromise an ongoing investigation by drawing unnecessary attention 

to an authorized and routine DHS law enforcement tactic. 

Today’s three witnesses will help us understand DHS priorities 

in enforcing immigration law. 

Marcy Forman is the director of ICE investigations and, as such, 

oversees all ICE work site enforcement actions; David Venturella 

is executive director of the ICE Secure Communities program, 

which is supposed to ensure the agency’s first priority is, and remains, the identification and removal of people convicted of serious 

crimes who are eligible for deportation; Mike Aytes is the acting 

deputy director of CIS, which administers E-Verify and, of course, 

many other programs. 

Our witnesses will help us better understand how the Department prioritizes its immigration enforcement missions. Even with 

the generous resources DHS receives from Congress, there is a 

limit to what its agencies can do. It only makes sense for law enforcement officers to address the most dangerous or threatening 

situations rather than simply pursuing the most convenient targets. 

We want to ask each of you to provide a five-minute summary 

of your written testimony, which will, of course, be entered in the 

record in full. We will ask Ms. Forman to speak first, followed by 

Mr. Venturella, and then, finally, Mr. Aytes. 

Before you begin, however, let me turn to Ranking Member Rogers for his comments. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
918 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1308 52999C.001
919 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1309 52999C.002
920 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1310 52999C.003
921 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our distinguished guests. 

Yesterday, we all woke up to some alarming news reports from 

Seattle indicating that ICE had not only released from custody, 

without bond, 28 known, confirmed illegal immigrants using false 

documents and had also given 24 of them work permits after having been released, allowing the group to go out and get jobs. 

This policy affects every law-abiding American citizen and is a 

slap in the face for those who are struggling every day to find a 

job in this economic downturn. 

Questionable enforcement practices such as these send a decidedly mixed message and effectively put illegal immigrants at the 

front of the employment line, in front of American citizens seeking 

a job in these hard times. 

Now, I am cognizant of the sensitivities surrounding an ongoing 

criminal investigation of an employer, make no mistake, but I do 

intend to get some answers today on the consequences of these apparent new guidelines and their effect on the immigration enforcement missions of the Department; that is, the law. 

Having said that, I want to speak to the underlying issue of the 

day. Over the past few years, there has been a concerted effort to 

prioritize ICE’s enforcement resources towards the identification 

and removal of criminal aliens. There has also been a concerted 

push to improve the accuracy of E-Verify and the process for employment verification. We were told, for so many years, employers 

could not be prosecuted for employing illegal aliens because they 

had no way to verify whether or not they were illegal. 

Well, now we have cured that with E-Verify. I support those efforts, including the notable initiative, spearheaded by Chairman 

Price, toward removal of criminal aliens, with the following caveats: One, that the emphasis upon criminal aliens is not at the expense of other critical ICE missions; and, two, the push to improve 

and perfect E-Verify does not undermine the system’s usage. 

Unfortunately, what I have also seen taking shape, over the last 

two years, is an effort to use prioritization toward removal of criminal aliens as a poorly veiled proxy for immigration reform. 

To those who see the 2010 bill as a vehicle for such reform, or 

are simply trying to deprive other vital immigration enforcement 

missions of already scarce resources, enough is enough. I say that 

that is exactly the wrong approach. 

Let us be serious about this debate. Every one of us supports robust efforts to identify and remove illegal aliens who commit 

crimes, and every one of us supports an accurate, workable, EVerify system. Nevertheless, recent calls from the administration 

and others to ‘‘reprioritize,’’ apply greater ‘‘scrutiny,’’ and ‘‘redirect’’ 

valuable ICE resources toward criminal alien investigations come 

at the detriment of other critical functions and missions of the Department; that is in the law. 

Let us be clear: ICE is a multimission agency with many priorities, including disrupting drug smuggling and human trafficking, 

stopping bulk cash shipments, cross-border child pornography, illegal export of weapons and munitions, and illicit trade practices, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
922 

protecting export of our national security secrets, conducting work 

site enforcement and document fraud prevention, combatting organized criminal gangs and terrorist travel, and, of course, apprehending, detaining, and deporting illegal immigrants. 

Which one of these missions is not a priority? I believe it is abundantly clear that ICE’s efforts in all of these areas are as vital to 

law enforcement as they are to homeland security. After all, every 

one of the 9/11 hijackers exploited the legal immigration system. 

None of them could have been classified as so-called ‘‘criminal 

aliens.’’ 

In the midst of a turbulent economic downturn, perhaps now is 

the absolute worst time to relax any effort that protects American 

workers from fraud, be it illegal imports or a job unlawfully filled 

by an illegal alien. 

So, as we discuss the priorities of immigration enforcement and 

employment verification here today, we must remember that it is 

the Congress that writes the law. ICE and CIS are charged with 

carrying out the law. 

To tell the dedicated men and women of these frontline agencies 

to pick and choose which laws to actually enforce is unacceptable 

to the Congress, and some of us will point that out as time goes 

by; be aware. 

ICE and CIS must have all available tools at their disposal to 

combat the wide range of threats currently confronting our country, 

and I, for one, want to see them succeed, and I wish you well in 

your work. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
923 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1315 here 52999C.004
924 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1316 here 52999C.005
925 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1317 here 52999C.006
926 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1318 here 52999C.007
927 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We will need to recess for a series of 

votes, and it is likely to be an extensive series, I am told. We will 

be back just as quickly as we possibly can. 

[Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., a recess was taken.] 

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will reconvene. We regret the 

delay, although it was unavoidable, given the institution we are 

working in. So here we are back with a delay, but we do want to 

go forward, and we will, first, turn to you, Ms. Forman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MS. FORMAN

Ms. FORMAN. Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of Secretary 

Napolitano and Acting Assistant Secretary Torres, thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss ICE’s enforcement priorities. 

ICE protects national security and upholds public safety by targeting transnational terrorists and other criminal networks that 

seek to exploit vulnerabilities at our borders. Indeed, the recent escalation of violence along our southwest border by drug cartels and 

other criminal organizations demonstrates this point in very stark 

terms. 

Just last week, Secretary Napolitano announced an initiative 

that commits additional personnel to the southwest border, increased intelligence capabilities, and better coordination with state, 

local, and Mexican law enforcement authorities. 

Also last week, ICE, with our law enforcement partners, established two new border enforcement security task forces in New 

Mexico. After personally meeting with my counterparts at ATF, we 

have agreed to better integrate our combined border efforts by exchanging dedicated resources between the ATF’s gun runner task 

forces and our best located on the southwest border. 

Now, I would like to highlight ICE’s immigration enforcement 

programs and initiatives that address many of the vulnerabilities 

at our borders and within our nation’s interior. These programs 

help prevent the exploitation of our immigration system and combat criminal activities associated with terrorists, human smuggling 

and trafficking, document and benefit fraud, transnational gangs, 

status violators, unauthorized employment, human rights violators, 

and money laundering. 

To support these enforcement programs, ICE uses all our tools 

to bring our investigations to a successful conclusion. Our ability 

to issue temporary immigration benefits to victims and cooperating 

witnesses, such as continued presence, parole, deferred action, and 

stays of removal, benefits not only ICE investigations but law enforcement, as a whole. 

Criminal smuggling and trafficking organizations provide services that begin in countries of origin, pass through transit countries, and finally reach into the United States. Organizations often 

charge thousands of dollars to smuggle aliens, including those individuals who could pose a threat to this country. 

ICE proactively investigates international alien smuggling 

through a joint effort with the Department of Justice. The 

Extraterritorial Criminal Travel Strike Force, also known as 

‘‘ECT,’’ formed in June 2006, combines our collective investigative, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
928 

prosecutorial, and intelligence resources to target, disrupt, and dismantle foreign-based, criminal-travel networks. 

ICE recognizes that combating transnational, alien-smuggling 

networks does not stop with the arrest and conviction of the alien 

smuggler. ICE also focuses on criminal organizations and individuals who commit identity and benefit fraud. 

To combat the vulnerabilities exploited by identity and document 

fraud organizations, ICE created Document and Benefit Fraud 

Task Forces in April 2006. There are currently 17 DBTFs located 

in major U.S. cities that serve as models for multi-agency cooperation. This cooperative effort leverages multiple law enforcement 

tools and authorities to investigate criminal organizations involved 

in immigration benefit fraud and the manufacturing and distribution of fraudulent identity documents. 

Within these task forces, ICE works with U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, the Department of Labor, the Social Security 

Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of State, 

and state and local law enforcement agencies. 

Opportunities for employment remain a primary motivation for 

aliens seeking illegal entry into the United States. As noted by Secretary Napolitano, ICE’s work site enforcement program targets 

unscrupulous employers who subject unauthorized workers to poor 

or unsafe working conditions, pay substandard wages, or employ 

them in industries that could compromise our nation’s critical infrastructure. 

ICE’s multifaceted work site enforcement strategy targets employers whose business model is based upon exploiting an unauthorized workforce and employers who place our national security 

at risk. 

ICE has restructured the work site administrative fine process, 

and we expect that the increased use of administrative fines will 

result in meaningful penalties for those who engage in employment 

of unauthorized workers. 

ICE has implemented a debarment policy that prevents employers from receiving federal contracts when they are in violation of 

work site laws. Since July 2008, eleven companies and nine individuals have been debarred. 

I would like to highlight three of our national security programs: 

our participation on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, our Compliance Enforcement program, and the Human Rights Violator program. 

ICE is the second-largest federal participant on the JTTF. Our 

broad immigration and customs authorities are critical in the conduct of successful terrorism investigations. Last year, ICE agents 

initiated more than 1,300 investigations, in concert with the JTTF, 

resulting in 433 civil immigration arrests and 215 criminal arrests, 

the majority for immigration-related offenses. 

ICE’s Compliance Enforcement Unit focuses on preventing terrorists and other criminals from exploiting the Nation’s immigration system. The CEU develops cases from national registration 

systems that allow ICE to identify people who violate their immigration status. Since 2003, more than 6,000 civil immigration arrests have been made as a result of CEU investigations. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
929 

In April 2008, ICE established the Human Rights Violators and 

War Crimes program, which targets those individuals who have entered the United States under false or fraudulent pretenses and 

have been linked or associated to regimes or countries engaged in 

war crimes, torture, or genocide. 

Our most notable success was the recent prosecution of Charles 

Emmanuel Taylor, who was sentenced to 97 years for committing 

acts of torture in Liberia. This case was the first successful prosecution under the criminal torture statute. 

As you heard from Secretary Napolitano during our hearing in 

February, DHS places great value on our relationship with state 

and local governments. ICE’s gang initiative, Operation Community Shield, was established in February 2005. 

Through this program, ICE shares intelligence and information 

on transnational gang members with our federal, state, and local 

partners. The initiative focuses on the disruption, dismantling, and 

prosecution of transnational gangs who use violence and threats of 

violence to control territory and instill fear in American communities. 

To date, ICE agents, in collaboration with our law enforcement 

partners, have arrested more than 12,000 known gang members 

and associates. The majority of those arrests were based on violations of immigration law. 

On behalf of the men and women of ICE, I thank the Subcommittee for its continued support, and I am pleased to respond 

to any questions. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
930 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1325 here 52999C.008
931 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1326 here 52999C.009
932 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1327 here 52999C.010
933 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1328 here 52999C.011
934 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1329 here 52999C.012
935 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1330 here 52999C.013
936 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1331 here 52999C.014
937 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1332 here 52999C.015
938 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1333 here 52999C.016
939 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1334 here 52999C.017
940 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1335 here 52999C.018
941 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1336 here 52999C.019
942 

WASHINGTON STATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. PRICE. Before we turn to Mr. Venturella, I would appreciate, 

Ms. Forman, if you could, giving whatever response you feel you 

can to the matter I raised in my opening statement about the incidents in Washington State and whatever you can say without compromising the ongoing investigation. I think we need to have that 

at the front end of the hearing, and my questions will focus on 

other matters, but I do want to give you a chance to say what we 

should know about that. 

Ms. FORMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity for allowing me to respond. 

This case we are talking about is in Washington State. It is an 

ongoing criminal investigation, so my ability to talk about the specifics is very limited. 

What I can tell you is that, as we currently speak and meet here, 

there is a criminal search warrant being executed by ICE agents 

in Washington State to further the criminal investigation of this 

company in the employment of illegal aliens. This is being done in 

conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Western District 

of Washington. 

In regards to the tools used in the release of the illegal workforce, ‘‘deferred action’’ is the legal term given in terms of what 

these employers were authorized, and what this tool allows is for 

the U.S. Government and the Defense the opportunity to work with 

these illegal aliens and elicit statements from these illegal aliens 

in pursuit of the criminal case. 

This is done in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in 

terms of their prosecutorial strategy, to further the investigation. 

They were released with conditions. They were all processed. All of 

their identifying data was obtained, and there are conditions to 

this deferred action. 

First of all, it is a temporary form of release of immigration benefits. It can be taken at any time, and the conditions are very limiting. These individuals must report in weekly to an ICE agent, 

and they must meet at least twice a month with an ICE agent, and 

these conditions can be increased as needed, based on the needs. 

Each one of these individuals was vetted for national security 

and threat analysis and were then provided with this benefit. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Venturella. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. VENTURELLA

Mr. VENTURELLA. Thank you, Chairman Price and Ranking 

Member Rogers, for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished Subcommittee. 

On March 28, 2008, I submitted a strategic plan entitled ‘‘Secure 

Communities: A Comprehensive Plan To Identify and Remove 

Criminal Aliens,’’ also known as ‘‘CIRCA.’’ 

On behalf of Secretary Janet Napolitano and Acting Assistant 

Secretary John Torres, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE’s efforts to identify and remove criminal 

aliens. 

I want to express my gratitude to the Subcommittee for the resources it has provided over the past two fiscal years and, in parVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00942 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
943 

ticular, Chairman Price, for your strong support of our efforts to 

identify and track criminal aliens. 

Secretary Napolitano has made the identification and removal of 

criminal aliens a top priority for ICE. Pursuant to her action directive to examine the broad range of the Department’s authorities 

and efforts on immigration and border security, ICE is examining 

how it might accelerate the deployment of the Secure Communities/ 

CIRCA programs I am discussing with you today. 

The focus of Secure Communities/CIRCA is the identification and 

removal of criminal aliens. We are focusing on improved information sharing at all levels of government, but especially with our 

state and local partners, to more quickly and accurately identify 

criminal aliens in custody and at large, to prioritize our enforcement actions, focusing first on the most dangerous criminal aliens, 

and to transform the processes and systems used to detain and 

transport criminal aliens. 

ICE is using biometric technology in a new and effective way to 

alert us of potential criminal aliens as they enter the criminal justice process, especially those who are released without being incarcerated. 

Let me illustrate the importance of this enhancement. Recently, 

in Mesa, Arizona, an individual was booked for a minor crime and 

subsequently released on bail. Because the biometric identification 

feature had been deployed to that booking facility, the person’s fingerprints were automatically sent to DHS. 

The search revealed that the individual, though now released on 

bail, was an associate of a violent criminal gang. He had previous 

convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, 

endangerment, gang-related threats, and intimidation. He had also 

been deported three years ago, after serving more than seven years 

in an Arizona Department of Corrections prison, and he was in the 

United States illegally. 

This information was automatically sent to our local detention 

and removal office, who located him and took him into immigration 

custody within hours. 

Our goal is to make available the biometric identification capability to more than 3,100 sites in the United States. As of today, 

we have deployed this capability to 48 sites in seven states, serving 

2,100 booking locations. 

From the initial deployment this past October, ICE has already 

used this biometric identification capability to identify over 19,000 

criminal aliens, including 1,436 that have been identified as dangerous criminal aliens. All 1,436 aliens have either been removed 

or are in the removal process. 

As the capacity to identify criminal aliens expands with the deployment of this technology, the number of known criminal aliens 

will rapidly increase. To accommodate this increased volume, we 

must change the way we prioritize our enforcement actions. We 

have adopted a risk-based strategy that focuses, first, on criminal 

aliens who pose the greatest threat to our communities. 

To manage this increased workload and prudently scale the system capabilities, we are classifying all criminal aliens based on the 

severity of the crimes they have been convicted of. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
944 

For example, the highest-risk category includes those individuals 

who have been convicted of violent crimes, such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, kidnapping, or major drug offenses. Identifying and removing these dangerous criminal aliens are the program’s highest priorities and remain the focus of our efforts. 

This risk-based strategy also gives us greater flexibility. For instance, we have now made it a top priority to first deploy this capability to areas along the southwest border, based on the emerging 

risk from increased drug-related violence there. This will directly 

impact enforcement efforts at or near the border but will also have 

an indirect impact and benefit for communities far from the border. 

As we deploy these new capabilities, we are using models to analyze the impact of an increased number of identified dangerous 

criminal aliens. With this analysis, we will identify resource and 

system improvements required in the detention and removal processes. 

For example, we will automate how we manage bed space and 

transportation, and we will track criminal aliens from the time we 

take them into custody until they are removed from the United 

States. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe we are taking the necessary steps to improve and modernize the way we identify criminal aliens and remove them from the United States as soon as 

practicable. 

By working with immigration enforcement partners inside and 

outside of ICE, we are looking to leverage the new capabilities of 

this program for maximum impact, and we are proceeding with its 

deployment in a way that we believe is prudent, fiscally sound, and 

protects individual rights and liberties. 

We appreciate both your personal support, Mr. Chairman, and 

the support of Congress in our efforts to secure our nation’s communities. I would ask that my complete written testimony be accepted into the record, and I would be pleased to answer any of 

your questions at this time. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
945 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1344 here 52999C.020
946 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1345 here 52999C.021
947 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1346 here 52999C.022
948 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1347 here 52999C.023
949 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1348 here 52999C.024
950 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1349 here 52999C.025
951 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1350 here 52999C.026
952 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1351 here 52999C.027
953 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1352 here 52999C.028
954 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1353 here 52999C.029
955 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1354 here 52999C.030
956 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1355 here 52999C.031
957 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1356 here 52999C.032
958 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1357 here 52999C.033
959 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Your statement will be in the record. All 

of the statements will be in the record, and we appreciate your 

summarizing it in the way that you did. 

Mr. Aytes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. AYTES

Mr. AYTES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Rogers. As you have noted, our principal contribution with respect to 

this issue is our Employer Verification Program. I am grateful for 

the opportunity to discuss our shared goals in this respect, and let 

me start by thanking the Subcommittee for the $100 million appropriation for E-Verify for this year. 

As you have noted, Mr. Chairman, E-Verify has grown exponentially in the past few years. Over 117,000 employers are now enrolled, representing over 456,000 locations. More notably, today, 

over 14 percent of all nonagricultural new hires in the U.S. are run 

through E-Verify. 

E-Verify is sometimes described as a tool to enforce the immigration laws of this country. Others refer to it as a tool for employers 

committed to maintaining a legal workforce. But we also recognize 

that the system must also effectively serve workers by giving accurate and quick verification of their employment authorization. 

Our goal is to continue to improve E-Verify’s ability to instantly 

verify new hires, strengthen employer training, monitoring, and 

compliance functions. At the same time, we want to work to protect 

workers’ rights. 

Complaints about E-Verify largely fall into three categories: one, 

that the system is inaccurate and results in erroneous, mismatches; 

second, that it does not effectively combat identity theft and document fraud; third, that it can result in discrimination if there is an 

initial mismatch of a worker who is actually work authorized, and 

they do not know about the redress opportunities available to 

them. I would like to discuss each briefly in turn. 

Today, over 96 percent of queries result in an automatic confirmation that the worker is employment authorized. Of the remaining less than four percent, about one worker in 10 contests the 

preliminary finding and, after research, we ultimately find they are 

employment authorized. 

We have worked hard to reduce the initial nonconfirmation rate 

for workers who are actually work authorized. For example, a simple change significantly reduced typographical errors that employers made as they keyed data into the system. 

We have added several new databases to our automated checks. 

This includes real-time arrival and departure data for noncitizens, 

which has effectively eliminated initial mismatches for newly arriving workers. 

A partnership with the Department of State to share passport 

data is today significantly reducing initial mismatches for naturalized and derivative citizens. 

While we have had significant success in this area, we continue 

to work hard on this problem. We recognize the effect it can have 

on both employers and workers, but we also recognize that not 

every mismatch can be prevented simply by adding data. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
960 

For example, if someone changes their name, through a marriage 

or divorce, updates their driver’s license but not their Social Security account information, it can result in a mismatch. 

E-Verify was not initially designed to combat identity theft, 

since, under the preexisting I–9 process, the worker must present 

an identity document, such as a driver’s license, green card, or 

passport, but we recognize that identity theft and document fraud 

are growing issues. 

Last year, we added a new photo-screening tool for all DHS documents in order to combat document and identity fraud. In the future, we plan to add U.S. passport photos and would like to be able 

to verify individual driver’s license information, all to streamline 

the process and let an employer quickly verify that the document 

presented by a worker matches what was actually issued. 

We are also working to create an initial capability to let individuals who have been victims of identity theft lock and unlock their 

Social Security number for the purpose of E-Verify. 

About nine in 10 initial nonconfirmations become final, most 

without the worker contesting the initial finding. Some people have 

highlighted the potential for discrimination, suggesting some of 

these workers may actually be work authorized but simply do not 

know they can contest the initial finding. 

Admittedly, any system can be used incorrectly; however, there 

are an estimated 12 million people illegally in the United States. 

Some studies suggest that about five percent of the workforce in 

the United States currently are not authorized to work in this 

country. 

So the current E-Verify final nonconfirmation rate of three and 

a half percent does not seem inconsistent with that broader data, 

but we agree that E-Verify must protect the rights of workers. Any 

discrimination reduces the effectiveness of a program. Thus, we 

have expanded our information for workers and are growing a new 

monitoring-and-compliance branch to ensure that employers use 

the system correctly and to ensure that workers have access to information about redress procedures. 

We have also established a new process that lets employees call 

a U.S. toll-free number to address citizenship mismatches as an alternative to visiting SSA, and we are also working to refer instances of fraud, discrimination, misuse, and any illegal or unauthorized use of the system to appropriate law enforcement authorities. 

In summary, E-Verify has made great strides in becoming a fast, 

easy, and accurate tool to help employers and workers who are 

work authorized go through the process of employment verification 

quickly and efficiently. The Administration is dedicated to continuing to work to improve this system and process. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and, again, we 

appreciate the Subcommittee’s continued support for the E-Verify 

program. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
961 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1363 here 52999C.034
962 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1364 here 52999C.035
963 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1365 here 52999C.036
964 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1366 here 52999C.037
965 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1367 here 52999C.038
966 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1368 here 52999C.039
967 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1369 here 52999C.040
968 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1370 here 52999C.041
969 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1371 here 52999C.042
970 

IDENTIFICATION AND REMOVAL OF CRIMINAL ALIENS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Well, let us turn to questions, 

and I will, first, attack one of the topics that stands out, Ms. 

Forman and Mr. Venturella, in the testimony of both of you, and 

that is the enforcement priority that you give to aliens who have 

committed serious crimes. 

That is a focus that you have brought to us this morning for a 

very good reason, because you have concentrated your efforts on 

improving our enforcement in this area, and it has been a hallmark 

of this Committee’s leadership, if I may say so, that we want you 

to move in that direction, and we have put not just a mandate out 

there but also the money to underwrite the mandate. 

In the 2008 Appropriations Bill, this Subcommittee provided 

$200 million to identify and deport criminal aliens. Last year, we 

allocated $1 billion for that purpose, some new money and some 

money that we made quite clear was to be channeled in this direction. 

It should be clear that Congress’s top priority for ICE is finding 

criminals who have no right to be in the country and making certain that they do not stay here. 

There are some signs that ICE has been moving in the right direction, but I do want to ask you about the progress that we are 

making and what next steps you anticipate. 

I have quoted some figures that are unsettling, to me, at least, 

in my opening statement, and I would like to have you react to 

them. I also have your most recent quarterly report, a report 

which, of course, was mandated by this Committee, this one, dated 

February 17, 2009. With reports of this sort, you always can see 

the glass as half full or half empty, but I do think the evidence 

here is mixed, and that is why I would like an oral update and perhaps additional elaboration for the record. 

You, for example, talk, in this report, about developing 100-percent screening at now what amounts to 14.2 percent of state and 

local prisons. That is up from a lower percent, but it still leaves 

us wondering about 85.8 percent of the state and local jails who do 

not have this level of screening and what is happening to the people who are incarcerated there and then are out on the streets. 

We are told that, at any given point in time, there are approximately 450,000 illegal aliens incarcerated in our federal, state, and 

local prison systems. You do have the 100-percent screening with 

regard to the federal prison system, and I should acknowledge that. 

The concern is with State or local prisons, where at any point in 

time, 450,000 criminal aliens are incarcerated. I think the figure, 

last year, for criminal alien deportations was something like 

115,000. Of course, we need to know what the release rate per year 

is to know exactly how significant that 450,000 number is. 

What kind of figures do you have on that, and what are your current estimates of the number of incarcerated illegal aliens who are 

getting turned back out on the street without us knowing their status, let alone moving to deport them, as opposed to the 115,000 

that, one way or another, you did deport last year? 

There is also the question of priorities within the Department, 

and let me say, a ‘‘priority’’ is just what we say it is. Having someVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00970 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
971 

thing as a priority does not mean you are ignoring everything else, 

but it does mean you are giving this priority. As far as I know, nobody seriously disagrees that criminal aliens should be at the very 

top of that list. 

Now, the figures I have for deportations since 2002 are that the 

deportation of noncriminals since 2002 has increased by 400 percent while criminal deportations have only gone up 60 percent. 

So I will stop with that. You may have other figures to offer, but 

you get my direction here. I am encouraged by some of the specific 

actions that are reflected in this most recent report. On the other 

hand, I am not sure that these overall figures indicate that we are 

making the kind of progress in getting the kind of closure on this 

problem that we need to get. 

So I would like to know how you would account for the continuing lag that these figures indicate in our ability to get the capacity out there that we want and how long you think it is going 

to take for us to see these figures decisively turn around. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, thank you for the question, Chairman 

Price. 

In regards to the 14-percent screening, as it relates to local jails, 

I think everyone is aware that that is the greatest challenge for 

ICE because of the speed by which individuals are processed 

through the local jail system. 

While we have 14-percent coverage of those facilities, we do have 

the Law Enforcement Support Center available 24/7 for local law 

enforcement officers to initiate immigration queries to that center, 

as well as local protocols in place by which the ICE offices can respond to local law enforcement referrals when there is not an officer and agent present at those facilities. 

So while we have the 14-percent physical coverage, we do have 

other ways of responding to these law enforcement referrals. 

Regarding criminal alien removals versus noncriminal alien removals, I think, each year, we have shown that those numbers continue to go up, again, based on the resources that you have provided to ICE, and those numbers will continue to go up. 

I believe we will be able to accelerate those numbers based on 

the strategy that we submitted in March of 2008. We are looking, 

again, to modernize and transform the way we do business. 

The biometric capability that we talked about in the written testimony is really a game changer for us. It allows us to be present 

in facilities. It allows us to change our model, going from an agentcentric, officer-centric model to a technology-centric model, and we 

believe that the resources that you have provided, the plan that we 

have put forth, will allow us to accelerate the coverage, allow us 

to accelerate the identification of these individuals, and, therefore, 

put more people through this process. 

Regarding the noncriminal removals, I think you are aware that 

the increased Border Patrol agents who have been deployed to the 

southwest border generate noncriminal arrests and activities, and 

ICE does have a responsibility to support the activities of the Border Patrol and CBP. The catch-and-return policy was implemented, 

and that required the detention of more noncriminal aliens along 

the southwest border. So that contributes to those figures. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
972 

Mr. PRICE. Well, one more statistic. The figures in the most recent year that we have, in 2007 to 2008, the figures for criminal 

removals went from 102,000 to the 115,000 number. That is a 12- 

percent increase and, no doubt, reflects some of these efforts. That 

same year, the noncriminal removals went up 35 percent, so the 

pattern is continuing but is not quite as stark as it was in those 

earlier years. 

Well, we expect these efforts to continue and intensify, and we 

expect that the detailed budget submission for 2010 will reflect 

that, so we will be scrutinizing that carefully and working with you 

to make certain that we continue and accelerate progress in this 

direction. We think it is important. 

RELEASED CRIMINAL ALIENS WHO ARE NOT DEPORTED

I did not get the figure for the denominator: 115,000 over what 

number of estimated criminal aliens who are being released this 

year who are not being deported. Do you have that figure? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. We do not. 

Mr. PRICE. Can you get that figure? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. We are going to be able to provide you that figure very shortly. We have developed a model which looks at a number of criminal data sources from the federal, state, and local level, 

and we will be able to tell you, in a given year, how many people 

ICE expects to encounter at these facilities versus how many are 

actually at those facilities. So we will be able to refine that number. 

The number that you referred to earlier, the 350,000 to 400,000, 

again, was a different statistic, a different snapshot. If you looked 

at all of the prison populations, federal, state, and local level, that 

is how many individuals you would encounter. It did not speak to 

how many would be released. 

Mr. PRICE. No. That is why I asked the question. The significance of that 115,000 number depends entirely on what the number released is, not just the total prison population of illegal aliens. 

DEPORTING CRIMINAL ALIENS VERSUS NONCRIMINAL

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Tell me whether or not your work on catching and 

deporting criminal aliens is interfering, in any way, or diminishing 

your efforts in catch and return of noncriminal illegal aliens. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. I do not believe it is. With the additional resources that Congress has provided us, we have been able to add 

additional detention space to support this particular activity, and 

we have added additional officers and agents to focus on implementing this strategy as it relates to criminal aliens. 

So I do not believe it has diminished our efforts to continue to 

support CBP and the Border Patrol. 

Mr. ROGERS. So the catching and returning of illegal aliens who 

are not criminals continues unabated. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Yes, along the southwest border, and those activities continue forward. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does that equally apply to the inland workforce investigations? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. I will defer that to Director Forman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
973 

Ms. FORMAN. We are still utilizing the resources and the funding 

that Congress generously provided to go after egregious employers 

of work site violations. 

POLICY CHANGE OR WORKFORCE ENFORCEMENT

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that brings us to the Bellingham, Washington, 

case, and what I think it portends, and what I am afraid it portends, and that is a diversion of attention from prosecuting employers in the U.S. who employ illegal aliens knowingly and providing 

that magnet to draw people from Mexico and other places to our 

south across the border and into the U.S. illegally and for the purpose of work. 

I am nervous that the Department is making a big change of policy here. I hope you can prove me wrong. I pray that I am wrong, 

but I perceive too many symbols that, I think, are portending a 

change of policy in that regard. I do not want to interfere in that 

Bellingham, Washington, case. That is an ongoing case, and far be 

it from me to want to interfere in that. 

Suffice it to say that I want to see stronger enforcement and 

stronger prosecution of American employers who employ illegal 

aliens knowingly. 

Why? Because our whole effort on the southwest border, the billions of dollars we are appropriating for building the fence and the 

virtual fence, the drug war that is now raging across that border, 

all of the efforts that we spend on customs and border protection 

at the checkpoints, ports of entry, and all of the Border Patrol expenses between those posts, and all of the efforts that we are doing 

to try to keep illegal aliens out, will never succeed so long as the 

magnet that draws those people to the U.S. to find work, so long 

as that magnet exists, and the magnet, of course, is the hope of a 

job at an American employer’s place. 

If we are not going to prosecute those people, if we are not going 

to catch and return illegals who are caught in the process of raiding that plant, then we may as well give up on the border. We can 

save a ton of money not having to spend it on all of the things we 

have got to do on that border. 

What the Bellingham cases signals to me is that that is the way 

we are going, and it is backed up by a number of other things. The 

Washington Post ran a story on March 29th, Sunday; the headline 

is, ‘‘Delay in Immigration Raids May Signal Policy Change,’’ and it 

says it better than I can say it. It is, in effect, saying that the secretary has delayed a series of proposed immigration raids and 

other enforcement actions at U.S. workplaces in recent weeks, asking agents in her Department to apply more scrutiny to the selection and investigation of targets, as well as the timing of raids. 

A senior Department official, unnamed, said, ‘‘These delays signal a pending change in whom agents at U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement choose to prosecute. There will be a change 

in policy,’’ this senior DHS official says. 

Her moves, the story goes on to say, have led a lot of people to 

question the administration’s commitment to work site raids, period. She has highlighted other priorities—drug cartels, dangerous 

criminals, and so on—but the fact remains, the pressure is on this 

administration not to raid these plants and arrest illegals working 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
974 

there out of humanitarian concerns, and we all have those concerns, but we have got to think about enforcing the law and protecting our border and having a border. 

I sort of agree with what Senator Byrd, in the Senate, from West 

Virginia, said recently. He says, ‘‘It makes no sense to take funds 

from one priority, work site enforcement, to address a new priority, 

the border violence.’’ 

I know that the administration is talking about moving as many 

as 450 to 500 ICE agents out of internal workplace enforcement investigations and move them to the border, along with their equipment, to counter the drug cartels. I have tried to signal to the secretary that that would be a giant mistake, to take those ICE 

agents, who have to work on trying to shut down the magnet here 

from drawing people across the border, and diverting money to the 

border to prevent them from coming across. 

I just think that is counterproductive and contradictive. So let 

me ask you, are we in the midst of a change of policy on workplace 

enforcement, ma’am? 

Ms. FORMAN. Thank you, sir, for the question. The answer is no. 

The Secretary is committed to going after the employers who engage in criminal activity and build their model on hiring illegal 

aliens. Secretary Napolitano has repeated that mandate, and we 

are going to pursue that mandate and going after the employers 

who, again, knowingly hire illegal aliens, in addition to those who 

hire in our national critical infrastructure locations. 

Let me assure you that the work site funds that Congress so generously provided to us will not be used to fund the southwest border movement of agents. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am glad to hear the effort to prosecute employers is going to proceed, posthaste. 

What about the illegal aliens that are apprehended in that process? 

Ms. FORMAN. ICE intends to fully utilize their investigative resources, tools, and authorities to develop cases and to prove cases 

against the employer, using all of the tools available to them. 

Mr. ROGERS. What about the people that are caught, illegals that 

are caught, in the process of a raid? Will they be released or returned to their place of origin? 

Ms. FORMAN. Certainly, each case is evaluated on its own merit, 

but utilizing the tools that are available, such as temporary immigration relief, in order to prove the criminal case; many of these 

individuals may be offered that type of relief temporarily in order 

to help ICE, in conjunction with the Department of Justice to pursue these criminal cases against the employer. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I mean, that is the Bellingham case, but what 

about all of the others where you do not have to have the testimony 

of an illegal alien to testify in that case? What happens to them? 

Will they be returned back to their home? 

Ms. FORMAN. Certainly, they will be appropriately dealt with, according to the immigration laws and the immigration judges; yes, 

they will. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, is it true that the secretary has, in effect, 

barred any further raids until she personally intervenes in that 

matter? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
975 

Ms. FORMAN. That is absolutely not true. We have not received 

any policy shift in regards to our approach on work site enforcement. We have taken, which we often do, a review of the cases in 

our inventory to ensure that the targets of these investigations are 

the employers who are and we are using a comprehensive approach 

to immigration enforcement. 

In addition to the criminal process, we have many other tools at 

our disposal as well. We have recently, thanks to the Congress, 

hired approximately 60 auditors—we are hoping to have, at the 

end of the year, a total of almost 100 auditors—to conduct I–9 inspections. 

We have implemented a debarment policy. We have refined our 

fine process to make the fines more meaningful and consistent 

when they are issued, and, certainly, we are using our administrative and criminal authorities, when appropriate. 

Mr. ROGERS. So is this reporter for the Washington Post wrong 

when he says, in his opening paragraph, that the secretary has delayed a series of proposed immigration raids at workplaces? 

Ms. FORMAN. I certainly cannot comment on the reporter himself. 

I am not sure of the validity of that statement. All I can tell you 

is that we have not been asked to delay any raids. 

Mr. ROGERS. ‘‘We’’ being who? 

Ms. FORMAN. ICE. The ICE Office of Investigations. 

Mr. ROGERS. I will have further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Farr. 

REMOVAL OF CRIMINAL ALIENS

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I was late. 

I am reading the code here, and as I read it, your highest responsibility is to remove the criminal offenders, is that not correct? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. That is a top priority for ICE. And Secretary 

Napolitano has made that very clear, that will be a top priority. 

Mr. FARR. So on the priority issues, I mean, removing known 

criminals who are undocumented or who are aliens who have committed crimes is a higher priority for us to do well, because they 

are obviously more of a threat, than conducting raids. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, I think ICE has a number of responsibilities, criminal and aliens being one, as Director Forman mentioned 

worksite enforcement. And there are other activities that—— 

UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS IN FEDERAL CUSTODY

Mr. FARR. But the law puts the criminal aliens as the really high 

priority. And you said, for example, the highest-risk category includes those individuals who have been convicted of violent crimes, 

such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, kidnapping, or other 

major drug offenses. This category is our highest priority and the 

main focus of our efforts. That is on page 9 of your testimony. 

Now, I just want to find out, so what we were asking last year 

is, does ICE have a list of all the undocumented people that are 

in federal prison? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. In federal prison? 

Mr. FARR. Yes. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Yes. We have 100 percent screening of those 

in federal custody. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
976 

UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS IN STATE CUSTODY

Mr. FARR. Congratulations, because last year you did not have it. 

How about in state prisons? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. In state prisons, again I believe we have 100 

percent coverage—— 

Mr. FARR. A hundred percent. 

Mr. VENTURELLA [continuing]. Of the state facilities, which ICE 

oversees. 

Mr. FARR. And that would take care of your felonies. Because in 

your local jails are misdemeanor sentences, is not that correct? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, the majority are. But some felonies also 

originate from the local setting. 

Mr. FARR. They originate, but they do not necessarily—do they 

do time in jail? I thought time was always, for felonies, was in 

state prison. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, they move through, they can move 

through a county system. They can do their time there. Or they can 

migrate to a state system, as well. 

BOOKING SITES IN U.S. 

Mr. FARR. And how many booking sites are there in the United 

States? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Over 30,000. 

Mr. FARR. And your intention is to try to have every one of those 

booking sites to have the same fingerprinting process, so that you 

can run those fingerprints up against a national databank, right? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, we want to make available the capability 

of them being able to receive a response back, both on the criminal 

side and the immigration side, once the fingerprints are transmitted to the system. 

LOCAL DETERMINATION OF DOCUMENTATION

Mr. FARR. Well, it seems to me that the priority of this, of the 

responsibility, because we were very critical of the fact that ICE 

was not doing jail checks. And in fact, my local law enforcement 

were very upset with ICE, and did not want to cooperate with ICE; 

felt that they would rather go do these raids, and they got more 

press, and really shook up the community. 

In fact, I do not have many law enforcement leaders that are respectful of—and I hope they are gaining respect, but I do not think 

they have been very respectful, because of the way ICE has conducted itself, particularly because they would not come in and do 

these jail checks. 

So what I did not understand exactly from the program as I read 

it, you are relying an awful lot on the local communities to have 

to tell you whether the person they booked is documented or not. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Under the old model, that is correct. The new 

model does not rely on them making a judgment on the individual’s 

immigration status. 

Mr. FARR. No, that is not their responsibility. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Absolutely, it is not. And so with this change 

of approach in deploying this biometric technology, just by sharing 

that fingerprint with us, we will be able to make that identificaVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00976 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
977 

tion, and then provide them the information back about that individual. 

Mr. FARR. What I did not understand in this process is, you were 

talking about this individual that was detained, and was, sort of 

by circumstance, was a really bad hombre in Arizona. And but for 

the fact that he got busted on a minor incident, and in that you 

were able to run a check and finally grab him. 

Why was not he grabbed the minute he was booked? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Again, the information was not shared. Now, 

in the old model that would have required the local police department and the local law enforcement officers to make that determination, have reasonable suspicion that this person had violated, 

or was in the United States unlawfully. Manually initiate a check 

to the law enforcement support—— 

Mr. FARR. You mean that is not done? You book somebody, and 

you have a fingerprint, and you do not find out if there are any outstanding warrants for that person, or any other things? I mean, my 

God, when, you know, I get stopped on a traffic violation, they run 

my driver’s license to see if I have any, all kinds of stuff. 

So you have got people that are being booked in jails, and we do 

not have that information about them? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, that is what we are changing. 

Mr. FARR. But why is it taking so long? I mean, this has been 

a law for a long, long time. It is not new. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Again, local law enforcement has always had 

the ability to initiate an immigration query through a telecommunications system. 

What we are doing now is we are integrating the two databases, 

and part of the booking process. They get back that information. 

So they do not have to do a second query, they do not have to initiate a second. It is all part of the booking process. And that is really what changes the way we are identifying and the way we are 

sharing information back with the local law enforcement. 

Mr. FARR. So you have a projection to round up 440,000 people 

next year. How many of those will be people that are incarcerated 

now, either without papers or incarcerated as green card holders? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, once we deploy the capability to those jurisdictions, yes, we do expect to be able to identify all of those individuals and take the appropriate action. 

Mr. FARR. So you will meet them, when they get out of prison 

you will be there at the gate to receive them? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Again, once we deploy this capability, we make 

the identification, the goal is to be able to take these people out of 

those institutions and remove them from the United States as 

quickly as possible. 

E-VERIFY

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the original author 

of E-Verify, I obviously have watched this program evolve over the 

years, and now see we have 117,000 employers on the system. Several states have now made E-Verify mandatory within their own 

states. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
978 

And just to go over these numbers, Mr. Aytes, as you mentioned, 

96.1 percent of people are instantly verified. And of the 3.9 percent 

that are not instantly verified, .4 percent are successfully contested. Is that an accurate number, sir? 

Mr. AYTES. Yes, sir. It is actually .37 percent of—— 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. Which means about 3.5 percent of that number either walked away or were not authorized to work. So that 

means that program is approximately 99.6 percent accurate. Is that 

a reasonably correct number? 

Mr. AYTES. When you add all those numbers together, yes, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. That is not bad for government work. You know, 

I have heard a lot of criticism from some on E-Verify. As a matter 

of fact, I checked with some of my local employers who use EVerify. One employer in my district, Carlos, with A-Check America, 

provides background checks for employers, said my colleagues and 

I have a very favorable impression of E-Verify. We find the employers want to do the right thing. Requirements put upon the employer to confirm the applicant is legal to work within the U.S., 

this program serves that need. The program is very affordable, 

fast, and we feel very accurate. 

We have not had any applicants contest the finding of the results. In fact, Mr. Aytes, as far as you know, people that are authorized to work in the United States are being supposedly denied 

jobs, some folks say. 

Has anyone ever sued the Department for losing a job over EVerify? 

Mr. AYTES. Not that we are aware of, sir. 

WORKSITE EMPLOYMENT

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Ms. Forman, I was listening to you on 

this issue of releasing temporarily individuals who are not legally 

here to work in the United States, and this issue in Washington. 

Without getting into the details of this case, this, releasing these 

individuals, so-called catch and release, what is the percentage of 

these individuals that just disappear and never report? You said 

there was weekly reporting periods, and they are supposed to show 

up from a certain point. What percentage of them just disappear? 

Ms. FORMAN. I do not have that figure for you. But I will assure 

you, there is great oversight over these individuals. 

Mr. CALVERT. If they just disappear, and they go someplace else 

and apply for work under a different name, there is not very much 

you can do about that, is there? Is not that the case? 

Ms. FORMAN. We certainly do our best to seek them out and find 

them. 

Mr. CALVERT. In the real world, that happens often. I just want 

to make that point. Because that, that is the case. 

As a matter of fact, another thing on this worksite enforcement 

issue, you mentioned that you are targeting unscrupulous employers, poor unsafe working conditions, paying substandard wages. 

Does that mean you do not target employers that are paying fair 

wages, or working in good conditions? But at the same time, knowingly hire people who are working here illegally? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
979 

Ms. FORMAN. No, that is not true. We target all unscrupulous 

employers. We just highlight some of the areas in which we have 

uncovered during our investigation. 

Mr. CALVERT. So employers that are paying fair wages, and paying, and working in good conditions, are targeted just as aggressively as everyone else. Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. FORMAN. That is correct. We certainly prioritize. If we receive information with those employers who have these unsafe, 

lower-paying, they may take precedence. But we target them all. 

Those companies and employers who build their model on hiring illegal aliens are our number-one target. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CALVERT. I would be happy to. 

LIST OF EMPLOYERS CHARGED OR RAIDED

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if we might be able to get the Department to give us a list of the employers who have been charged 

or raided, and the results of those raids, however many illegals 

were detained and what happened to them. I wonder if we could 

get a report so that we could judge that. 

Mr. PRICE. Certainly. We would appreciate your making available that information in whatever form you can assemble it. 

Ms. FORMAN. Certainly. 

E-VERIFY

Mr. ROGERS. If you could submit that for the record, I would appreciate that. 

E-Verify in itself, Mr. Aytes, is your experience that this program 

expands that you have sufficient resources and manpower to enforce this program properly? 

Mr. AYTES. Based on our forecasts of growth, yes, sir. We have 

actually done some load testing of our infrastructure of the system. 

And we can handle 40 million queries. There is about 60 million 

if you went mandatory. But this system can grow. It is scaleable, 

it could deal with the entire volume. 

Mr. ROGERS. In fact, as you took on states that made in mandatory, such as the State of Arizona, which in fact Ms. Napolitano 

signed the law in effect making E-Verify mandatory in the State 

of Arizona. And there are other states, as I understand, moving in 

that direction, also. 

Could you, for the record, tell which states are moving toward a 

mandatory system within their states? 

Mr. AYTES. Well, yes, sir. Mississippi and South Carolina have 

already adopted mandatory verification. There are several other 

states, Missouri for example, that have adopted some aspect of it, 

applying it to particular types of employers, or to state government 

agencies. 

Mr. ROGERS. And lastly, what is the E-Verify doing about identity theft? That was one of the criticisms that is also pointed to on 

E-Verify. What are you doing to prevent identity theft? 

Mr. AYTES. What we are doing is trying to post all of our documents online, so that an employer can look at them. Now, if I am 

sitting there, and I am applying for a job, the employer is looking 

at me and looking at my driver’s license. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
980 

Well, they do not necessarily know if that driver’s license is genuine, or if it has been altered to some degree. So to the extent to 

which we can actually show the employer that source document, 

they can verify that the document itself is genuine and has not 

been altered. That goes quite a way toward fighting not just document fraud, but identity theft. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

HUMANITARIAN GUIDELINES

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Forman, the increased use of raids has resulted in a great 

number of individuals being placed into detention, costing billions 

of dollars. Yet many of these detainees pose no threat to our communities, such as pregnant women, the elderly, and people with 

medical needs. 

I recently introduced the Immigration Oversight and Fairness 

Act, in part to expand the use of alternatives to detention for 

groups that do not pose a threat to their community or constitute 

a slight risk. 

Recognizing the fact that there are, in fact, other options to the 

high cost of detaining these vulnerable groups, and this is money 

that could be better used to go after criminal aliens, what is DHS 

doing to use these expanded alternative measures for this particular group of people? 

Ms. FORMAN. Thank you very much for the question. When ICE 

conducts some of these enforcement actions, we have guidelines in 

place. And those guidelines include humanitarian guidelines. 

So utilizing your example of a pregnant female, we work with 

our detention and removal agents, and we offer—we process the individual, and we release them on humanitarian guidelines. And detention and removal uses alternatives to detention, to include 

bracelets and phone-ins and so forth. We do that routinely on these 

enforcement actions. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. But I am getting reports that there 

are still a great many of these vulnerable people that are still being 

detained, rather than being held under these alternative measures. 

So I do not know where the disconnect here is. Because I am hearing that there are still many that fall into this category, that are 

still being detained. 

Ms. FORMAN. I can tell you they start by oversight of the worksite investigations. I am not aware of any cases, and I am certainly 

more than glad to go look into any particular circumstance. But 

these guidelines are applied across the board, on all worksite enforcement operations. 

RAPID REPATRIATION

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. Well, we will work on that. 

Also, the rapid repatriation is an initiative designed to quickly 

deport immigrants with low-level offenses, by offering them a reduced sentence in exchange for waiving the right to a deportation 

proceeding. And for those, there is no chance to obtain immigrant 

status. It is probably a pretty good offer. 

However, again, I have been informed that the rapid repatriation 

may not provide immigrants with sufficient legal information to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
981 

make an informed decision about whether to accept this offer, or 

not to accept it. 

Could you tell me, what resources do you provide through this 

program to inform immigrants of their rights? And how does this 

legal information compare with what is available to immigrants 

held in the ICE detention centers? 

Probably that is better for Mr. Venturella. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, I am not as familiar with all of the particulars around that program. My understanding is that individuals are given their right to a hearing. Some of these individuals 

may have already been processed and gone through immigration 

proceedings, and have a removal order, but are serving long sentences or sentences in state custody. 

I do not know if all of them are then issued a charging document 

and go through formal removal proceedings. Again, I am just not 

quite familiar with that, so I will have to get back to you on that 

process. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I would appreciate that. Because the question really is, if they are offered this, you know, immediately, are 

they getting enough information to make an informed decision? 

Particularly if they have some basis for being able, you know, to 

stay here. 

So I would appreciate it, if you would. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Yes. 

PUBLIC NOTICE OF CHANGE TO I–9 PROCESS

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. And one last thing. On April 3 the U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services will implement a change to 

its employment eligibility verification, a form, I guess it is I–9 process. And under the new rules, employers will no longer be able to 

accept expired documents for purposes of hiring. 

The concern that I have is that—it is twofold. First of all, this 

revised policy could possibly disproportionately impact poor and elderly Americans who statistically are less likely to renew their 

state IDs or their driver’s license, which could prevent them from 

gainful employment. 

And unfortunately, USCIS has not made alerting the public a 

priority. And as a result, has done very little, if any, outreach. 

Why has this rule change not been more highly publicized, so 

that people would be aware of it? And since we are two days away 

from this deadline, is there any possibility of extending it? So that 

Members of Congress and others can get that word out to our constituents that this is happening. 

Mr. AYTES. Well, ma’am, this is an interim final rule. We went 

through a very elaborate process with the proposed rule, with comments, getting information and feedback from folks. We are certainly not hiding the changes that have been made. Many of these 

changes have been long-discussed. This is one of the first revisions, 

although a very minor revision, of the I–9 since the Employer Sanctions Law first took effect back in the 1980s. 

We have made this change because we did not feel that employers should be in the position of having to assess the legitimacy of 

documents that are long expired. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
982 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. My time is up. I am not taking a position 

against what you are trying to do. 

Mr. AYTES. I understand. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I am simply saying that being the impact 

that it is going to have on a lot of folks, I am concerned that the 

information has not gotten out to those who are going to be most 

impacted by this. That is all I am saying. 

And I, you know, for myself, I would like a little more time to 

let my seniors and my constituents know that this is happening. 

Mr. AYTES. Well, we certainly share your concern to the extent 

to which it might adversely impact someone unnecessarily. I think 

it would be extraordinarily problematic, a day before implementation, to delay an interim final rule of this nature. 

I will promise you we will take a look. But I cannot hold out 

much hope that we will be able to implement some form of delay. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
983 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1401 here 52999C.043
984 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1402 here 52999C.044
985 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1403 here 52999C.045
986 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIZATION

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And let me, first of all, 

I know there has been a lot of dialogue on E-Verify back and forth. 

And I do want to, I guess, congratulate you to get into that 96 percent. The key is, how do we get the next 4 percent or less than 4 

percent. 

And I know you made some comments at the beginning. So 

please let us know, in terms of what we might need to do, or what 

you might need to do in terms of, you know, that might entail us 

taking some actions, that allow us to get to hopefully that 99.9 percent in the process, okay? 

And let me also just indicate, I know the Minority leader, Mr. 

Rogers, is correct in saying that jobs is one of the main magnets 

of, you know, illegal immigration. And although we do have another main magnet, which is drugs, and I think we are going to 

have to look at prioritizing how we are going to deal with that from 

one Administration to the other, as to the, you know. And we do 

have some major drugs coming in. 

And I would hope, at least from my perspective, that all of them 

are important. But there is no doubt that we have to come down 

on those criminals that are already here, and do what we need to 

do to correct that, as well as dealing with those individuals who are 

coming across with drugs. 

And I know from previous experiences that in dealing with companies, that we have also had Mr. Rogers’s reverse, where the 

illegals—and it is true that a lot of times the ones that are, at least 

my perception, that are raided are those that are being treated real 

poorly. Because that is where you hear the complaints, and that is 

where you identify them. And sometimes they are sent back, and 

then we do not have the individuals that can prosecute the employers for doing the wrong thing, also. So it is balance there that probably we have to strike. 

I do not know if you want to make some comments on the existing one, because I know we have had problems in Iowa and other 

places, where they have done some real terrible things, and the 

illegals are sent back. And then we could not prosecute, in some 

cases in the past. I do not know if you want to make some comments, Ms. Forman. 

Ms. FORMAN. I cannot comment on the ongoing investigation, but 

we certainly have had worksite enforcement actions that the employer has, you know, low standard of wages, poor treatment of the 

employee, certainly. And that is why the focus is always, and will 

continue to be, on the employer, going after the employer. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Now, on those good—and I know we have had 

cases on good employers, because I know we had, there was a 

major case, it was a major company that was in that had busloads, 

and were brought up here. And I do not want to mention the company. And that case lasted a long time. At the end, the people who 

I think got nailed were the bus drivers on that case. And so that 

was a major company that was involved with some of that, I think 

it was poultry and others. I will not mention the name of that company. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
987 

But I know that we need to continue to do that on both sides, 

making sure we get those two magnets, both the job-related, you 

know, workforce, as well as the drugs. 

PARTICIPATION IN 287(g) PROGRAM

Let me ask you one other questions. Since I am on the border, 

Section 287(g), that is extremely important for us in terms of making a distinction there. 

GAO reports indicate that the agencies participating in 287 programs often did not know the extent of the legal authority; whether, you know, we like the program or not. 

What steps have we taken to ensure participating agencies know 

exactly what they can and cannot do? 

Ms. FORMAN. Well, the 287(g) program does not fall under the 

Office of Investigations. But based on my knowledge of the 287(g) 

program, there are several weeks of training provided to these 

state and local law enforcement agencies, and they receive the immigration training on what they can and cannot do, and what the 

law requires. 

So there is training before they are able to apply their 287(g) authority. 

DETENTION FACILITIES FOR FAMILIES

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And if I can just follow up one other question, 

on the facility for families. And I think we have two of them, one 

in Texas and one in Pennsylvania. And my understanding is we 

have a facility now for little ones, under 18 I guess, kids? 

Ms. FORMAN. Are you able to answer? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. I am not aware of ICE having juvenile facilities. The responsibility for custody of juveniles is with the Office 

of Refugee Resettlement, which is in HHS. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So, okay. So that would not. Now, have we come 

up with any other alternatives to, I know it is a difficult situation, 

every time you hear that you are putting in prison a whole family 

with kids, little kids, it always comes across—well, it is kind of, 

you know, difficult—do we have any other alternatives there? 

Ms. FORMAN. On our detention and removal section, I could certainly take these questions back and provide you a written answer. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. 

E-VERIFY ERROR RATES

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We welcome Mr. Culberson. I understand 

he will defer for a couple of time slots here, and then we will get 

right to him. Meanwhile, we will start the second round. 

I have a very brief question to you, Mr. Aytes, following up on 

Mr. Calvert’s line of questioning. Then I would like to get back to 

this question of worksite enforcement. 

I do think we need to ask you to elaborate a bit on the rather 

encouraging statistics you gave us about the error rates. As you 

know, sometimes you need to look at the subsets within an overall 

statistic of that sort. 

And the figures we had heard indicate that there were some 

problematic subsets, led by naturalized citizens, that had been a 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
988 

problem. The audit, the WESTAT audit of E-Verify showed that 

one in 10 naturalized citizens get told they cannot be employed in 

the United States. 

I wonder if you could just briefly tell me what kind of progress 

you have made in, first of all, to confirm that that is true; and also, 

what kind of progress you have made in improving on that. And 

then just briefly telegraph any other problematic subsets, and 

maybe follow up for the record with more detailed information. 

Mr. AYTES. Certainly, sir. It is true, not every individual worker 

is going to go through exactly the same experience, depending on 

their background. 

We did have an issue with naturalized citizens and derivative 

citizens, for example. So we pay attention to the type of individuals 

who contest and are successfully able to convince us, after we do 

some research, that they are employment-authorized. 

What can we do to improve the system so the next time they, or 

someone like them, are going to get an automatic verification? That 

is what has been able to drive this verification rate up. 

So for example, when we noticed that problem, we started loading naturalization data more extensively into the system. And we 

started loading passport data, so that derivative citizens who typically will obtain a passport before they enter the United States, so 

that information is now in our system and that is driving those 

numbers down. 

And I will tell you that the numbers that I have cited, and that 

you all have cited, we publicly talk about validated data. WESTAT 

is a company that comes in and does an audit for us. We use that 

data. 

That data is actually almost a year old. I am very confident that 

based on the results we have seen in terms of the number of calls 

we are getting, and the types of mismatches that we have been 

able to avoid, that the numbers are somewhat better today than 

even those numbers. 

Mr. PRICE. I would appreciate your confirming that for the 

record, if you might, within any hard data that you have, as well 

as any information about other problematic subsets. 

Mr. AYTES. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

USCIS is working on a number of upcoming system enhancements including, 

among other improvements, the integration of additional databases that will be 

automatically checked within the E-Verify program. In February 2009, E-Verify 

added passport data to the sources checked within the program. This addition has 

significantly reduced mismatches issued to naturalized and derivative citizens, and 

will continue to decrease the number of initial mismatches later confirmed as employment-authorized (the 0.4 percent statistic referenced above). 

In FY2010, E-Verify will integrate SEVIS II data into the initial E-Verify system 

check. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s SEVIS II houses foreign student and exchange visitor population data. The integration of this data will significantly reduce mismatch incidence for this population. E-Verify is also working to 

automate the process for Temporary Protection Status (TPS) students who may 

have an expired EAD cards if their TPS was extended past the original timeframe. 

Also in FY2010, E-Verify intends to implement new matching techniques to account 

for format and typographical mismatches deriving from date of birth entries or complex surnames. 

Despite planned improvements, there will always be cases that result in 

mismatches that require employee action to update or correct the record before the 

system can issue an employment-authorized response. this process of updating 

records is beneficial to the employee, SSA, and DHS. Mismatches that cannot be 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
989 

prevented by system enhancements are often due to change of life events such as 

marriage or name change that the employee fails to report to SSA. Other 

mismatches are typographical errors that occur when the employer enters information into the system or the employee enters information on the Form I–9. USCIS 

continues to conduct outreach campaigns encouraging people to update their information with SSA and to identify system improvements to account for typographical 

and formatting mismatches. 

WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT POLICY

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Forman, I get back to this question of worksite 

enforcement. As is evident I think from the discussion here today, 

this is a contentious and controversial issue. 

And one of the reasons that some people, many people, have 

criticized ICE worksite enforcement raids is because they perceive 

that employers are generally not punished to the same degree as 

the workers that they may be exploiting. 

Over the weekend I was pleased to read that Secretary 

Napolitano has ordered a review of ICE’s worksite enforcement 

policies and practices. I, for one, welcome this review. Since I believe ICE’s worksite enforcement investigations need to be considered, in the context of the Department’s other priorities and needs; 

and that more focus needs to be placed on the employers who exploit illegal immigrants. 

Now, I am not asking you to comment on this policy review; I 

know you are not in a position to do that. But I do think it would 

be helpful for us to understand more about how ICE has traditionally approached worksite enforcement investigations. So let me ask 

you just a few related questions. 

Under the previous Administration, what was ICE’s policy for 

building cases against employers in worksite enforcement cases? Of 

the worksite enforcement cases you closed last year, how many resulted in criminal charges against employers? And generally speaking, what percentage of worksite enforcement cases result in the 

prosecution of an employer? 

Ms. FORMAN. Mr. Chairman, in terms of our priorities in worksite enforcement, our number-one priority is going after employers 

who hire within our national critical infrastructures, such as military installation, airports, and seaports. 

Our second prong, if there is a second prong, is going after those 

egregious employers; those employers who have built their business 

and used the business model, knowingly hiring illegal aliens. 

And then if there is a third prong, it is not, per se, criminal in 

nature. It is working in partnership with the private sector to educate and to bring companies into compliance. Those who want a 

pure and clean workforce. And that is the way we still continue to 

address worksite enforcement in those priority areas. 

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AT WORKSITES

Mr. PRICE. Can you more specifically address my question about 

the cases that you build against employers, and the percentage of 

cases that have resulted in criminal charges against employers? 

Ms. FORMAN. The way we build a criminal investigation in the 

worksite area, as well as all the other areas in which we investigate, we use various methods. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
990 

Oftentimes we use investigative tools, where we can bring in a, 

either a law enforcement officer or a cooperating witness who will 

go in and help us develop information against the employer. Sometimes we get information based on our audits, on our I–9 audits, 

where there is the propensity that the company may have fraudulently made up some of these I–9 audits, or knowingly accepted 

fraudulent documentation. 

Our intent is to build enough probable cause to get it working 

with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to get a search warrant to search 

the premises. That is usually our number-one tool and vehicle in 

terms of trying to build a case against the employer. 

WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT CASES CLOSED IN 2008

Mr. PRICE. I gather you do not have the overall figures about the 

number of worksite enforcement cases you closed in 2008 that resulted in criminal charges against employers? 

Ms. FORMAN. No, but I can get that for you. 

[The information follows:] 

ICE does not track the number of closed worksite enforcement investigations during a fiscal year that result in the criminal prosecution of an employer. However, 

ICE does track the number of worksite enforcement related criminal arrests made 

during a fiscal year and whether that criminal arrest was of an employer or employee. 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2005: 176 Criminal Arrests—Employers represented 2% of the 

total criminal arrests. 

FY 2006: 716 Criminal Arrests—Employers represented 15% of the total criminal 

arrests. 

FY 2007: 863 Criminal Arrests—Employers represented 11% of the total criminal 

arrests. 

FY 2008: 1103 Criminal Arrests—Employers represented 12% of the total criminal 

arrests. 

Mr. PRICE. If you can furnish that for the record, and any further 

information you might want to give about previous years or trends 

in this regard. We very much need that information, actually, so 

please do get back to us. 

Ms. FORMAN. I will. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 

WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT POLICY

Mr. ROGERS. Well, staying on the same topic, I think if there is 

anything on this subcommittee we can agree upon—and there are 

a number of things—but I think certainly one thing I am sure of 

is we all want you to prosecute employers who are exploiting illegal 

aliens, or anyone else. 

And the reason that I would want you to do that is, I want you 

to—I think it helps shut down the magnet that helps draw illegals 

across the border. Not to mention the humanitarian question, 

which is, of course, important. 

So that has got me concerned, these news accounts insinuating 

or implying that the Administration is going to let upon worksite 

enforcement in the U.S. because of the humanitarian impact on the 

illegal aliens. And that has me worried. 

The Secretary now is saying that she is going to issue a new protocol, apparently shortly, to outline what the new policy will be toVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:14 Nov 04, 2009 Jkt 052999 PO 00000 Frm 00990 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A999P2.XXX A999P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
991 

ward worksite enforcement. Do you know anything about what that 

protocol will be? 

Ms. FORMAN. Not the protocols, per se. The Secretary has stated 

in public forums that her focus will still continue to be on the employer, on the egregious employer. 

DELAYS OF IMMIGRATION RAIDS

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Well, she, according to the newspaper and The 

Post story, apparently has delayed a series of immigration raids in 

recent weeks. Is that true? 

Ms. FORMAN. There have been reviews of the worksite cases that 

ICE Office of Investigations has conducted to ensure that we are 

utilizing all the resources and tools at our disposal to go after the 

employer. So we have conducted a review internally. But I am not 

aware of delaying cases for the sake of delaying cases. No, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Why have you reviewed those cases? 

Ms. FORMAN. We are trying to make sure that the target, the ultimate target of these investigations, these worksite investigations, 

are the employer. 

These cases, because there are less, I mean the percentages of 

employers, they are complex investigations. Some of these investigations take months, some of them can take years to put together, in terms of collecting and establishing probable cause 

against an employer. And that is why the numbers are lower in 

terms of the employers themselves, because it takes a lot of evidence to show culpability. 

DELAY OF RAID ON MILITARY-RELATED FACILITY

Mr. ROGERS. Well, there was a raid that was supposed to have 

taken place at a military-related facility in Chicago last week, in 

which they had arranged to temporarily detail as many as 100 illegal immigrants, according to one official. A second official said that 

the Secretary thought the investigative work was inadequate. 

Can you comment on that? 

Ms. FORMAN. Sir, I cannot comment on that. I am not sure, I 

cannot verify the validity of the source of that type of information. 

And I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, apparently there is no investigation, then. It 

was called off. 

Ms. FORMAN. I am not aware of any investigation being called 

off, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Period? Or in Chicago? 

Ms. FORMAN. Period. 

DELAY OF WORKSITE INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. ROGERS. Are not you head of investigations? 

Ms. FORMAN. Yes, I am. 

Mr. ROGERS. You do not know of any that has been called off? 

Ms. FORMAN. Not to the best of my knowledge, no. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if anybody should know, you should. You are 

the Director, right? 

Ms. FORMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Has any investigation been delayed or called off? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
992 

Ms. FORMAN. There have been investigations that have been reviewed, but none have been called off, no. 

Mr. ROGERS. What do you mean reviewed? 

Ms. FORMAN. Reviewed to ensure that there is legal sufficiency 

in terms of going after the employer. 

Mr. ROGERS. And has a determination been made in some of 

those that there is not proper information available to you to allow 

you to go forward? 

Ms. FORMAN. I do not have that information off-hand. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am sorry? 

Ms. FORMAN. The review is still taking place on some of these 

investigations. I do not have that information readily available. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, has there been any of those investigations, 

that you have reviewed, where you have said no, we do not have 

a good case? 

Ms. FORMAN. None in which we say we do not have a good case. 

We have had some where we have asked for stronger evidence to 

go after the employer. 

Mr. ROGERS. So there have been some that have been delayed or 

put off, because of insufficient evidence. 

Ms. FORMAN. Possibly some for insufficient evidence in terms of 

going after the employer, or asking or requesting for stronger evidence to go forward. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, in these cases, in those cases, maybe the employer was not an unscrupulous exploiter of illegals. But also you 

knew there were illegals working at that place. Surely there is 

cases like that, right? 

Ms. FORMAN. I am sure there may be cases like that. 

Mr. ROGERS. So that you know whether, you know of some places 

where illegals are illegally working, right? 

Ms. FORMAN. We have received information, yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. And yet you have not moved on them. An 

American citizen, a tax-paying American citizen, is out of a job, 

looking for work, or being displaced by an illegal that you know is 

illegal. Right or wrong? 

Ms. FORMAN. That we have received information that may be illegal, yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. And you are depriving an American taxpayer out of 

a job, trying to support his family or her family, from making a living, being displaced by an illegal alien, in the country illegally, 

gaining the job illegally, that you know, the government knows, is 

there illegally. 

Now, is that good policy, or not? 

Ms. FORMAN. I cannot address the policy. I can tell, as an enforcement officer, in order to make a greater impact, you want to 

go after the employer, the one who is knowingly hiring the illegal 

aliens. 

Mr. ROGERS. What about the illegal alien that is being employed 

illegally? 

Ms. FORMAN. Once again, it is a confidential approach, with the 

target being the employer him- or herself. 

Mr. ROGERS. What about the illegal employee? Are they not a 

target to you? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
993 

Ms. FORMAN. They are a target. But the primary target is the 

employer. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you will not leave that—that is the line. Okay. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS INCARCERATED

Mr. FARR. Well, I think the good news is that Mr. Rogers invites 

you to do the raids in Kentucky, but do not do them in the Salinas 

Valley, because we will not get any food harvested. 

But I wanted to go back to the questions on the jail checks. And 

Mr. Venturella, you said you have 100 percent inventory of the people in the federal prisons that are undocumented, that are serving 

time in state prisons? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. We have 100 percent coverage and screening 

of those facilities. 

Mr. FARR. And how many are there? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. How many currently detained in those facilities? 

Mr. FARR. Yes. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. I will have to get you that exact figure. 

Mr. FARR. And when you, when they go out, when they leave— 

you never answered the question, we ran out of time—will you be 

there at the gate to deport them? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. At the federal and state institutions where we 

have the coverage, yes. These individuals are identified while they 

are in federal custody or state custody; they go through removal 

proceedings when they are in custody. And when they are being released, that release is coordinated with ICE authorities in those locations. 

So those individuals are not released back into the street, and 

then ICE will have to go after them or take an action on them. 

They are all processed within the confines of that system. 

Mr. FARR. So you have 100 percent inventory, but you do not 

know how many are going to be, you are going to have to work to 

detain, deport this year? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. No. You asked me a question if I had that 

number right now. I do not have it right now, but we can provide 

it to you. Again, based on the coverage of the federal and state systems, yes, we can provide that. At the local, we are developing a 

model to forecast the numbers that we believe we will encounter 

that are in the local system and state systems. 

Mr. FARR. What I would really like is if you could give me the 

numbers of the criminals that you are going to deport, the numbers 

of the warrants that you are going to go out and try to—a guesstimate, because you will not have them all ahead of time—but 

what you think your warrant workload is? And then I would like 

that compared to what I call the bycatch, to the people that were 

just undocumented, but at the wrong place at the wrong time, so 

they were caught. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Okay. We will collect that and provide that to 

you. 

[The information follows:] 

Currently there are 4,374 prison/jail facilities across the United States. The ICE 

CAP program currently provides 100% coverage at 1,865 of these facilities. At those 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
994 

facilities where ICE has 100% CAP coverage, the estimated daily population of incarcerated criminal aliens is 180,000. 

As of August 26, 2009, IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability has been established in 79 

jurisdictions throughout the United States. The annual total estimated number of 

incarcerated criminal aliens where Interoperability is currently deployed is 150,117. 

Mr. FARR. I think that would help put some perspective on this 

debate. 

PROCESS FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN INCARCERATION

What I would also like to know is, what is the requirement that 

you are expecting because of, with this sort of difficulty you have 

had to get local, local law enforcement and ICE? How much of what 

this new program that you are implementing requires them to have 

to do something, have to do something different? Or how much, 

how much of it depends on their end of the—they are going to be 

booking people, and you are trying to standardize that process, 

right? So the fingerprint? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, I believe the process is standardized. It 

is a common process at local law enforcement, that all levels use. 

They arrest individuals, they book them into their facility; they 

charge them, they take fingerprints, they take photographs. And as 

a routine, they transmit those photographs through their state 

AFIS system, which then is connected to the federal IAFIS system. 

So there really is no change in the routine. It is more of an 

awareness of, now that if they share that information, what they 

get back in return. And in return is an immigration response that 

includes immigration history, as well as the availability of ICE resources to take that individual into custody, or to take some appropriate action against them. 

So there is really no change, there is no additional training. But 

there certainly is an awareness that needs to occur before the technology and capability is deployed. 

Also, the local law enforcement officials, as well as the local governments, can opt out of participating in this type of program. So 

it is not a mandatory program, it is certainly voluntary. 

Mr. FARR. But you are dependent on them. I mean, once they 

send in those fingerprints, which they are going to do anyway 

through that AFIS, then the responsibility is yours to, to tell them 

that this person is undocumented. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. That is correct. 

Mr. FARR. And yet we do not know what that whole workload is 

going to be yet this year? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. We are getting very close. And when I say 

close, within months of being able to tell you what we think that 

population is in the United States. 

E-VERIFY

Mr. FARR. Because it seemed the dialogue here with Mr. Calvert 

is that in many ways, we know more about how to find out whether 

an innocent dishwasher, who is new on the job, but gets detained 

in running by E-Verify, you can find out more about an undocumented dishwasher than a person who has committed a crime. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Well, as I stated, I think very shortly we will 

be able to provide this committee with that information that you 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
995 

are seeking: where these people are located, when they are going 

to be released, and when did they come into ICE custody. 

This is, the very core of this approach, relying on biometrics, is 

going to provide us a complete set of data on criminal aliens in the 

United States that nobody has. And so we see, through where we 

have deployed all fingerprint transactions that go through that particular jurisdiction, we are able to then classify those individuals 

based on the severity of their crimes. And we are also able to determine which are foreign-born and which are not. 

We never had that ability before. We relied on local law enforcement to make the referrals, or to have ICE officers in those facilities to encounter those individuals. 

Now, by relying on biometrics and focusing at the very initial or 

early stage of the booking process at the local facility, we will be 

able to capture that data, and then provide that analysis. And with 

that, we should be able to forecast where our resources should be 

and what our resources needs are in those locations. Where we expect these individuals to be encountered. 

Mr. FARR. While I appreciate that, it has also been the highest 

priority in the law for a long time. And it seems that, again, that 

if we have to prioritize, I would rather prioritize there than doing 

the raids. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. Understood. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could yield for 

such time as he may conclude, to my Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers. 

CHANGE IN POLICY FOR WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. And I will take only 30 seconds or so. 

And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, we have seen history here today. We know the 

new policy of the Department of Homeland Security. Ms. Forman, 

the Director of Investigations for the Department, now says that 

we will not raid, nor prosecute, a plant where illegals are employed, knowingly by the Department, knowingly by the employer, 

so long as the employer does not exploit the illegals. 

That is a new policy. And it is, in fact, de facto amnesty. We are 

saying to people around the world, come in here; we are a nation 

without borders. Come on in, get a job. If you are treated fairly, 

we are not going to bother you. That is the new policy. 

And Mr. Chairman, I am disgusted. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Certainly. And I would also point out for the 

record, I believe I saw this morning in the paper that U.S. jobless 

claims have just reached an unemployment claims record—here it 

is. ‘‘U.S. jobless claims rise to a 26–year high last week. U.S. workers —’’ U.S. workers—‘‘filing new claims for unemployment unexpectedly rose to the highest level in 26 years, a record high in 

March.’’ So Mr. Rogers is exactly right that people who are here illegally and holding a job that could be held by an American, it is 

just not acceptable. 

And I will tell you something else that I really am deeply concerned about, that—and I apologize, we have other commitments 

and committee meetings right on top of this that delayed me—that 

the people of Houston are particularly concerned about, as we have 

had two police officers, a number of police offers over the years, but 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
996 

two in particular in recent months, killed by illegal aliens who 

were previously arrested for other crimes, that ICE did not do their 

job in deporting them. 

The Houston Chronicle did a very extensive and very well, they 

did a very good job in a three-part series investigation of the number of people here illegally from other countries who had committed 

other crimes, who had not been deported by ICE. And ICE is aware 

of these people. Rape, assault, children that have been raped. 

It is appalling. And I could not agree more with my Chairman, 

the good man from North Carolina, who is quoted in this article, 

November 16, 2008, Mr. Chairman. You are absolutely right. ‘‘Congressman David Price, Chairman of the House Homeland Security 

Appropriations Committee, said to the Houston Chronicle, ‘The 

present situation is unacceptable.’ Quoting Chairman Price, ‘The 

highest priority for ICE should be deporting people who have proven their ability and their willingness to do us harm.’ ’’ 

I could not agree more, Mr. Chairman. You are exactly right. It 

has been a concern of each and every one of us I know on this committee and in Congress. 

And Ms. Forman, the committee gave ICE, the Chairman was extraordinarily generous, Ranking Member Mr. Rogers, we all made 

this a priority. I think almost a billion dollars, Mr. Chairman, for 

this specific purpose, to fully fund what you told us was necessary, 

to identify and deport criminal, violent, dangerous criminals who 

were arrested by U.S. law enforcement authorities. And you have 

had that money since September. 

And this Chronicle analysis, just looking at the Harris County 

Jail, the Chronicle discovered that three out of four of the inmates 

in the Harris County Jail—who admitted freely that they were 

here illegally and had been arrested for some other crime—three 

out of four of those inmates, and this is as of November, had never 

even had the paperwork filed on them by ICE. And many of these 

are just appalling cases, where you have got multiple crimes. 

USE OF $1 BILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 2009 FUNDING

And I wanted to ask just a couple questions. You may not be able 

to answer them immediately today, but I really want something in 

writing that would tell us, tell the committee what you have done 

with the nearly $1 billion that the Chairman and the committee 

have been so generous to give you in these tight times, to identify 

and deport criminal aliens, people who are not only here illegally, 

but have committed violent crimes, number one. 

And in particular, the problem we have in Houston. Which is the 

Harris County Jail is the largest jail in Texas. And we have a particularly terrible problem in Houston. And I would like, if you 

could, to address what you have done with the money that you 

have had with September, number one. 

And then, number two, to point out, Mr. Chairman, because my 

time is brief and I am going to have to—your answer to my question is going to undoubtedly fill the remainder of my time. I am a 

lawyer by training, and was a civil defense attorney before I came 

to Congress. And I have always done my best to support tort reform. I do not believe in expanding liability; done my best to make 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
997 

sure that the litigation, the courthouse is there as a last resort. 

Trial lawyers and I do not always see eye to eye. 

But I have to tell you, when I look at this, and I am reminded, 

Mr. Chairman, of in New York City, for example, you cannot prove 

knowledge on the government, city government, unless they know 

about, for example, the pothole. And there was a group of lawyers 

that actually drove around town and took photographs of, and documented all the potholes in New York City, and then sent them in 

to city government in order to prove that if somebody hit that pothole and damaged their car, they could then sue the city and say 

hey, you knew about this. 

I think about the case of a psychiatrist. We had one case in my 

office where a psychiatrist, a guy comes into the office and says I 

am going to go out and hurt somebody. The psychiatrist knew the 

guy was a risk, and lets the guy walk free. The psychiatrist is liable. 

There are many instances like that in the law. And the negligence is so severe, Ms. Forman, I have to tell you, I am at the 

point of kicking around with my colleagues finding a way to hold 

ICE agents—if you have got the money, you have got the ability 

to identify and deport these criminal aliens, when they hurt a child 

and you let them go, there ought to be a way to come after the 

agents, and you, ma’am, individually, and hold you liable. 

I have to tell you, I am fed up with it. Unacceptable. It is unacceptable. What have you done with the money? And what are you 

going to do to solve this problem? 

Ms. FORMAN. Sir, I oversee the Office of Investigations. I am 

going to turn this over to my colleague. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. Well, who is it? I am sorry, if you are Investigations, who do I need to bore in on? 

Mr. VENTURELLA. That would be me, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. You drew the black bean, as we say in 

Texas. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. What we have done in particular in Harris 

County in the City of Houston, with the funding that was provided, 

the $200 million in Fiscal Year 2008, we have deployed this biometric capability in Harris County, where every individual who is 

arrested and booked in that facility, their fingerprints are shared 

not only with DOJ FBI, but also with ICE. 

And so based on that, we are making more identifications of the 

individuals who have been previously encountered by ICE enforcement. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. In addition to that, we have added CAP resources, Criminal Alien Program officers, to Harris County 24/7. 

And we have also provided 287(g) training to the deputies there in 

Harris County. 

But as we turn a county on with this biometric capability, we 

also turn on these other booking locations. Now, I do not have the 

exact number for all of the booking locations that contribute to 

Harris County. But for example, the Houston Police Department 

also has that capability, where fingerprints are transmitted electronically, because they have the capability of doing that. And in 

return, information is exchanged back on these individuals. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
998 

The most serious individuals do end up in Harris County, in 

most cases. So we are made aware of their arrest and booking in 

at the Houston Police Department, and then we catch up to them 

at the Harris—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. But what are you doing to deport them? And 

thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman, my time is up. 

Mr. VENTURELLA. I am sorry? 

Mr. CULBERSON. But what do you do to deport them? I will follow 

up on this individually. But could they give us a report, Mr. Chairman, on what they have done with the money the committee gave 

them, nationwide? And in particular, I really want to know about 

Harris County. I am going to pursue this individually. It is the deportations that matter. 

Mr. PRICE. We have actually all already requested an accounting 

of progress made with these appropriated funds. And of course, we 

expect this to be reflected in the 2010 detailed request, as well. 

Mr. Calvert. 

E-VERIFY

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Aytes, I think this 

question is probably directed to you. 

As you know, all federal agencies are required to use e-Verify. 

Are you aware of any agencies right now that are not using it? 

Mr. AYTES. No, sir, I am not. 

Mr. CALVERT. Just for the record, could you check into that and 

verify that all U.S. agencies are, in fact, using E-Verify? 

Mr. AYTES. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

All 15 cabinet-level departments are represented in E-Verify. There are 1,249 

unique federal organization accounts in E-Verify that include all five military 

branches, smaller agencies and federal corporations. E-Verify allows employers flexibility in structuring and implementing their E-Verify accounts. This flexibility allows federal agencies to set up separate organization accounts broadly (i.e. by bureau or component) or narrowly (i.e. by location or unit). 

Mr. CALVERT. That is in the law today. Secondly, as you are also 

aware, all U.S. Government contractors, as I understand it, are required to go on the E-Verify system as of May 20. Is that correct? 

Mr. AYTES. That is the current schedule, yes, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. It has been delayed a couple of times, as you know. 

Do you see any reason for this program to be delayed? Are you able 

to take on that additional workload? 

Mr. AYTES. I think the folks in the new Administration simply 

want an opportunity to be able to understand the ramifications and 

the implications of this. That was the cause of the initial delay. It 

was not only this regulation that was delayed; there were a whole 

series. But they wanted the opportunity to understand before they 

were implemented. 

But you are correct; the current schedule is that it will be implemented in late May. 

Mr. CALVERT. How many additional employers do you think 

that—have you done any analysis to determine how many additional employers this will bring on to the system? 

Mr. AYTES. I imagine the staff has, sir. I will have to get you 

that information. I do not have it in front of me. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
999 

[The information follows:] 

Following the effective date of the FAR rule in FY09, it is estimated that there 

will be approximately 168,624 contractors and subcontractors that will be required 

to enroll in E-Verify. 

Mr. CALVERT. I understand it is a significant number. Would it 

more than double the amount of employers you have on the system 

presently? 

Mr. AYTES. It may double the number of employers. I do not 

know that it would double the number of queries. 

E-VERIFY NON-CONFIRMATION

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. Just for the record, tell us what the process 

for individuals is who receive a tentative non-confirmation, as they 

go through the process to be verified. 

Mr. AYTES. The employer is required to notify the worker at the 

time of the non-confirmation. And the worker indicates whether or 

not they plan to contest. Then they are given information to proceed to either the Social Security Administration, or to be able to 

contact USCIS toll-free. And they have an eight-day window, eight 

business days in which to contact us and to resolve the issue if 

they believe the initial tentative non-confirmation was erroneous. 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. And again, that is approximately 3.9 percent 

of all employees, of the total universe, is that correct? 

Mr. AYTES. That, given that initial tentative non-confirmation. 

Mr. CALVERT. And about 0.4 percent are successfully contested. 

Of the balance of those, the 3.5 percent that either walk away or 

were not authorized to work, the assumption, I assume, is that the 

3.5 percent are not part of the legal workforce. Or they would have 

not walked away from the process. 

Mr. AYTES. That is our assumption, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. So again I want to make this point, Mr. Chairman. 

Using those numbers, if the system is 99.6 percent accurate, that 

is a pretty remarkable number. And we look forward to you continuing to use the system as we expand E-Verify throughout the 

United States. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Serrano. 

SUPPORT FOR IMMIGRANTS

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. And I apologize for being late. I was attending a couple of other hearings, as you well can imagine. 

I think the subjects that I would like to discuss have been 

touched, and perhaps they have been touched with great emotion 

today. So rather, I would simply like to share with you my 

thoughts on how one could do what the law says you have to do, 

and still uphold the behavior of a country known to welcome people 

when they come here. 

Yes, it is true that folks that are here undocumented are considered lawbreakers. But there is a big difference between a person 

who crosses a border, desperately looking for any job that is available, and a person that comes here or lives here and assaults another person. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1000 

So for the record, I want to be clear: Criminal aliens, as they are 

called, are no friends of any of us. And therefore, what the law 

mandates is what has to be dealt with. 

But when we talk about who we go after, I think it serves no 

purpose to continuously go after dishwashers, or lawn caretakers, 

or folks working in places where only they can work, or where only 

they are capable of doing certain jobs, not out of any talent or preparation necessarily, but out of the need the country has. 

I think that the whole issue of these raids that were conducted 

for so long, and continue to be conducted, I am not sure they serve 

any purpose, other than scare people and create a worse reputation 

for us. For, you see, notwithstanding the fact that we have an immigration issue—and I do not call that a problem. A country made 

up of immigrants and others forced to be here against their will is 

not a country that can turn on its own by knocking immigrants of 

any kind. 

But having an immigration issue, or a problem, as some would 

think it is, does not get resolved by meanness or lack of understanding of what the greater issue is. 

You know, it dawns on me, as I hear the data on the Floor, that 

we spend a lot of time—and we all do it, I do it too—reminding the 

world that we are the greatest country on earth. That we are the 

greatest democracy; in fact, we try to impose our democracy on 

other people, sometimes by force. Then we get upset when people 

want to come here. 

And the free market, when you advertise, you advertise because 

you want people to buy your product. A byproduct, a side effect, of 

us telling the world we are the greatest, and we are the greatest, 

and trying to impose our way on others, is that some people would 

like to come here. 

But they do not cross those borders, they do not come on an airplane, they do not come on a ship with the intent of hurting us. 

No one leaves where they are from to come to another country 

with, 99 percent of the people, with the intent of hurting anyone. 

You do not do that. 

I mean, I migrated from Puerto Rico. It is different than immigrating, you know. Yet to this day, March 28, which was last week, 

stands out in my mind. March 28, 1950. Because I left a warm climate, arrived in New York in freezing weather. My father had 

bought us clothing for leaving Puerto Rico, and later on I reminded 

him that he should have brought us clothing for arriving in New 

York. So I arrived in short pants and short sleeves, it is a whole 

scene I do not think I have recovered from. 

And even though that was simply going from one, from a territory to a state, it still, in my head, you know, 59 years later, is 

something so dramatic. And so no one leaves what they have, or 

what little they have, to come to this country to be a problem. 

And all I am trying to say to you is that I suspect that this Administration, at the minimum, is going to say let us be more humane about what we do. I am not suggesting you do not follow the 

law. I am not suggesting that we avoid following the law. But I am 

suggesting that these are not criminals. These are people who 

broke our immigration law, but they are not criminals. They came 

here to work, they came here to start a new life. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1001 

And the fact of life is that if they were all to leave, all 12 million 

of them were to leave tomorrow, we would be sitting around here 

trying to figure out what kind of special visas we could be issuing 

to get the same people back here to do the work that needs to be 

done. 

Some of it sometimes gets funny. I commend to all of you an 

independent movie called A Day Without a Mexican. It is about 

California waking up one day and not finding Mexicans. And people having to mow their own lawn, and things that, you know, that 

they never did before. 

Without belaboring the point, I would just hope that to continue 

to do your work, you know that you have the support of this member, and you certainly have the support of the committee, in resources, and in the idea and the understanding to follow the law. 

But how you follow the law, what makes a good cop from a bad cop 

in a neighborhood like I grew up was which cop would talk to you, 

would deal with you with a humane face in a humane way, versus 

the one who was only imposing the law. 

So I have no questions for you, other than simply to say, remember, we are dealing with people here. We are dealing with people. 

We are not dealing with animals. We are not dealing with objects. 

We are dealing with people, people who will become a part of this 

country one way or another. People who have a history in many 

ways of having been part of this country. Because, you know, a lot 

of Mexicans woke up one day, in the case of Mexicans, and found 

out they were in the U.S., when the day before that they were living in Mexico. And that is still an issue for all of us to remember. 

And so let us just try and put a human behavior on it. And we 

will continue to support you. This problem, this issue is not going 

to go away. How we handle it is how we will be judged as we go 

down in history. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. And let me add my thanks for the work 

you do in a very difficult and contentious area, and for your 

straightforward testimony here this morning. We look forward to 

hearing further from your agencies as we prepare the bill for 2010. 

With that, with our gratitude, the subcommittee is adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1002 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1442 here 52999C.046
1003 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1443 here 52999C.047
1004 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1444 here 52999C.048
1005 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1445 here 52999C.049
1006 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1446 here 52999C.050
1007 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1447 here 52999C.051
1008 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1448 here 52999C.052
1009 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1449 here 52999C.053
1010 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1450 here 52999C.054
1011 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1451 here 52999C.055
1012 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1452 here 52999C.056
1013 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1453 here 52999C.057
1014 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1454 here 52999C.058
1015 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1455 here 52999C.059
1016 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1456 here 52999C.060
1017 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1457 here 52999C.061
1018 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1458 here 52999C.062
1019 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1459 here 52999C.063
1020 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1460 here 52999C.064
1021 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1461 here 52999C.065
1022 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1462 here 52999C.066
1023 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1463 here 52999C.067
1024 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1464 here 52999C.068
1025 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1465 here 52999C.069
1026 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1466 here 52999C.070
1027 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1467 here 52999C.071
1028 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1468 here 52999C.072
1029 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1469 here 52999C.073
1030 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1470 here 52999C.074
1031 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1471 here 52999C.075
1032 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1472 here 52999C.076
1033 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1473 here 52999C.077
1034 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1474 here 52999C.078
1035 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1475 here 52999C.079
1036 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1476 here 52999C.080
1037 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1477 here 52999C.081
1038 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1478 here 52999C.082
1039 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1479 here 52999C.083
1040 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1480 here 52999C.084
1041 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1481 here 52999C.085
1042 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1482 here 52999C.086
1043 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1483 here 52999C.087
1044 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1484 here 52999C.088
1045 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1485 here 52999C.089
1046 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1486 here 52999C.090
1047 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1487 here 52999C.091
1048 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1488 here 52999C.092
1049 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1489 here 52999C.093
1050 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1490 here 52999C.094
1051 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1491 here 52999C.095
1052 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1492 here 52999C.096
1053 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1493 here 52999C.097
1054 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1494 here 52999C.098
1055 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1495 here 52999C.099
1056 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1496 here 52999C.100
1057 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1497 here 52999C.101
1058 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1498 here 52999C.102
1059 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1499 here 52999C.103
1060 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1500 here 52999C.104
1061 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1501 here 52999C.105
1062 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1502 here 52999C.106
1063 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1503 here 52999C.107
1064 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1504 here 52999C.108
1065 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1505 here 52999C.109
1066 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1506 here 52999C.110
1067 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1507 here 52999C.111
1068 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1508 here 52999C.112
1069 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1509 here 52999C.113
1070 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1510 here 52999C.114
1071 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1511 here 52999C.115
1072 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1512 here 52999C.116
1073 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1513 here 52999C.117
1074 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1514 here 52999C.118
1075 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1515 here 52999C.119
1076 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1516 here 52999C.120
1077 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1517 here 52999C.121
1078 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1518 here 52999C.122
1079 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1519 here 52999C.123
1080 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1520 here 52999C.124
1081 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1521 here 52999C.125
1082 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1522 here 52999C.126
1083 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1523 here 52999C.127
1084 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1524 here 52999C.128
1085 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1525 here 52999C.129
1086 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1526 here 52999C.130
1087 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1527 here 52999C.131
1088 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1528 here 52999C.132
1089 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1529 here 52999C.133
1090 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1530 here 52999C.134
1091 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1531 here 52999C.135
1092 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1532 here 52999C.136
1093 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1533 here 52999C.137
1094 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1534 here 52999C.138
1095 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1535 here 52999C.139
1096 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1536 here 52999C.140
1097 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1537 here 52999C.141
1098 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1538 here 52999C.142
1099 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1539 here 52999C.143
1100 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1540 here 52999C.144
1101 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1541 here 52999C.145
1102 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1542 here 52999C.146
1103 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1543 here 52999C.147
1104 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1544 here 52999C.148
1105 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1545 here 52999C.149
1106 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1546 here 52999C.150
1107 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1547 here 52999C.151
1108 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1548 here 52999C.152
1109 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1549 here 52999C.153
1110 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1550 here 52999C.154
1111 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1551 here 52999C.155
1112 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1552 here 52999C.156
1113 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1553 here 52999C.157
1114 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1554 here 52999C.158
1115 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1555 here 52999C.159
1116 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1556 here 52999C.160
1117 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1557 here 52999C.161
1118 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1558 here 52999C.162
1119 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1559 here 52999C.163
1120 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1560 here 52999C.164
1121 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1561 here 52999C.165
1122 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1562 here 52999C.166
1123 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1563 here 52999C.167
1124 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1564 here 52999C.168
1125 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1565 here 52999C.169
1126 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1566 here 52999C.170
1127 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1567 here 52999C.171
1128 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1568 here 52999C.172
1129 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1569 here 52999C.173
1130 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1570 here 52999C.174
1131 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1571 here 52999C.175
1132 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1572 here 52999C.176
1133 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1573 here 52999C.177
1134 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1574 here 52999C.178
1135 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1575 here 52999C.179
1136 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1576 here 52999C.180
1137 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1577 here 52999C.181
1138 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1578 here 52999C.182
1139 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1579 here 52999C.183
1140 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1580 here 52999C.184
1141 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1581 here 52999C.185
1142 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1582 here 52999C.186
1143 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1583 here 52999C.187
1144 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1584 here 52999C.188
1145 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1585 here 52999C.189
1146 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1586 here 52999C.190
1147 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1587 here 52999C.191
1148 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1588 here 52999C.192
1149 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1589 here 52999C.193
1150 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1590 here 52999C.194
1151 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1591 here 52999C.195
1152 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1592 here 52999C.196
1153 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1593 here 52999C.197
1154 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1594 here 52999C.198
1155 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1595 here 52999C.199
1156 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1596 here 52999C.200
1157 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1597 here 52999C.201
1158 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1598 here 52999C.202
1159 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1599 here 52999C.203
1160 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1600 here 52999C.204
1161 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1601 here 52999C.205
1162 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1602 here 52999C.206
1163 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1603 here 52999C.207
1164 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1604 here 52999C.208
1165 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1605 here 52999C.209
1166 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1606 here 52999C.210
1167 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1607 here 52999C.211
1168 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1608 here 52999C.212
1169 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1609 here 52999C.213
1170 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1610 here 52999C.214
1171 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1611 here 52999C.215
1172 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1612 here 52999C.216
1173 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1613 here 52999C.217
1174 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1614 here 52999C.218
1175 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1615 here 52999C.219
1176 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1616 here 52999C.220
1177 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1617 here 52999C.221
1178 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1618 here 52999C.222
1179 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1619 here 52999C.223
1180 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1620 here 52999C.224
1181 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1621 here 52999C.225
1182 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1622 here 52999C.226
1183 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1623 here 52999C.227
1184 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1624 here 52999C.228
1185 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1625 here 52999C.229
1186 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1626 here 52999C.230
1187 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1627 here 52999C.231
1188 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1628 here 52999C.232
1189 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1629 here 52999C.233
1190 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1630 here 52999C.234
1191 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1631 here 52999C.235
1192 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1632 here 52999C.236
1193 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1633 here 52999C.237
1194 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1634 here 52999C.238
1195 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1635 here 52999C.239
1196 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1636 here 52999C.240
1197 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1637 here 52999C.241
1198 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1638 here 52999C.242
1199 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1639 here 52999C.243
1200 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1640 here 52999C.244
1201 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1641 here 52999C.245
1202 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1642 here 52999C.246
1203 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1643 here 52999C.247
1204 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1644 here 52999C.248
1205 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1645 here 52999C.249
1206 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1646 here 52999C.250
1207 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1647 here 52999C.251
1208 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1648 here 52999C.252
1209 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1649 here 52999C.253
1210 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1650 here 52999C.254
1211 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1651 here 52999C.255
1212 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1652 here 52999C.256
1213 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1653 here 52999C.257
1214 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1654 here 52999C.258
1215 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1655 here 52999C.259
1216 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1656 here 52999C.260
1217 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1657 here 52999C.261
1218 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1658 here 52999C.262
1219 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1659 here 52999C.263
1220 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1660 here 52999C.264
1221 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1661 here 52999C.265
1222 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1662 here 52999C.266
1223 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1663 here 52999C.267
1224 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1664 here 52999C.268
1225 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1665 here 52999C.269
1226 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1666 here 52999C.270
1227 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1667 here 52999C.271
1228 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1668 here 52999C.272
1229 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1669 here 52999C.273
1230 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1670 here 52999C.274
1231 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1671 here 52999C.275
1232 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1672 here 52999C.276
1233 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1673 here 52999C.277
1234 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1674 here 52999C.278
1235 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1675 here 52999C.279
1236 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1676 here 52999C.280
1237 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1677 here 52999C.281
1238 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1678 here 52999C.282
1239 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1679 here 52999C.283
1240 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1680 here 52999C.284
1241 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1681 here 52999C.285
1242 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1682 here 52999C.286
1243 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1683 here 52999C.287
1244 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1684 here 52999C.288
1245 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1685 here 52999C.289
1246 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1686 here 52999C.290
1247 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1687 here 52999C.291
1248 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1688 here 52999C.292
1249 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1689 here 52999C.293
1250 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1690 here 52999C.294
1251 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1691 here 52999C.295
1252 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1692 here 52999C.296
1253 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1693 here 52999C.297
1254 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1694 here 52999C.298
1255 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1695 here 52999C.299
1256 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1696 here 52999C.300
1257 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1697 here 52999C.301
1258 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1698 here 52999C.302
1259 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1699 here 52999C.303
1260 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1700 here 52999C.304
1261 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1701 here 52999C.305
1262 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1702 here 52999C.306
1263 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1703 here 52999C.307
1264 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1704 here 52999C.308
1265 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1705 here 52999C.309
1266 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1706 here 52999C.310
1267 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1707 here 52999C.311
1268 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1708 here 52999C.312
1269 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1709 here 52999C.313
1270 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1710 here 52999C.314
1271 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1711 here 52999C.315
1272 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1712 here 52999C.316
1273 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1713 here 52999C.317
1274 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1714 here 52999C.318
1275 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1715 here 52999C.319
1276 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1716 here 52999C.320
1277 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1717 here 52999C.321
1278 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1718 here 52999C.322
1279 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1719 here 52999C.323
1280 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1720/1800 here 52999C.324
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Aguilar, David ...................................................................................................... 167, 369 

Ahern, Jayson....................................................................................................... 167, 369 

Aytes, Michael .......................................................................................................... 915 

Borkowski, Mark ...................................................................................................... 167 

Cackley, A. P ............................................................................................................ 465 

Forman, Marcy ..................................................................................................... 369, 915 

Hayes, J. T., Jr ......................................................................................................... 465 

Koumans, Mark ....................................................................................................... 369 

Napolitano, Hon. Janet ........................................................................................... 1 

Rodriguez, J. H ........................................................................................................ 465 

Schriro, Dora ............................................................................................................ 465 

Venturella, D. J ....................................................................................................... 915 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 1 

Opening Statement of Harold Rogers (Submitted) ............................................... 11 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Jerry Lewis .......................................... 16 

Statement of the Honorable Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the .........................

United States Department of Homeland Security ......................................... 17 

Action Directives and Initiatives ............................................................................ 95 

Alternatives to Detention ...................................................................................... 41, 163 

Assault Rifles ........................................................................................................... 48 

Aviation Security ..................................................................................................... 158 

Biosurveillance Activities ........................................................................................ 90 

Bonuses ..................................................................................................................... 111 

Border Fence ............................................................................................................ 72 

CBP Border Patrol Officers ..................................................................................... 63 

Center for Homeland Defense and Security .......................................................... 66 

Chemical Plant Facilities ........................................................................................ 50 

Coast Guard Legacy Cutter Sustainment .............................................................. 64 

Coast Guard ............................................................................................................. 64 

Common Accounting System Throughout DHS .................................................... 97 

Contracts .................................................................................................................. 146

Counter Narcotics and Weapons Smuggling ......................................................... 58 

Criminal Aliens ........................................................................................................ 37 

Cyber Security Initiative ......................................................................................... 87 

Cyber Security.................................................................................................. 61, 65, 159 

Declarations of Natural Disasters .......................................................................... 62 

Detention of Asylum Seekers .................................................................................. 162 

Detention Standards ................................................................................................ 161 

DHS Procurement .................................................................................................... 93 

Employee Housing ................................................................................................... 45 

E-Verify Program Extension ................................................................................... 42 

E-Verify .................................................................................................................... 59

Federal Licensed Gun Stores .................................................................................. 53 

First Responder Grants ........................................................................................... 159 

Freedom of Information Act .................................................................................... 110 

Funding of Detention Beds in State and Local 287(g) Program .......................... 162 

Fusion Center in Salinas ........................................................................................ 52 

H1N1 Flu Preparation ............................................................................................ 82 

Human Resources .................................................................................................... 101 

Immigration Integration Program .......................................................................... 73 

Immigration ............................................................................................................. 80 

Interoperability ........................................................................................................ 158 

Laboratory Capacity ................................................................................................ 165 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Laboratory Capacity ................................................................................................ 165 

Management Increases in Budget Request ........................................................... 70 

Methamphetamine ................................................................................................... 43 

Operation Stonegarden ...........................................................................................44, 45 

Outreach Efforts ...................................................................................................... 44 

Parole Guidelines ..................................................................................................... 163 

Port Security ............................................................................................................ 53 

Ports of Entry Facilities .......................................................................................... 72 

Post Disaster Contracting ....................................................................................... 71 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 77 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 161 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey ................... 158 

Reception and Representation ................................................................................ 156 

Right-Wing Extremism Report ...............................................................................38, 46 

Risk Assessment Funding ....................................................................................... 51 

SBInet Technology-Ground vs. Airborne Sensors ................................................. 80 

Secret Service Investigations .................................................................................. 85 

Secure Border Initiative (SBI) ................................................................................57, 77 

Secure Communities Program ................................................................................37, 55 

Securing the Cities .................................................................................................. 48 

Southern Border Security ....................................................................................... 43 

Southbound Checking .............................................................................................. 71 

St. Elizabeths Headquarters Project ...................................................................... 98 

Stafford Act Disasters ............................................................................................. 68 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Funding ............................................................. 62 

State Department Programs ................................................................................... 67 

Transition ................................................................................................................. 96 

Transportation Security Grant Program ............................................................... 50 

Travel ........................................................................................................................ 127 

Tribal Cyber Security .............................................................................................. 47 

TSA Collective Bargaining ...................................................................................... 49 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services .......................................................... 73 

U.S.-Mexican Counter Narcotics ............................................................................ 79 

Unaccompanied Children ........................................................................................ 40 

Use of DOD Reserve ................................................................................................ 51 

Using Appropriated Funds in a Timely Fashion ................................................... 83 

Working Capital Fund ............................................................................................. 154 

Worksite Enforcement Policy .................................................................................. 81 

SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE AND CONTROL OF LAND BORDER 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 167 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 172 

Statement of Jayson Ahern, Acting Commissioner, United States Customs 

and Border Protection .......................................................................................... 177 

Admissibility Review Office (ARO) ......................................................................... 351 

Analysis of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 216 

Apprehension/Seizure Data .................................................................................... 234 

Attempts to Go Over Fencing ................................................................................. 196 

Automation Modernization ..................................................................................... 354 

Best Teams on Southwest Border .......................................................................... 199 

Border Safety Initiative ........................................................................................... 231 

CBP Air and Marine ................................................................................................ 298 

CBP Staffing, Budget, and Compensation ............................................................. 310 

Comparison with Israeli Fence ............................................................................... 208 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

Completed Fencing .................................................................................................. 195 

Construction ............................................................................................................. 355 

Consultation ............................................................................................................. 217 

Contracts .................................................................................................................. 346

Coordination of Technology ..................................................................................... 209 

Cost Effective Control .............................................................................................. 194 

Drug Gang Movement in the U.S ........................................................................... 208 

Effectiveness of Physical and Virtual Fence ......................................................... 202 

Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) ............................................. 350 

Environmental and Regulatory Considerations .................................................... 219 

Environmental Mitigation ................................................................................... 359, 360 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ....................................................................... 356 

Global Entry ............................................................................................................. 351 

Ground Surveillance Radars ................................................................................... 223 

Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) and Carrier Liaison Program (CLP) ....... 355 

Integrated Border Enforcement Teams ................................................................. 199 

Life Cycle Costs ....................................................................................................... 212 

Long Term Policy for Fencing ................................................................................. 208 

Methamphetamine Importation ............................................................................. 202 

Model Port of Entry Program ................................................................................. 354 

Moving People Into Areas We Have a Better Chance to Apprehend .................. 205 

National Parks on Border ....................................................................................... 358 

Northern Border ...................................................................................................... 228 

Number of Apprehensions ....................................................................................... 204 

Number of Illegal Immigrants Coming Across the Border .................................. 203 

Obligations ............................................................................................................... 212 

Operation Arizona Denial ....................................................................................... 226 

Operational Control Versus Effective Control ....................................................... 192 

Operational Control ................................................................................................. 212 

Percentage Estimate for Effective Control ............................................................ 195 

Ports of Entry ........................................................................................................... 359 

Private Aircraft and Small Boat Initiatives .......................................................... 353 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 212 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Ciro Rodriguez .............. 358 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 362 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Harold Rogers ......... 366 

Reduction in Apprehensions ................................................................................... 196 

Repairs to Fencing ................................................................................................... 203 

SBI Major Contractor Performance ........................................................................ 210 

SBInet Areas ............................................................................................................ 198 

SBInet Cost .............................................................................................................. 199 

SBInet ....................................................................................................................... 366 

Sensors ...................................................................................................................... 223 

Smuggler’s Gulch ..................................................................................................... 201 

Southwest Border vs. Northern Border ................................................................. 362 

Staffing and Hiring .................................................................................................. 225 

Training .................................................................................................................... 226 

Tunnels ..................................................................................................................... 230 

Virtual Fence ........................................................................................................... 196 

Weapons Smuggling Into Mexico ........................................................................... 200 

Women and Children Detainees ............................................................................. 206 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE 

ON THE BORDER WITH MEXICO 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 369 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 375 

Statement of Mark Koumans, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of International Affairs, Department of Homeland Security ........................................ 379 

Statement of Marcy Forman, Director, Office of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ........................................................................... 390 

Accelerate Cooperation Levels ................................................................................ 405 

Air and Marine Operations Center ........................................................................ 414 

Apprehensions .......................................................................................................... 432 

Armas Cruzadas ...................................................................................................... 429 

Arrest Rate in Imperial Valley ............................................................................... 434 

Arrests and Prosecutions in Yuma ......................................................................... 434 

Assault Weapons ...................................................................................................... 428 

BEST Teams ............................................................................................................ 443 

Border Security on Public Lands ............................................................................ 440 

Border Security Ramifications on CBP Mission .................................................... 404 

Bulk Cash Smuggling Assessment ......................................................................... 463 

Bulk Cash Smuggling .............................................................................................. 414 

Comprehensive Strategy ......................................................................................... 455 

Coordination with ATF........................................................................................ 415, 447 

Coordination ............................................................................................................. 413 

Cost Benefit .............................................................................................................. 457 

Guns Going Into Mexico .......................................................................................... 430 

Guns .......................................................................................................................... 451 

Interagency Challenge of Gun Running ................................................................ 427 

JIATF Task Force Model ......................................................................................... 428 

Kidnapping ............................................................................................................... 442 

Licensed Firearms Dealers ..................................................................................... 408 

Memorandum of Understanding ............................................................................. 449 

Merida Program Funding and Project List ........................................................... 422 

Number of People Intercepted ................................................................................ 423 

Operation HALCON ................................................................................................ 439 

Operation Streamline .................................................................................. 423, 424, 435 

Plans for Mass Migration to U.S. ........................................................................... 419 

Program Coordination with Mexico ........................................................................ 421 

Prosecution Rate in San Diego Sector .................................................................... 435 

Prosecutions and Arrests in Tucson Sector ........................................................... 433 

Public Officials’ Corruption ..................................................................................... 414 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 439 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Ciro Rodriguez .............. 446 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ................... 451, 457 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Ranking Member Harold Rogers ... 460 

Receipt of Overseas Passenger Lists ...................................................................... 420 

Sizing Technology Status ........................................................................................ 436 

Southbound Inspection ............................................................................................ 446 

Spillover Violence into the United States.................................................. 406, 425, 437 

Strengthen Our Ability to Coordinate with Other Agencies ................................ 409 

Strike Force Concept and Funding ........................................................................ 411 

Synergy Between All Agencies ............................................................................... 427 

Threat Assessment .................................................................................................. 460 

Tracking Terrorist Financing ................................................................................. 422 

Tracking the Money ................................................................................................. 418 

Types of Border Violence ......................................................................................... 426 

Ultralights ................................................................................................................ 415

Violence Directed Against CBP .............................................................................. 439 

Weaponry From China, India, and Other Sources ................................................ 411 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

vii 

Weapons Smuggling Assessment ............................................................................ 462 

Working with Mexico on Security Reforms ........................................................... 422 

HEALTH SERVICES FOR DETAINEES IN U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) CUSTODY 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 465 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 471 

Statement of James T. Hayes, Jr., Director Office of Detention and Removal 

Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ............................... 475 

Statement of Jose H. Rodriguez, Captain, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement ............................................................ 489 

Statement of Alicia Puente Cackley, Director, Health Care Division, Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 498 

Statement of Dora Schriro, Special Advisor to Secretary Napolitano on Detention and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 507 

Alternatives to Detention Programs ...................................................................... 908 

Analysis of Health Services at Detention Facilities ............................................. 560 

Appointment Backlog .............................................................................................. 902 

Availability of Medical Personnel on Site .............................................................. 517 

Baseline Incidence of Illness and Disease ............................................................. 518 

Buffalo Federal Detention Facility ......................................................................... 720 

Challenges Unique to Family Facilities ................................................................. 528 

Columbia Care Residential Facility ....................................................................... 705 

Contracts with County Jails ................................................................................... 532 

Cuban Immigration ................................................................................................. 558 

Deaths in ICE System ............................................................................................. 525 

Detainee Charges ..................................................................................................... 528 

Detainee Deaths ....................................................................................................... 907 

Detainee Standards of Care ................................................................................ 582, 909 

Detention Facilities ................................................................................................. 905 

DIHS Epidemiology ................................................................................................. 702 

DIHS Hiring ............................................................................................................. 699 

Facility Standards and Procedures ........................................................................ 527 

Family Health Care Facilities ................................................................................ 524 

Fugitive Operations Program ................................................................................. 555 

Funding Levels for Care .......................................................................................... 908 

GAO Response to Data Inquiry Regarding Deaths of Immigration Detainees .. 551 

General Directives to Post Orders .......................................................................... 749 

Housing and Transportation of Detainees with Medical Conditions ................... 727 

Hutto Facility ........................................................................................................... 524 

ICE Identification of Previously Un-Tracked Detainee Deaths Highlights Importance of Detention Reform ............................................................................. 545 

ICE Oversight of Inter-Governmental Service Agreement (IGSA) Facilities ..... 704 

ICE Screening Protocols .......................................................................................... 533 

ICE Standards of Conduct ...................................................................................... 555 

Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations .................................... 585 

Immigration Enforcement Priorities ...................................................................... 556 

Listing of Deaths ..................................................................................................... 523 

Medical Care at Contract Facilities ....................................................................... 903 

Medical Care ............................................................................................................ 672 

Medical Examinations ............................................................................................. 518 

Medical Standards for County Jails ....................................................................... 557 

Medical Standards for Detention Facilities ........................................................... 516 

Mental Health Care for ICE Detainees ................................................................. 707 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

viii 

Mental Health Levels of Care ............................................................................. 639, 716 

Mental Health ...................................................................................................... 620, 708 

Mortality Rates ............................................................................................ 519, 535, 537 

Oral Screening ......................................................................................................... 526 

Oversight of Detention Centers .............................................................................. 903 

Physical Examination .............................................................................................. 527 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price....................... 560, 707 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 903 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey ................... 902 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr... 905, 909, 911, 914 

Report on Deficiencies ............................................................................................. 523 

Resources and Training ........................................................................................... 530 

Special Screening for Mental Health Problems .................................................... 529 

Standard Operating Procedure: Medical Restraints, Therapeutic Seclusion 

and Emergency Psychotropic Medication ........................................................... 628 

Standard Operating Procedure: Mental Screening DIHS 843 ............................. 637 

Standardized Records .............................................................................................. 523 

Standards of Care .................................................................................................... 532 

Suicide Prevention and Intervention ..................................................................... 666 

Sweeps ...................................................................................................................... 911 

Time It Takes to Get Medical Care ........................................................................ 517 

Transfer of Medical Records ................................................................................... 904 

Treatment Authorization Request (TAR) Process ................................................. 535 

Treatment Authorization Requests ........................................................................ 517 

Treatment of Pregnant Women .............................................................................. 531 

Tuberculosis ............................................................................................................. 526 

Unfilled Positions ..................................................................................................... 902 

Vaccines .................................................................................................................... 525 

Women’s Health Issues ........................................................................................... 697 

PRIORITIES ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 915 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 921 

Statement of Marcy Forman, Director, Office of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ........................................................................... 927 

Statement of David J. Venturella, Executive Director, Secure Communities 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) .......................................... 942 

Statement of Michael Aytes, Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services ........................................................................................... 959 

287(g) Program ........................................................................................................ 1255 

Booking Sites in U.S ................................................................................................ 976 

CAP Institutions by Threshold and Level of Courage .......................................... 1270 

CAP Institutions by Type of Threshold ................................................................. 1271 

Change in Policy for Worksite Enforcement .......................................................... 995 

Criminal Alien Program .......................................................................................... 1270 

Criminal Aliens/Secure Communities .................................................................... 1237 

Criminal Investigation at Worksites ...................................................................... 989 

Deferred Action ........................................................................................................ 1278 

Delay of Raid on Military-Related Facility ............................................................ 991 

Delay of Worksite Investigations ............................................................................ 991 

Delays of Immigration Raids .................................................................................. 991 

Deporting Criminal Aliens Versus Noncriminal ................................................... 972 

Detention Facilities for Families ............................................................................ 987 

Detention of Vulnerable Immigrants ..................................................................... 1279 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

ix 

E-Verify Error Rates ............................................................................................... 987 

E-Verify Non-Confirmation ..................................................................................... 999 

E-Verify................................................................................................. 977, 979, 994, 998 

Federal Protective Service ...................................................................................... 1273 

Fugitive Operations Teams ..................................................................................... 1271 

Humanitarian Guidelines ....................................................................................... 980 

ICE Contracts .......................................................................................................... 1016 

ICE Detentions Facilities ........................................................................................ 1259 

ICE Facilities and Leases ....................................................................................... 1127 

ICE Investigations ................................................................................................... 1172 

ICE Management ..................................................................................................... 1004 

Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens ..................................................... 970 

Informing Rapid Repatriation Participants of Their Rights ................................ 1280 

List of Employers Charged or Raided .................................................................... 979 

Local Determination of Documentation ................................................................. 976 

Operation Community Shield ................................................................................. 1272 

Participation in 287(g) Program ............................................................................. 987 

Policy Change or Workforce Enforcement ............................................................. 973 

Process for Undocumented Alien Incarceration .................................................... 994 

Public Notice of Change to I–9 Process ................................................................. 981 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 1004 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Harold Rogers ......... 1277 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 1279 

Rapid Repatriation .................................................................................................. 980 

Released Criminal Aliens Who Are Not Deported ................................................ 972 

Removal of Criminal Aliens .................................................................................... 975 

Support for Immigrants .......................................................................................... 999 

Undocumented Aliens Incarcerated ....................................................................... 993 

Undocumented Aliens in Federal Custody ............................................................ 975 

Undocumented Aliens in State Custody ................................................................ 976 

Use of $1 Billion in Fiscal Year 2009 Funding ..................................................... 996 

Washington State Criminal Investigation ............................................................. 942 

Worksite Employment ............................................................................................. 978 

Worksite Enforcement Cases Closed in 2008 ........................................................ 990 

Worksite Enforcement Policy .............................................................................. 989, 990 

Worksite Enforcement Prioritization ..................................................................... 986 

Worksite Enforcement ..................................................................................... 1258, 1277 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING