U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

55–033 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–294 

SECURING THE BORDERS AND AMERICA’S POINTS 

OF ENTRY: WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 20, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–25 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

STEPHANIE MARTY, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MATTHEW L. JOHNSON, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

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

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............ 1 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 6 

WITNESSES 

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

Protection, Washington, D.C., and Winkowski, Thomas, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 9 

Foster, Chad, Mayor, Eagle Pass, Texas ............................................................... 24 

Hayworth, J.D., former U.S. Representative, 5th District of Arizona, Phoenix, 

Arizona .................................................................................................................. 18 

Massey, Douglas, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey ................................................................................. 25 

Torres, John P., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, Washington, D.C. ................................................... 7 

Vale, Samuel F., president, Starr-Camargo Bridge Company, Rio Grande 

City, Texas ............................................................................................................ 27 

Wiles, Richard, Sheriff, El Paso County, Texas, El Paso, Texas ......................... 21 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Richard Wiles to questions submitted by Senator Wyden ............. 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Kareem Shora, National Executive Director, prepared by Penn State University’s Dickinson School 

of Law Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Report .................................................. 36 

Border Action Network/Accio ́n Fronteriza, Tucson, Arizona, letter .................... 94 

Citizens for Border Solutions, Bisbee, Arizona, letter .......................................... 96 

Foster, Chad, Mayor, Eagle Pass, Texas, statement ............................................ 98 

Frontera de Cristo Bi-National Border Ministry, Reverend Mark Adams, Coordinator, Douglas, Arizona, letter ..................................................................... 101 

Hayworth, J.D., former U.S. Representative, 5th District of Arizona, Phoenix, 

Arizona, statement and attachment ................................................................... 102 

Massey, Douglas, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, statement and attachment .................................. 119 

New York Times, May 15, 2009, article ................................................................. 131 

No More Deaths.org, Tucson, Arizona, statement ................................................ 134 

Police Foundation, Washinton, D.C., statement ................................................... 141 

Torres, John P., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, Washington, D.C., statement ................................ 149 

U.S.-Mexico Border and Immigration Task Force, Washington, D.C.: 

Acccountability, Community Security and Infrastructure on the U.S.-Mexico Border ....................................................................................................... 164 

May 27, 2009, Letter ........................................................................................ 173 

Vale, Samuel F., President, Starr-Camargo Bridge Company, Rio Grande 

City, Texas, statement ......................................................................................... 215 

Wiles, Richard, Sheriff, El Paso County, Texas, El Paso, Texas, statement 

and attachment .................................................................................................... 220 

Winkowski, Thomas, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, Washington, D.C., statement ....................... 237 

(1) 

SECURING THE BORDERS AND AMERICA’S 

POINTS OF ENTRY: WHAT REMAINS TO BE 

DONE? 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

REFUGEES, AND BORDER SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in 

room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. 

Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Whitehouse, Specter, Cornyn, and 

Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order, and I apologize for being a bit late. Let us get right started. 

Less than 3 weeks ago, I presided over a hearing of this Subcommittee entitled ‘‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009: 

Can We Do It and How? ’’ After listening to the bipartisan testimony from the expert panelists and after hearing from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle during and after the hearing, I 

became cautiously optimistic that we can pass strong, fair, practical, and effective immigration reform this year. At the very least, 

I am convinced we owe the American people our very best effort to 

try and fix what we all acknowledge is a broken immigration system. To that end, the Immigration Subcommittee will convene a series of hearings over the next few months entitled ‘‘Road to Immigration Reform in 2009: Clearing the Hurdles.’’ 

During these hearings the Subcommittee will directly address 

the most challenging issues that the American people and the various stakeholders want and need this Congress to resolve as part 

of a fair and practical immigration solution. My many conversations with the American people have convinced me that the vast 

majority of Americans are pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal 

immigration. But I ask my colleagues not to take my word for it. 

Instead, consider the recent poll numbers that support this conclusion. 

According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 61 percent of Americans would support a program giving illegal immigrants living in the United States the right to live here legally if 

2 

they pay a fine and meet other requirements. This number has 

risen by 11 points since December of 2007. But the same poll also 

reported that 74 percent of Americans think that the United States 

is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into 

this country. This number has risen by 7 points since 2007. 

The mandate of the American people cannot be any clearer. They 

will support better immigration laws if they can be convinced that 

their Government is serious about drastically reducing the number 

of illegal immigrants entering the United States. Accordingly, the 

purpose of today’s hearing is to determine how to further secure 

our borders and ports of entry so that we will not be back 10 or 

20 years from now discussing the same issues we are discussing 

today if we pass immigration reform later this year. But before we 

begin answering this question, we need to set the record straight. 

The American people need to know that because of our efforts in 

Congress, our border is more secure today, considerably more secure, than it was when we began debating immigration reform in 

2005. 

Between 2005 and 2009, a vast amount of progress has been 

made on the southern border, the northern border, and ports of 

entry. This progress includes the following: According to real-time 

data provided by the Department of Homeland Security, the number of people trying to illegally cross the southwest border has decreased by 27 percent compared to last year. This figure was compiled by the Border Patrol through border apprehension numbers. 

In addition, the Border Patrol tells us that at the end of fiscal year 

2005, there were 11,106 Border Patrol agents. As of today, there 

are nearly 20,000 Border Patrol agents operating between the ports 

of entry. At the end of fiscal year 2005, only 241 miles of the southwest border were deemed to be under effective control by the U.S. 

Border Patrol. Today, the Border Patrol will tell us they are in effective control of 700 miles of the southwest border. And as of 

today, approximately 625 miles of border fence have been built, and 

the remaining 40 miles will soon be built after disputes with private property owners are resolved. 

Those are all new facts on the table as we begin to address immigration reform. And we will remove the chart briefly to make way 

for the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions. Thanks for coming, Jeff. 

On the enforcement side, ICE has implemented Border Enforcement Security Task Force teams that have made thousands of arrests of drug smugglers and of human smugglers. Finally, border 

personnel have implemented new technologies such as sensors, 

light towers, mobile night vision scopes, remote video surveillance 

systems, directional listening devices, data base systems, and unmanned aerial vehicles along the border. These new technology 

serve as force multipliers and allow Border Patrol to maintain control of larger segments of the border with fewer agents. 

All of these measures have contributed to what the New York 

Times reported on May 15, 2009, is ‘‘an extraordinary decline in 

the number of Mexican immigrants going to the United States.’’ 

And that was based on Mexican census data. The border experts 

in this hearing will show that the border is far more secure than 

it has ever been and, with our help, will be even more secure. 

3 

It is important for the American people to know that all of these 

measures to secure our border were enacted with the approval of 

the vast majority of Congress and supported by the three of us here 

in a bipartisan way. Those of us who support immigration reform 

have shown our commitment to touch and serious border enforcement. You cannot have one without the other, in my opinion. But 

for years now, the opponents of immigration reform have continually promised that they will engage in conversation about immigration reform once Congress showed it was serious about securing 

the border. Our witnesses will confirm today that showing has 

clearly been made, and this chart—which is sort of blocked by the 

Chair, but it shows you—it is a very irascible chart. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. This is the border, southwest border, and as 

you can see, the vast majority—this is the Rio Grande River so we 

do not have a fence there. But from the western edge of the Rio 

Grande to the Pacific Ocean, almost the whole border fence has 

been built. There are a few holes because of property owner negotiations, and those are going to be filled quickly. And that is 700- 

some-odd miles. 

So it is time to end the divisive and unhelpful rhetoric which 

claims that nothing has been done to secure the border. It is time 

to re-engage in the long promised yet long delayed conversation 

about how to best reform our broken immigration system, including 

doing even more than we have done. That is not off the table at 

all. It is just that we have made good progress. Many people have 

said secure the border first, and that is what we are, in a good 

process, doing. So it is now time for balanced, fair, and tough immigration reform. 

As the line-up of witnesses for today’s hearing proves, this Committee is determined to solicit diverse points of view in order to 

achieve the best solutions possible to the various policy questions 

we must resolve as part of our immigration reform effort. All of 

these issues we will need to address as part of comprehensive immigration reform, and they are incredibly complex and multifaceted. No one person, no one viewpoint, no one discipline, or one 

political party will have all the answers. I at least am, therefore, 

committed to hearing from all who are willing to answer tough 

questions about whether their proposed solutions for immigration 

reform are practical, effective, and consistent with our values as a 

Nation of due process, rule of law, and inclusiveness toward those 

who come here legally. 

I am confident that our distinguished panel today will move us 

closer toward finding the best solution for securing our borders and 

ports of entry and look forward with great interest to your testimony. I thank all of you for coming. 

Now I am going to call on my colleague, the Ranking Member of 

this Subcommittee, Senator Cornyn, who aside from his long Rio 

Grande stretch has a piece of the border fence in his State. 

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

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank all the witnesses for joining us here today, particularly three 

4 

of my constituents from Texas. Thank you for coming to explain the 

complexities that confront us when it comes to border security and 

the challenges of balancing not only security with legitimate concerns about trade which are mutually beneficial to the United 

States and our trading partners. We have, I think, a great set of 

witnesses. 

I apologize to the Chairman. He knows this as well as I do. We 

have a Finance Committee walk-through on health care reform 

which has left the station and is barreling down the track at a high 

rate of speed, so I am going to be shuttling back and forth. But I 

will make it back periodically to try to exchange views. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making border security 

the focus of this hearing. As you noted, Texas has a 1,200-mile 

common border with Mexico, and I have the opportunity to visit the 

border region often, and I know that border security is much on the 

minds of my constituents along the border. But they also want to 

make sure that we pay attention to the mutually beneficial aspects 

of our trading relationship with Mexico and Canada. My constituents of Texas view NAFTA as a net plus for many, many reasons, 

and it is important that we preserve the proper balance and do 

both—encourage trade and also encourage and see that the Federal 

Government lives up to its responsibility when it comes to border 

security. 

Of course, this is a problem not just for the United States but 

also Mexico, too. Mexican authorities have told us that a vast majority of weapons they seize from criminals in Mexico are actually 

smuggled from the United States. I think it is no secret that weapons come from a variety of sources, including China, North Korea, 

and elsewhere, and some are stolen simply from stockpiles of the 

Mexican army by corrupt officials who move those into the hands 

of the cartels. But this is a problem not just with people coming 

north from Mexico. Border security is a problem about things going 

south, namely, weapons and bulk transfers of cash as part of massive money-laundering operations of the cartels and the like. 

I think it is important, too—and Mr. Torres I see is here from 

ICE—to recognize the administration’s stated commitment—at 

least, that is what I read in the newspaper—to expand the current 

program started in the last administration of identifying violent 

criminals in custody of our sheriffs and police in various county 

and municipal jail facilities. We know that the people that suffer 

most from violence perpetrated by these criminals is, in fact, the 

Hispanic community and minority community itself, because many 

times these criminals realize they can assault, steal, and otherwise 

cheat members of the minority community who are here without a 

visa and perhaps have impunity because they are afraid to complain. So this is a very positive development in my view, and I am 

glad to read of ICE’s and the administration’s commitment to continuing and expanding this program. 

I mentioned NAFTA. Forty percent of our bilateral trade crosses 

through the port of Laredo, the largest inland land port in the 

United States. More than 12,000 trucks and 1,200 rail cars cross 

the border at the port of Laredo each day. I think it is also in the 

vein I alluded to earlier, talking about legitimate trade and visits. 

We had a little bit of a challenge early on, Mr. Chairman, trying 

5 

to treat our guests who were complying with our immigration laws 

the same if they came from Canada as opposed to coming from 

Mexico. Early on, working with then-Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, we were able to secure an extension of the socalled Visa Laser Program, a border-crossing card where Mexican 

individuals who have those cards are properly screened. I mean 

they are not a threat to the United States. They basically want to 

come here and buy our goods and services and help stimulate our 

economy. I think our goal should be ultimately to treat all of our 

guests who comply with our visa and immigration laws exactly the 

same, and I look forward to the time when we will treat our visitors from Canada and Mexico exactly the same when they are complying with all of our laws. 

I appreciate the chart showing the construction of what the Border Patrol likes to call ‘‘tactical infrastructure,’’ other people call 

‘‘fencing,’’ and other people call ‘‘the wall.’’ Depending on how close 

you get to the border, it becomes more and more controversial. But 

as I was telling Chief Aguilar, we have been able to work most notably in places like Hidalgo County with the county judge, Judge 

Salinas, and his team down there, Judge Cascos, in Cameron County and elsewhere to try to come up with win-win solutions. And, 

in fact, many private property owners have said they are worried 

about the increasing level of violence and intrusion across Mexico 

not from people who want to simply come to work, but violent 

criminals, people smuggling arms and smuggling drugs. And so 

they are concerned and are working in cooperation with our Border 

Patrol and law enforcement personnel as well. 

We need more Border Patrol agents. We have done a good job increasing that number, but rather than State and local officials having to carry that burden, I think we need more professional law enforcement officers, namely, Border Patrol and officials within DHS 

to help us provide a secure border. Then, of course, there is technology, which initially has proven to be somewhat disappointing, 

but which I hope can be improved to provide a virtual fence, not 

a wall, not necessarily a fence, not tactical infrastructure completely. We realize anything like that you build and if you do not 

have the people and the technology to work with it, it simply is not 

going to be a solution but, at least in the opinion of Border Patrol, 

is a tool that they can use in doing their job. 

Finally, let me just say I believe that the Federal Government’s 

credibility is on the line. This to me was the reason why we were 

unsuccessful in dealing with immigration reform previously, because the American people simply did not believe us when we said 

we are serious about border security and had for so long done virtually nothing to deal with that problem. So they did not believe, 

and after the 1986 amnesty signed by Ronald Reagan, where the 

American people were told if you will accept an amnesty for 3 million people, we will really get serious about worksite enforcement 

and border security and the like. We saw the amnesty but no worksite enforcement, no border security, and so as the saying goes, 

‘‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’’ And 

the American people were not going to be fooled again. 

I do believe, as the Chairman has said, that we are off on a good 

start. I do think this is a subject as complex and as emotional as 

6 

it can be. The order in which you talk about things is very important. When we talk about border security, tamper-proof identification, and workplace enforcement, I think that is the right order to 

talk about these things rather than start out talking about a pathway to citizenship for 20 million people at the beginning. The 

American people will not accept a pragmatic solution to the problems confronting folks who are here without their proper visa until 

we regain their confidence, and I think the only way we are going 

to regain their confidence is by showing them that we are serious 

about security measures, we are serious about the rule of law, and 

then I believe we can come up with a comprehensive solution that 

makes sense and the American people will embrace. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Sessions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, it is great to be with you. This 

is an important hearing. I agree that progress has been made. I 

have been saying that for some time and not been using divisive 

rhetoric to say that nothing has been done. I have been saying that 

from the beginning I have believed that we can make the border 

a lawful place of entry into the United States, that we could eliminate lawlessness. We are making some good progress. The question 

is: Will we continue it as the number of illegal entrants go down 

and we have got more people per illegal entrant to catch the ones 

that are coming illegally? So it becomes a spiral in the right direction instead of a spiral in the wrong direction. 

I see some good things happening. I see some things that are 

troubling, and I look forward to the hearing. Thank you for having 

it. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—Mr. Ranking 

Member. 

Senator SESSIONS. We can dream. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. You are a bit aways. 

Okay. Moving right along here, I would like to introduce our 

panel. First, John P. Torres is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Operations for ICE. From November 2008 to May 2009, he served 

as the Acting Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for ICE. 

He has now been succeeded by John Morton, with whom I have 

had pleasant conversations and look forward to having him appear 

before this Committee once he gets up and running. 

In his present capacity, Mr. Torres is responsible for coordinating 

the efforts of the Federal Protective Service, National Firearms and 

Tactical Training Unit, National Incidence Response Unit, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

David Aguilar is the Chief of the United States Border Patrol, a 

position he assumed on July 1, 2004. As the Nation’s highest ranking Border Patrol agent, Chief Aguilar addresses the enforcement 

efforts of more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide. Chief 

Aguilar brings to the job the knowledge and expertise gained from 

30 years of service on the Border Patrol. We thank you for your 

service. 

7 

And Thomas S. Winkowski is the Assistant Commissioner of the 

Office of Field Operations, the largest and most complex organization in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He oversees an operating budget of $3.2 billion, directs the activities of nearly 27,000 

employees, and is responsible for operations at 20 major field offices, 327 ports of entry, 58 Operational Container Security Initiative ports, and 15 preclearance stations in Canada, Ireland, and 

the Caribbean. 

We welcome all three of you gentlemen. Your entire statements 

will be read in the record. We are asking you to keep yours to 5 

minutes here. And I, like Senator Cornyn, the Finance Committee 

is discussing some very important parts of health care, including 

hospital funds for New York. So one of my colleagues may be coming here and may have to briefly sit in for me, but it does not express any lack of interest or the fact that I am familiar with the 

statements you have submitted. 

Mr. Torres. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. TORRES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. TORRES. Good morning, Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, and Senator Sessions. On behalf of Secretary Napolitano and Assistant Secretary John Morton—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Could you just pull the microphone a little 

closer? 

Mr. TORRES. Sure. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Torres. 

Mr. TORRES. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE’s efforts and our role in securing the border through the investigation 

of our Nation’s immigration and customs laws. 

As the primary investigative agency in the Department of Homeland Security, ICE protects our national security and upholds public safety by targeting transnationl criminal networks and terrorist 

organizations that might exploit potential vulnerabilities at the 

borders. Recognizing that partnerships are essential, ICE works 

closely with its domestic and foreign partners at the Federal, State, 

local, and tribal levels to create a seamless web of border enforcement and a united front to disrupt and dismantle transnational 

criminal organizations. 

While immigration enforcement is a key component of ICE’s mission, we cannot and do not establish enforcement priorities in a 

stovepipe fashion. Instead, we target the organizations that exploit 

our legitimate trade, travel, and financial systems with all the enforcement authorities to ensure that cross-border crime is attacked 

from every possible angle. Indeed, the recent escalation of violence 

by the drug cartels and other criminal organizations just over our 

border with Mexico demonstrates this point in very stark terms. As 

Secretary Napolitano has recently testified, the violence in Mexico 

is not only an international threat; it is a homeland security issue 

in which all Americans have a stake. The cartels that the Mexican 

authorities are battling are the same criminal organizations that 

put drugs on our streets and use violence as a tool of their trade. 

Illegal money, drugs, and weapons flow both ways across the borVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:15 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 055033 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55033.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
8 

der and inextricably link the U.S. and Mexico in our efforts to combat the drug cartels. Our two countries share a nearly 2,000-mile 

border, billions of dollars in trade, a commitment to democracy, 

and the need to prevail against the transnational threats of organized crime. We, as a DHS family, are not in a wait-and-see mode. 

The violence along our southwest border requires a comprehensive 

and bilateral effort. 

Secretary Napolitano issued an Immigration and Border Security 

Action Directive in January of 2009 to focus on this violence and 

using the Department’s wide-ranging authorities. Additionally, in 

March of this year, DHS announced several southwest border initiatives designed to crack down on the Mexican drug cartels 

through enhanced border security. The plan calls for additional 

personnel, increased intelligence capability, and better coordination 

with Federal, State, local, and Mexican law enforcement authorities to target illegal guns, drugs, and cash. 

In furthering that effort, we partner between the Federal, State, 

local, and tribal law enforcement in the border region, which is essential to securing our Nation against the threat of cartel violence. 

Law enforcement agencies at all levels of government have significant roles to play both in addressing the current border violence 

and in preparing for scenarios where violence in Mexico could further impact the United States. Law enforcement agencies at the 

State, local, and tribal level have long fought border violence and 

have deep operational knowledge of the border region. Confronting 

a multifaceted threat like border violence means that Federal agencies must constantly collaborate and coordinate and work together 

with our State and local partners by sharing information and resources. 

With that in mind, ICE established the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces back in 2006. They are led by ICE, but they 

work with a number of partners at the Federal, State, and local 

level, to include our partners here at CBP that are at the table. We 

work with DEA. FBI, ATF, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and local law 

enforcement agencies. Across the southwest border, the Mexican 

Government is committed to participate in the BEST task forces. 

In fact, five of those now have actual representation from the Mexican Government. 

The BEST model has been successful. With the help of our partners, we have been able to crack down on arms trafficking, human 

smuggling, bulk cash smuggling, narcotics smuggling, et cetera. As 

such, I would like to share with you a few of our successes: the discovery and repatriation by the El Paso BEST of one of Mexico’s top 

ten fugitives; the arrest by the Laredo BEST of a weapons trafficker supplying cartels with assault rifles and a number of weapons used to murder a Mexican police officer by the name of 

Navarro Rincon and others; the arrest by the Laredo BEST of a 

member of the Mexican Mafia gang in possession of approximately 

897 pounds of smuggled marijuana after he attempted to run over 

a Texas DPS, Department of Public Safety, officer; and also the arrest by our Los Angeles Seaport BEST of an arms trafficker and 

the seizure of 38 military-style weapons. 

As such, due to this success, DHS and ICE have committed to 

adding more resources to the BEST. We have recently doubled the 

9 

number of special agents assigned from 95 to 190, which greatly 

expands our ability to work with local law enforcement. 

We have also committed to working more closely with Mexican 

authorities. Assisting Mexico in our battle against drug violence 

and immigration violence requires strong coordination with Mexican law enforcement to ensure that Mexico and the U.S. are operating together in combating this transnational threat. ICE engages 

Mexican authorities on a number of levels in our joint efforts to 

combat border violence. 

We have a Border Liaison Officer Program, for example, where 

we designate a number of agents across the border to work closely 

with our Mexican partners and establish regular meetings and contacts. We recently quadrupled the number of those border liaison 

officers on the southwest border. 

We have also strengthened our coordination with the Government of Mexico by increasing our attache personnel in Mexico by 

sending additional special agents to Mexico City, Tijuana, 

Hermosillo, Ciudad Juarez, and Monterrey. Through our attache in 

Mexico City and associated sub-offices in Mexico, ICE assists in the 

efforts against transnational drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, 

bulk cash smuggling, and money-laundering syndicates in Mexico. 

Our attache personnel work on a daily basis with Mexican authorities to combat those transnational threats, and we have added additional officers, again, to all of those offices. 

We have also focused recently on the illegal weapons and bulk 

cash smuggling into Mexico. A larger number of weapons recovered 

in Mexico’s drug war are smuggled illegally into Mexico from the 

United States. Clearly, stopping this flow is one of our top priorities. 

In June of 2008, ICE, CBP, and other Federal and State partners 

met down in Cuernavaca, Mexico, with our Mexican partners and 

agreed to add more resources in combination with ATF to focus on 

southbound weapons smuggling and work with the units down in 

Mexico. 

In summary, I do want to add that my complete statement also 

focuses on our efforts on immigration enforcement and record levels 

of that over the past couple of years, and we are committed to 

working with this Subcommittee to address those challenges, and 

we are happy to answer any of your questions. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you very much, Mr. Torres. 

Chief Aguilar. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID V. AGUILAR, CHIEF, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

WASHINGTON, DC, AND THOMAS WINKOWSKI, ASSISTANT 

COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you, sir, and good morning. 

Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, Senator Sessions, 

Senator Specter, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you 

today. I am honored to be here with Assistant Commissioner Tom 

10 

Winkowski, my good partner over at CBP, and another good partner, Deputy Assistant Secretary John Torres, who jointly we are 

very interested in what happens on the border and I think jointly 

we will give you a good picture of the successes that we have had 

and advances that we have had on the border. 

Senators, next week the Border Patrol will celebrate 85 years of 

service, having been officially established by an act of Congress in 

1924 on May 28th. Over the years that we have served in the Bureau of Immigration to the Departments of Labor and Justice and 

now within Customs and Border Protection in the Department of 

Homeland Security, the Border Patrol has served this Nation with 

honor and integrity. From a few hundred patrol inspectors, mounted inspectors, we have grown now to 18,945 officers as we speak 

today. They are, of course, deployed throughout the norther border, 

southern border, and our maritime and coastal borders. 

The Border Patrol is charged, as you know, with the protection 

of the border between the ports of entry. We are guided in all of 

our efforts by a solid strategy, and I have to point out, Senators, 

that this is an all-threats strategy that takes into account not only 

illegal immigration, which is a big vulnerability and a poses a big 

threat to our borders, but it also takes into account narcotics, 

criminals, criminal aliens, and criminal organizations that sometimes believe that they can use our borders within impunity. 

With the proper mix of manpower, infrastructure, and technology, the Border Patrol is dedicated to achieving the goal of operational control. This comprehensive approach is critical as no one 

leg, no one component of our strategy can accomplish the mission 

alone. We are far better off now than we have ever been with respect to border security. I am confident that with our increased 

staffing, more tactical infrastructure, and integrated technology improvements we have established a solid anchor for gaining, maintaining, and expanding operational control of our borders. 

There is a transformation occurring on our borders. We are 

transforming the borders of the United States because of the application of our strategy and the tactical infrastructure of the personnel and the technology that is being added. The border regions, 

both northern and southern, have undergone drastic changes and 

transitions in the past 5 years. Clearly, the most prominent is the 

establishment of our tactical infrastructure and the stand- up of 

varying styles of fencing. With the support from Congress, we have 

now over 626 miles of fencing in place out of our total goal of 661 

miles. We will accomplish that goal. 

This was not an arbitrary number that we reached. Our sector 

chief patrol agents are the field commanders for specific geographic 

areas around the country, and with the assistance of their staff, arrived at an achievable, sustainable, and economically beneficial 

need for tactical infrastructure that was designed by them. We continuously assess our progress and how we can improve it. But, 

clearly, what is now in place has absolutely provided a great benefit to our mission. 

In the Yuma Sector, for example, our apprehension rate has 

plummeted from over 138,000 apprehensions that we made in 2005 

to just over 8,000 in 2008, and that number continues to drop. Nationwide, we have seen a decrease from about 1.2 million apprehenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:15 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 055033 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55033.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
11 

sions in 2005 to 723,000 in 2008. And to date, we have a 27-percent 

drop as compared to the same time period last year. 

Along the northern border, the most noticeable change has clearly been the increase in staffing. As I just mentioned, the Border 

Patrol has now grown to over 18,000 agents, of which there were 

over 1,700 agents assigned to the northern border. With increased 

staffing we have been able to expand our community outreach, conduct further operations, and develop deeper partnerships with the 

law enforcement community as a whole. The finest example of coordinate efforts is with our Canadian counterparts through the Integrated Border Enforcement (IBET) Teams. 

In today’s 21st century world, the Border Patrol has sought to 

further utilize technology to assist in border security. A critical 

component of our strategy is technology and being able to effectively utilize the benefits that can be gained through those enhancements. With the development and adoption of new technologies such as infrared cameras, remote video surveillance, and 

unattended ground sensors, we have been further aided in our mission. With the advent of SBInet and the P–28 proof of concept, the 

Border Patrol took an enormous leap forward in our mission and 

mission capability. 

The border solution is not a simple solution. When it comes to 

border security and our agents, they are dedicated to performing 

our mission. We will continue to explore new technologies and reassess our operational needs to appropriately address the vulnerability gaps. 

The border is a dynamic environment, and we strive to meet the 

demands of today as well as the challenges of tomorrow. 

Thank you for the opportunity to describe our plans for border 

security and to highlight some of our progress to date. I look forward to any questions that you might have of us, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Messrs. Aguilar and Winkowski appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Chief, and I want to thank both 

of you for your testimony. Secretary Winkowski is here to answer 

questions, but as I understand it, Chief Aguilar’s testimony subsumes yours. So we are going to go to questions. 

The first question I have is for all three witnesses, and I just 

want to set the record straight for the American people. First of all, 

I am going to ask you directly whether you agree or disagree with 

the following statement: ‘‘The measures we have taken since 2005 

to secure the border have been successful in significantly lowering 

the number of illegal immigrants seeking to unlawfully cross the 

border, including a 27-percent reduction this year.’’ 

Chief Aguilar, do you agree with that? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Commissioner Winkowski. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Assistant Secretary Torres. 

Mr. TORRES. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Next question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘‘The U.S.-Mexico border is exponentially more secure today than it was in 2005 when we began 

discussing comprehensive immigration reform.’’ 

12 

Chief Aguilar. 

Mr. AGUILAR. That is correct, sir. It is. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Commissioner Winkowski. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, I agree. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Assistant Secretary Torres 

Mr. TORRES. Yes, sir, it is. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. And I would note some of you came 

to office in the Obama administration and some in the Bush administration. This is not a partisan issue of any sort. 

Now I am going to read to you the main border provisions that 

were part of the McCain-Kennedy bill from 2006, which I think 

Senator Cornyn directly diagnosed it. The reason the bill failed is 

the American people did not have faith that there would not be a 

future wave of illegal immigrants if we passed that bill. 

First, here is what it was supposed to do: Develop a national 

strategy for border security that describes actions to achieve operational control over all borders and ports of entry; double the number of Border Patrol agents and increase the number of ICE agents 

by 200; establish initiatives with Canada, Mexico, and Central 

American countries to protect the border; deploy border technologies designed to serve as ‘‘force multipliers’’ to achieve greater 

operational control of the border; complete border fencing in the 

Yuma and Tucson, Arizona, Sectors; increase the number of helicopters and boats for us by the Border Patrol. 

Have all of these metrics been met? Chief Aguilar. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Do you agree, Secretary Torres? 

Mr. TORRES. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And Commissioner Winkowski? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. So these are not law. I mean, they 

may be part of other laws, but this is what was laid out in the 

McCain-Kennedy bill, and it seems we have gone a good way for 

achieving it. 

OK, next question: There are people, blogs, cable television, 

radio, who raise the fear factor with the American people when 

they state that our southwest border will not be secure unless we 

build a wall across the entire length of the southwest border, that 

is, a 2,000-mile wall. So, in effect, what they are saying is you need 

a wall on the Rio Grande parts of the border, not just the landlocked parts of the border, where, as I said, except for 40 miles, 

that has been done, 700 miles of fence. 

So do any of you agree that we need to build a fence on the rest 

of the border, the Rio Grande part of the border, to be secure, that 

that is essential for security? 

Chief Aguilar. 

Mr. AGUILAR. No, sir. The fence that has been designed and is 

in the progress of being built, the 661 miles, is what has been defined by the experts on the ground, the field commanders, as what 

is needed along with the continuing maturation of our personnel 

and the continued augmentation of technology that is on its way. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Has smuggling or illegal crossings across 

the Rio Grande decreases at a rate consistent with the rate we 

have heard overall, 27 percent? 

13 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely, and in some cases, it is even higher, 

sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Even higher. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. So we are doing pretty well by the river. 

We have the natural barrier, the river, I guess. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. How about you, Secretary Torres? 

What do you think of this idea of building—that we need to build 

a fence along the 1,200 or so miles of the Rio Grande border? 

Mr. TORRES. Well, I agree with our expert here, Chief Aguilar, 

and I see that in addition to the efforts of the Border Patrol some 

of the enforcement initiatives that we have undertaken in the interior of the country have also contributed to the decreases and the 

people attempting to be smuggled into the United States. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We are going to have hearings on that, too. 

Believe me, I feel that is the most important thing we can do. If 

you prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants, that will cut 

off the flow as effectively as anything, and we are going to explore 

that. 

Commissioner. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Chief Aguilar. I do 

think there is one thing we have to keep in mind that, as we close 

off between the ports of entry, the impact at the ports of entry. I 

think that is something that we need to keep an eye on. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And give me your analysis of how we are 

doing. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, as we prevent people from coming between the ports of entry with our tactical infrastructure and our 

technology, they will seek other ways of coming into the country, 

such as through our ports of entry. And we have got to be prepared 

at our ports of entry—which we are—things such as the stimulus 

package that was recently passed, the $720 million to really work 

on our infrastructure, which is so sorely needed; the plus-up in 

staffing that we had; the upcoming implementation of the Western 

Hemisphere Travel Initiative with machine-readable documents. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Have any of you noticed a change in the 

commitment to building the existing fence and following the law, 

both virtual and concrete? In the new administration, is there any 

diminution of enthusiasm for that, monies for that, et cetera? 

Mr. AGUILAR. No, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Chief, you have served under both administrations. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. No, sir. There is a continued—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Could you please pull your microphone forward? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I apologize. No. Not only is there a continued interest, but there is also a continued testing of our thinking on the requirements. Once we have briefed, once we have identified the rationale, everybody is in agreement that we will continue to build 

the fence, we will continue to fund the technology requirements 

that we have identified. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Great. Okay. I want to thank our witnesses. 

I am going to turn over the chair to Senator Specter for a brief 

14 

while, while I try to defend New York hospitals at the Finance 

Committee. And I will be back. I want to thank the witnesses for 

their testimony. 

I have complete confidence in handing the chair over to Senator 

Specter. He has far more experience than I do chairing these committees, but this will be the first time he is doing it from this side 

of the podium. Senator Specter. 

Senator SPECTER [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very comfortable in the center. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Specter, I am glad to be with you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Well, my good friend Chuck Schumer forgot a little of the history 

on the fence and how hard we had to battle and how hard I had 

to force votes, and then we would authorize the fence, and then the 

appropriations bill would have zero money in it for the fence, and 

the American people had to shut down the switchboards, and we 

finally got the message up here. So I do not think the politicians 

have in any way distinguished themselves, ourselves, in this matter. 

But I do agree that progress is being made, and I have always 

believed that was possible. The numbers are at least as—well, I 

will say it this way: Based on what we have done and what we 

could have done in addition and did not do, I guess we are making 

some pretty good progress on reducing the flow of immigration 

here. But about 3 years ago, we were arresting 1.1 million and now 

it is about 700,000 some, which is still a lot. I mean, that is not 

a lawful border when you are arresting 700,000 annually, and we 

are not there yet. 

Mr. Aguilar, with regard to the barriers, just for clarification, 

when we wrote this amendment, of course, we did not offer an 

amendment that would build a wall across the entire border. Somebody may call in to a talk show and say that, but that was not 

what those of us in Congress proposed. We proposed 700 miles. 

Now, what are vehicle barriers? And how are they different from 

fencing? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Vehicle barriers are basically designed to keep vehicles, anything that has a carrying capacity, across our borders. 

They are very specific and very unique to geographical areas that 

lend themselves to vehicles or any kind of carrying capacity coming 

across. That is a type of defense that we need to have in those specific areas. 

Senator SESSIONS. But a pedestrian could get across that barrier. 

Mr. AGUILAR. A pedestrian can get across that barrier, yes, sir. 

But by design and by implementation, they are placed where pedestrians are not as likely—there is always the possibility, but not 

as likely to try and penetrate that border on foot. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the Chairman says we have got 700 

miles of fencing. How many miles of fencing and how many miles 

of vehicle barriers do you have today? 

Mr. AGUILAR. As we speak today, we have 626 miles that we 

have built. We will be accomplishing 661. The total number of 

miles, combination, that we will have in place at 661 will be 116 

15 

miles total in California, 115 in Texas, 115 in New Mexico, and 313 

in Arizona. 

Senator SESSIONS. How many of those are vehicle barriers and 

how many are fencing? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I would have to get you those numbers, sir. I have 

them here. I will dig them up right now. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think we just need to get that straight 

because the legislation called for fencing, which is better. 

Let us talk a little bit about the El Paso division. My staff has 

talked with some of the CBP folks there, and the fence has been 

built there. Would you agree—I guess, Mr. Aguilar, I would ask 

you—that El Paso has seen a dramatic reduction in apprehensions 

there from 122,000 in 2006 to 30,000 in 2008? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. Those numbers are correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. And I understand that crime in El Paso has 

dropped in general. Is that correct? 

Mr. AGUILAR. That is correct. It has dropped, and El Paso, I believe, still remains as the third safest large city in the Nation. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is a remarkable achievement, Mr. 

Chairman. Part of securing the border there with the fence and increased Border Patrol officers and sophisticated use of technology, 

you have drawn that illegal entry way down and the crime rate has 

gone down, and El Paso is one of the third safest cities in America, 

according to the numbers I had. 

But you still, I understand, are averaging 48 apprehensions a 

day, but that is a lot better than 300 a couple of years ago. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is the basic trend you would see there, 

Mr. Aguilar? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. And El Paso, just as a point of clarification, takes in not only El Paso proper and the surrounding areas, 

but also takes into account basically the entire State of New Mexico border also. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Torres, isn’t one way the thing that we 

can help our friends in Mexico—and I am really impressed with 

our efforts to step up their national security, to crack down on the 

organized gangs that even threaten the independence of the nation, 

and I think we should help. Isn’t one good way we can help is to 

make a priority to prosecute the criminal gangs in our cities that 

are connected to these cartels in Mexico and when you do so, you 

draw up the sources of their money that flow back to these cartels 

in Mexico and give them the power that enables them to threaten 

the Government of Mexico? 

Mr. TORRES. Yes, sir, Senator. In fact, over the past couple of 

years, we have implemented a couple of programs—two programs 

just targeted specifically at what you are talking about. One is our 

Operation Community Shield, which has resulted in over 11,000 

gang members that we have arrested since 2005, a number of those 

of which we have prosecuted. But then we also have what is called 

Operation Repeat Offender that we focused along the southwest 

border, where we take people who have committed crimes that we 

have identified and screened in the States’ prisons and jails along 

the southwest border. Actually, we do it nationwide, but a lot of the 

focus is on the southwest border. We take those people we identify 

16 

who have committed a crime and who have also previously been deported, and we work with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to prosecute 

them federally for re-entry after deportation statute. And, historically, they have been receiving close to—or being sentenced close 

to 3 to 5 years in prison. So, in effect, it takes them, just as you 

said, out of that theater of violence along the southwest border, so 

we are not just deporting them again so they can try to come back 

in and be encountered by a Border Patrol agent or someone at the 

port of entry. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, I think that is a real way to help them, 

because some of them move back and forth, and some just ship 

money back home to strengthen those cartels. 

I would just say with regard to the new administration, a number of things are being continued that are good, like Operation 

Streamline, and I would like to talk a little more about that. My 

time is up, but the President has denied requests for continuing—— 

Senator SPECTER. Senator Sessions, if you want a little more 

time, go ahead. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. Thank you. He has denied a request 

for additional National Guard troops there. The policy that seems 

to be working in the workplace, Mr. Torres, could be good if we primarily target the employers who knowingly participate in this. But 

also, when you do not remove those who have proven to be using 

false IDs and are here illegally, we are back to a catch-and-release 

policy. I think that sends an unwise message, and I do think that 

some of the actions have raised real questions in my mind about 

the commitment of the Department to State and local participation 

in this effort. 

And, finally, just to wrap up, on the question of Operation 

Streamline, I am seeing good numbers. This is where in certain 

sectors when the Border Patrol officers apprehend someone, they 

are actually prosecuted, maybe a week or two, whatever, in jail. 

They get a misdemeanor conviction if it is their first offense, which 

is different from just taking them right back to the border and 

sending them home, because they come back the next day. 

What I have seen in Del Rio, Mr. Aguilar, is that in 2005 there 

were 68,000 apprehensions there. In 2008, after Streamline has 

been in place where they are routinely prosecuted, the apprehensions are 20,000, a 70-percent decrease. In Yuma, pre-Streamline 

there were 117,000 apprehensions. After that, it dropped to 8,000, 

a 93-percent decrease. In Laredo, there was 56,000 in 2007, and 

2008 is a partial. Streamline, it dropped to 46,000. And in Tucson, 

in 2007 apprehensions were 379,000, and the numbers have 

dropped to 126—well, I do not have the full year on that, so that 

is 2009 to date, 126,000, but it looks like a good reduction there. 

So do you believe that is having an impact on the decline of entries presumably? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. Where we have implemented Operation 

Streamline or Streamline-type operations as a part of our comprehensive approach, it is having a tremendous impact. 

I would like to just point out that the fundamentals of a border 

enforcement model are the ability of the Border Patrol to be able 

to detect, deter, identify, classify, and resolve any kind of cross-borVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:15 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 055033 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55033.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
17 

der illegal entry. The fence or the tactical infrastructure that we 

referred to does a lot of the deterrence. In addition to that, anything that gets past us, there has to be a consequence to it, of 

which Operation Streamline is part of our consequence package, if 

you will, that we bring to bear against anything that does get 

through even our enforcement model. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Thank you for being very kind to me, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Picking up on a thread on Senator Sessions’ comments with respect to the drug problem—and the smuggling of arms is a big factor—do the Border Patrol improvements have any impact on the 

smuggling of weapons? That is obviously something which is given 

a lot of fire power, improve the capacity of the drug dealers to function, imperil the Mexican Government. Mr. Winkowski, we have 

not given you a speaking part yet. Would you care to respond to 

that? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, thank you, Senator. As you know, with 

part of our Southwest Border Initiative, we are conducting an assortment of outbound operations looking for weapons as well as 

bulk currency going south into Mexico. I can tell you we have had 

a lot of success from the standpoint of bulk currency seizing since 

March of this year, over $13 million going south. 

From the standpoint of weapons going south, we have had some 

seizures, but not military grade type of weapons. It has been more 

handguns and shotguns and personal use type of weapons. But we 

do have ongoing operations on a regularly occurring basis and a 

post and surge mode down on the southwest border. 

Senator SPECTER. What could be done, Commissioner Winkowski, 

on stopping the flow of those military weapons? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I think there are a number of things that we 

could do. One is to continue doing what we are doing from the 

standpoint of post and surge. I think the other huge piece here is, 

you know, over in ICE from the standpoint of their ongoing investigations that they have ongoing in this particular issue. 

The other thing that we are working very hard on, you do have 

legitimate weapons that are going down south that are transiting, 

for example, the United States. They have all the proper State Department licenses and things of that nature, and we have been 

working very, very closely with Mr. Torres’ staff on making sure 

that those weapons are reaching the right end users. 

So I think a combination of post and surge operations, the investigative side, and the monitoring of the end users side—— 

Senator SPECTER. Those legitimate weapons are not part of the 

problem? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Pardon me? 

Senator SPECTER. Those legitimatized weapons are not part of 

the problem? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, you know, from our standpoint, those 

weapons that are going down, perhaps transiting the United 

States, do have the proper licenses, and we do believe we have, you 

know, the proper safeguards in place, working with ICE, on who 

the end user is and making sure that it gets to the end user. 

18 

Senator SPECTER. One final question. You see news reports from 

time to time about immigrants being smuggled into the United 

States in these large vans, so-called 16-wheelers. Have the precautions taken and improvements made so far been any help in 

monitoring that horrendous practices? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, at the ports of entry, with the technology 

that we have received from the Congress this fiscal year, the stimulus package, for example, $100 million in new money for technology, as well as in our fiscal year 2009 budget, $30 million. That 

certainly is one step in the right direction. 

I know there are issues interior-wise with individuals that are in 

cargo containers that, you know, in some cases there are deaths 

that I know that the Chief and Mr. Torres have been dealing with. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. Senator Sessions has requested 30 seconds. You may start with 30 seconds. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Mr. Aguilar, I have the number here from, I believe, your Department that there have been 323 miles of single-layer pedestrian 

fence, 302 miles of vehicle fence, and that is how you get the 626 

number, and only 33 miles of the double-layered secondary fencing. 

Mr. AGUILAR. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. Does that sound correct? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator SPECTER. Senator Sessions, you still have 7 seconds left. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. You have already indulged me enough, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator SPECTER. You just used your time. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Senator SPECTER. We will now proceed to panel two: Congressman Hayworth, Sheriff Wiles, Mayor Foster, Professor Massey, and 

Mr. Vale. If you gentlemen would be seated, we are going to proceed. 

Our first witness is former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007, representing the 5th Congressional District of Arizona; author of the 

book, ‘‘Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security, 

and the War on Terror.’’ He now hosts an afternoon political radio 

show in Phoenix and serves as a consultant and motivational 

speaker. 

Thank you for coming back to Washington, Congressman 

Hayworth, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. J.D. HAYWORTH, FORMER UNITED 

STATES REPRESENTATIVE, 5TH DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Senator Specter, thank you very much for this 

opportunity to testify, and I ask unanimous consent that my complete testimony be made a part of the record. 

Senator SPECTER. Without objection, it will be. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me begin by highlighting two very popular 

words from the ‘‘Washington Political Lexicon.’’ The first is ‘‘biparVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:15 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 055033 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55033.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
19 

tisan.’’ The second is ‘‘comprehensive.’’ In my opinion, the Federal 

Government’s inability to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws has been a bipartisan failure. 

First, the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have both expressed the desire for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. While the term ‘‘comprehensive’’ suggests complete or all-encompassing reform, the American people see it for 

what it is: amnesty for those who have entered our country illegally. 

When members of this body attempted to move such a piece of 

legislation in the summer of 2007, their constituents made it clear 

that they wanted no part of it. The Senate switchboard was overloaded, and the ill-advised legislation was abandoned. 

Yet here we are again, almost 2 years later, with this same illadvised policy objective as this Committee’s apparent goal. Why? 

Here is some genuine straight talk: because some Republicans 

want ‘‘cheap labor’’ and some Democrats want ‘‘cheap votes.’’ 

Sadly, what has been shortchanged in this deficient political calculation is the border security—indeed, the national security—that 

our country so desperately needs. 

It was my honor to serve in the U.S. Congress for 12 years. I was 

here on September 11, 2001. Who would have thought that nearly 

8 years following that fateful day, we as a Nation would still be 

dithering over something as elemental to our national defense as 

truly securing our borders? 

Certainly we have created new bureaucracies and enacted new 

laws. But if people are not obeying existing law because the Government is not adequately enforcing existing law, what makes us 

think that any new laws will make a difference? 

What results is a type of ‘‘public policy schizophrenia,’’ all because official Washington views this as a political problem to be 

managed, when in reality it is a national security problem that 

must be solved. 

Two policy objectives indicate the gulf between the real and the 

ideal. 

First, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was signed into law by President Bush. It requires the construction of at least 700 miles of double-layered fencing along our southern border with Mexico. But 

only about 200 miles of such fencing has actually been completed 

because the Department of Homeland Security has chosen to count 

old single-layered fencing and vehicle barriers as part of the new 

fence. Now smugglers are using collapsible ramps to drive over 

those vehicle barriers. 

Moreover, the Obama administration recently introduced the notion of a ‘‘virtual fence,’’ despite its initial test failures in my home 

State of Arizona. Perhaps the new round of testing can take place 

not in Arizona, but at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Do you think the 

Secret Service would be willing to eliminate the ‘‘real fence’’ that 

surround the White House? 

And the irony here is that building a real border fence, with real 

protections, could create real jobs and would be a stimulus project 

that I believe would prove both popular and practical. 

Speaking of popularity in the workplace, the Los Angeles Times 

reported last week that the ‘‘Federal Government’s E-Verify proVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:15 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 055033 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55033.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
20 

gram, which seeks to reduce the hiring of illegal immigrants, is becoming increasingly popular, with 1,000 new businesses signing up 

each week.’’ 

Despite this, critics on both the left and right find fault with the 

error rate of 4 percent, which means there is an accuracy rate of 

96 percent, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano 

said e-Verify is ‘‘a cornerstone of workplace enforcement across the 

country.’’ 

Yet workplace enforcement is the second policy objective which 

prompts contradictory reactions. 

The February 24th sweep of an engine parts manufacturer in 

Bellingham, Washington, resulted in 28 arrests. 

In response, Secretary Napolitano complained that Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, failed to notify her of that raid 

in advance and announced an investigation into the communications policies of ICE. 

Those arrested were subsequently released, and Secretary 

Napolitano later refined her response, claiming that employers 

would now be the focus instead of illegal workers. 

But with those actions, Secretary Napolitano in essence publicly 

berated her Department’s own agents for enforcing immigration 

law. 

And that brings us back full circle. Americans want our immigration laws enforced. 

A man from Phoenix addressed the matter squarely in an e-mail 

to me. His observation, and I quote: ‘‘Wouldn’t it make sense to 

first legislate and implement comprehensive border enforcement as 

well as comprehensive employee verification before we take on comprehensive immigration reform? ’’ 

Yes, that makes great sense. But, unfortunately, official Washington shows few signs of following common sense on this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I have included the full text of Chapter 9 of my 

book ‘‘Whatever It Takes’’ in my complete testimony, and, again, I 

would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify, and I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

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

Chairman SCHUMER [presiding]. Thank you, Congressman 

Hayworth, former Congressman. 

I am going to introduce the next four witnesses and ask them 

each to put their entire statements in the record and speak for 5 

minutes each consecutively. 

Richard Wiles is the sheriff of El Paso County, Texas. He has 

held that position since 2007. Prior to that he served as Chief of 

Police of the city of El Paso. He is a member of the Texas Border 

Sheriffs Coalition, has 27 years of law enforcement experience, and 

manages over 1,400 employees. 

Do you want to add something, Senator Cornyn, since he is your 

constituent? We have a lot of your constituents here today? 

Senator CORNYN. We do. Thank you for that. These are people 

who know a lot about the border, and I am delighted they are here 

to share their expertise. 

I would just say, because I want to hear from them, that hopefully the sheriff can talk a little bit about the impact on local and 

21 

State law enforcement officials of the Federal Government’s failure 

to live up to its responsibilities, and the importance of providing 

both the financial support to border sheriffs and other law enforcement officials to help make up the burden. It is basically an unfunded mandate that the Federal Government has imposed on 

State and local officials as a result of the Federal Government’s 

failure to deal with border security issues. 

But I am delighted to have him and the mayor here with us, and 

Sam Vale, my friend who is very active in the Border Trade Alliance and who can talk a lot about not just border security but also 

the importance to our economy of trade across our borders. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. And we have Chad Foster, as Senator Cornyn mentioned, mayor of Eagle Pass, the city of Eagle 

Pass, Texas, appointed by Governor Perry to the Texas Department 

of Transportation Border Trade Advisory Committee, chairman of 

the Texas Border Coalition, a member of the Alliance for Security 

and Trade, and co-chair of the Border 2012 Amistad District, and 

is a member of the Middle Rio Grande Regional Review Committee. 

Douglas Massey is the rare witness not from Texas. He is the 

Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at 

Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. He specializes in 

the sociology of immigration, has published extensively on immigration through the southwest border. He is the author of two seminal books on immigration and population migration entitled 

‘‘Crossing the Border’’ and ‘‘Beyond Smoke and Mirrors.’’ 

And Samuel Vale—I do not have a little sheet here. Somehow it 

was left out. But maybe we can have Senator Cornyn make the introduction, and I will just ask unanimous consent that Samuel 

Vale’s introduction be added to the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I mentioned that Mr. Vale, Mr. Chairman, is very active in the Border Trade Alliance as a board member. He actually is president of the Rio Grande City Starr-Camargo 

Bridge Company, so he knows a lot about the ports of entry and 

the need for funding for infrastructure, including personnel to facilitate trade. And so I think rather than me go on, let us just hear 

from him. 

Chairman SCHUMER. OK, great. And also President of Telemundo 

40, President of the Starr-Camargo Bridge Company, President of 

the Border Pacific Railroad Company. So he has a lot of experience. 

Gentlemen, each of your statements, like Congressman 

Hayworth’s, will be read into the record. Sheriff Wiles, you can proceed. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WILES, SHERIFF, EL PASO COUNTY, 

TEXAS, EL PASO, TEXAS 

Mr. WILES. Thank you, Chairman Schumer and Ranking Member Cornyn. Good afternoon. 

First, just to clarify a previous statement made, El Paso is a 

large city, over 700,000 residents. It has been ranked one of the— 

either the second or third safest large city in the United States for 

the past 12 years, long before the new fence was built. So I just 

want to make that clear. 

22 

We certainly look forward to comprehensive immigration reform. 

We believe it is needed. My concern is that we do not make a solution that one size fits all. We do not want to lump the problems 

together and address it with just one solution. 

From a law enforcement perspective, I see two issues. Illegal immigration and undocumented immigrants is one, and there seems 

to be a misperception in some communities across our country that 

people who illegally enter our country from Mexico do so for the 

purpose of engaging in criminal activity. And that could not be further from the truth. Members of the U.S. Border Patrol, without 

hesitation, will admit that the vast majority are here for economic 

reasons. In many respects, they enter illegally knowing that there 

are employers here that want and need their labor. It is as if we 

are waving them in with one hand and telling them to stop with 

the other. 

What should be the law enforcement response to illegal immigration in our local communities? I am not pro-illegal immigration. As 

a law enforcement officer, I respect the laws of our country and the 

necessity for them to be followed for an orderly and safe society. 

But immigration and immigration enforcement rest solely with the 

Federal Government and Federal agencies. And as you mentioned, 

Senator Cornyn, I believe the Federal Government has failed in 

that respect. And when the Government ignores its duties and obligations, unfortunately that burden sometimes does fall on State 

and local officials. 

In the past, there has been a discussion of local, county, and 

State law enforcement agencies ‘‘assisting’’ in the area of immigration enforcement. That is not good policy. While Chief of Police in 

El Paso, I was a member of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, 

which is comprised of the largest 64 law enforcement agencies in 

the United States and Canada. I was one of nine members of a subcommittee that ultimately made recommendations to the full association that were adopted in June 2006, and I have attached a copy 

of that report to my testimony for your review. 

The general recommendation is that local law enforcement 

should not be engaged in the enforcement of Federal immigration 

law. Although there are many reasons, I will concentrate on two 

main ones. First, we lack the resources. We can barely keep up 

with what our community expects us to do now. Second, local law 

enforcement depends on the cooperation of the community it serves 

to prevent and solve crimes. In fact, many local agencies spend 

large amounts of time, energy, and money—a lot of Federal grant 

money—developing relationships just for this purpose. The enforcement of Federal immigration laws by local law enforcement will 

undermine these efforts and impair cooperation and communication 

between local law enforcement and the communities they serve. 

Additionally, last year I attended a conference on local law enforcement and immigration enforcement put on by the Police Foundation in Washington D.C., which was well attended. The vast majority of agency heads at the conference agreed with the findings 

of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. The Police Foundation is actually scheduled to release a new report this afternoon discussing 

how local immigration enforcement challenges the public safety 

mission of law enforcement agencies. The report is titled ‘‘The Role 

23 

of Local Police: Striking a Balance Between Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties.’’ 

Federal agencies have the personnel, the training, equipment, 

and systems in place to handle immigration enforcement. If they 

are deficient in any of these areas, that is something for them to 

overcome, not a reason to put an additional burden on local, county, and State agencies which are already struggling to keep up with 

the demands they face. 

Which leads me to the second issue, and that is the unique criminal issues faced by law enforcement agencies in our border communities. Due to the demand all across our Nation, illegal drugs continue to flow north while money and weapons flow south. In addition, we must deal with human smuggling and border crime, which 

many times are offenses committed against undocumented immigrants, such as robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping, and even 

homicide. 

These acts clearly are within our jurisdiction and responsibility 

and take law enforcement resources away from our neighborhoods 

when we have to respond to them. But we understand we have an 

obligation to protect all persons within our borders, and we respond 

appropriately without regard to immigration status. Our purpose is 

to prevent crime and, when we fail to do that, to apprehend criminal offenders. But we also understand that when we arrest a drug 

smuggler, a drug seller, a human smuggler, or a rapist, it prevents 

drugs and crime from expanding into other areas of our country. 

In this regard, we are truly at the front lines using local resources 

to address a national problem. 

Our main concern is border and community security. Our position on immigration enforcement works, and it shows in the fact 

that we are an extremely safe community. And we want to remain 

one of the largest safe cities in the United States. We are growing 

and expanding, and we want to maintain the safety and security 

necessary for our citizens to be free from crime and the fear of 

crime. I believe that if we became involved in Federal immigration 

enforcement, that trust and respect we have with our community 

would fracture and fail. It would create a communication gap that 

would hamper our ability to continue our efforts in crime reduction. 

If the Federal Government needs the help of local law enforcement, it would be better concentrated on issues related to crime. 

We are already working with many Federal agencies on issues such 

as drug smuggling, weapons trafficking, gangs, vehicle thefts, et 

cetera. With the proper resources, we stand ready to assist our 

Federal and State partners on issues that are important to all of 

us and most certainly the communities we serve and represent. Ultimately, the entire Nation benefits when we are successful at stopping the flow of illegal drugs and preventing criminals from continuing to victimize our citizenry. 

Thank you very much. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Mayor Foster. 

24 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHAD FOSTER, MAYOR, EAGLE PASS, 

TEXAS 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir, thank you. Chairman Schumer, Ranking 

Member Cornyn, I am Chad Foster, again, the mayor of the city 

of Eagle Pass, Texas, and also the Chairman of the Texas Border 

Coalition. I am speaking today on behalf of 2.1 million citizens, 

American citizens, along the 17 counties on the Texas border, 

which encompasses 1,250 miles. Ours is a region of contrasts, exhibiting differences and similarities of language, culture, tradition, 

and economy. 

The multinational, multicultural nature of our communities on 

both sides of the international boundary gives our region a distinct 

sense of place. 

When the Senate last debated immigration reform, I recall the 

opponents of the bill saying that the borders had to be secured before any visas could be reformed or any effort made to legalize the 

status of the undocumented among us. As mentioned, these conditions have been met. Improvements and additions to our ports of 

entry, in my opinion, the land ports are now our weakest link. We 

need your help and we would appreciate it now. 

We are within sight of operational control of the border between 

the ports of entry, and that puts our ports under greater stress. According to the Government Accountability Office, we needed 4,000 

new officers to secure the ports of entry before we placed the new 

emphasis on southbound checks to stop the trafficking of guns and 

cash. We needed $4 billion in infrastructure and technology. We 

need 1,600 more CBP officers, along with 400 canine units. We 

need the southbound operations to be controlled by CBP, which has 

training in dealing with the traveling public, and not Border Patrol, whose training with travelers is more confrontational. We 

need $130 million for 350 new ICE investigators to work on firearms-trafficking and money-laundering investigations and $20 million for improved tactical field communications for CBP and ICE. 

We cannot afford to delay the $20 million that CBP needs to modernize its database used to identify potential criminals at the ports 

of entry or the $50 million for Operation Stonegarden to reimburse 

State and local law enforcement for their participation in border actions. 

The 9/11 terrorists came to the United States through ports of 

entry. Most undocumented immigrants enter the United States 

through ports of entry. Most of the illegal drugs entering our country come through ports of entry. No border wall will solve these 

problems. Illegal border crossing arrests at the Texas border have 

been falling for more than 3 years, without a wall, a great tribute 

to the deterrence of our Border Patrol and CBP officers. Arrests 

this year along the southern border are likely to be way below the 

nearly 1.6 million during the peak in 2000. 

In their headlong rush to achieve an arbitrary deadline to erect 

an ineffective wall, the Bush administration chose to abandon our 

Nation’s laws that commit us to preserving our environment, our 

culture, our history and our religious liberties. We cannot afford to 

go down that path again—a path that waives all laws. 

The Chertoff waivers will affect the natural movement of animal 

species, including the larger mammals that are on the threatened 

25 

or endangered species lists, and cause irreparable harm to the 

unique eco- and bio-systems located along the Rio Grande River. 

They provided carte blanche for the destruction of cultural and religious artifacts that are irreplaceable to our heritage. The avoidance 

and mitigation of these damages is not an inconvenience to the 

Government. They are essential liberties of our national fabric, 

guaranteed to the people of the United States under Articles I and 

II of the Constitution. We demand that Congress require the enforcement of our commitment to being a Nation of laws. We support the repeal of the unconstitutional waiver authority and urge 

the repeal of the Secure Fence Act in favor of measures that will 

provide our region with real security. 

The Texas Border Coalition wants to finish the job of securing 

the border by enacting immigration reform. We support an earned 

legalization program for the undocumented people who are in the 

U.S. today. We need an effective guest worker program to prevent 

the immigration policy and political failures from repeating themselves in another general immigration reform. We need more than 

a bill; we need that balance, the ideological and political continuum 

in Congress and the Nation. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mayor. 

Dr. Massey. We are going to try to move things along because 

we have a vote at about 11:45. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS MASSEY, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, 

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 

Mr. MASSEY. Good morning, Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am a social scientist who has been studying immigration for three decades, and I co-direct a research project that 

has been in the field for more than 25 years and generates the 

largest and most reliable source of data on the behavior of documented and undocumented migrants to the United States. 

During the 1970s the United States declared a War on Crime; 

during the 1980s it declared a War on Drugs; and in the 1990s it 

seemed to have declared a War on Immigrants. In my view, these 

policies had more to do with domestic politics than with the underlying realities of crime, drugs, or immigration, with negative consequences all around. 

In the case of immigration, the 1986 Immigration Reform and 

Control Act launched what proved to be a two-decade-long militarization of the Mexico-U.S. border. From 1980 to 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents increased 3.7 times, line watch hours 

rose by a factor of 6.5, the agency’s budget increased by a factor 

of 12. 

Paradoxically, this militarization occurred as undocumented migration reached its peak and was beginning to move downward. It 

also unfolded as we were drawing closer to Mexico economically, by 

treaty agreeing to lower the barriers to cross-border movements of 

goods, capital, information, services, and certain classes of people. 

26 

Between 1980 and 2000, total trade increased 9 times, business 

visitors by 7.4 times, treaty investors 10 times, and intracompany 

transferees 27 times. Somehow we seem to want to integrate all 

factor markets in North America except one, and to magically build 

a border that is impermeable to all flows except that of workers. 

This fundamental contradiction was not sustainable. 

Nonetheless, border enforcement accelerated during the 1990s 

despite the fact that the rate of undocumented migration to the 

United States had been falling for several years. The 1990s War on 

Immigrants was followed by the post-9/11 War on Terror, which 

quickly became conflated with immigration and identified with the 

Mexico-U.S. border, despite the fact that none of the hijackers entered from Mexico, that country has no Islamic terrorists cells, has 

no significant Muslim population, and by that point was experiencing a declining rate of undocumented migration. Border enforcement, nonetheless, rose exponentially after September 11th, with 

the Border Patrol budget increasing 95 times its 1980 level and the 

number of line watch hours rising 111 times. After 9/11, deportations also began a marked increase, rising from just 11,000 in 1980 

to some 350,000 in 2008, breaking old records last set during the 

era of mass deportations in the 1930s. 

As already noted, this massive increase in enforcement came 

during a time of North American economic integration and falling 

rates of undocumented migration and did not solve America’s immigration problems. Although the probability of taking a first undocumented trip fell after 1990 and the likelihood of taking an additional trip fell after 2000, even more pronounced was the sharp 

decline in the rate of return migration. Between 1980 and 2005, 

the likelihood of returning to Mexico within 12 months of an undocumented entry fell by more than half. 

This shift in behavior occurred because the militarization of the 

border increased the costs of border crossing from $600 to $2,200, 

while increasing the risk of death and injury, but had no effect on 

the probability of apprehension itself. Given the higher costs and 

risks of border crossing, fewer migrants left; but those who did 

leave still got across the border because the odds of apprehension 

did not rise. Once inside the United States, they hunkered down 

and stayed longer and in larger numbers to avoid experiencing the 

costs and risks of border crossing again. In sum, it was because of 

a decline in return migration and not an increase in entry from 

Mexico that the undocumented population ballooned during the 

1990s. 

In the past 3 years, estimates suggest that the undocumented 

population has peaked and is beginning to trend downward. This 

development is no doubt partly because of the remarkable acceleration in border enforcement in the wake of 9/11 and the rise of mass 

internal deportations; but it also reflects the evaporation of labor 

demand in the United States. Nonetheless, rising enforcement and 

growing joblessness have not prompted a significant return of already settled migrants. As we have seen, the rates of departure 

have fallen to record low levels. At the same time, a quiet but massive increase in the availability of guest worker visas has provided 

a legal alternative to undocumented entry. According to official 

27 

data, the number temporary legal workers entering from Mexico 

rose from 3,300 in 1980 to 361,000 in 2008. 

These data clearly indicate that Mexican immigration is not out 

of control. It rises and falls with labor demand, and if legitimate 

avenues for entry are available, migrants enter legally. The massive militarization of the border and resumption of mass deportations occurred despite the fact that rates of undocumented migration were falling, and the perverse consequence was that these actions lowered the rate of return migration among those already 

here. 

To solve our serious immigration problems, we need to undertake 

a program of legalization for those already resident in the country, 

and especially for the more than 3 million people who entered the 

country as minors and are guilty of no sin except obeying their parents. We also need to provide for the legal entry of Mexicans by increasing the number of permanent resident visas and guest worker 

permits to levels consistent with the needs of an integrated North 

American economy. 

Unfortunately, the current immigration crisis is very much one 

of our own making, reflecting bad policy choices in the past; but, 

fortunately, this means that with better policy choices we have the 

power to resolve the dilemma moving forward. 

Thank you for your time and attention. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you for speeding your testimony but 

getting it all in. 

Mr. Vale. 

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL F. VALE, PRESIDENT, STARRCAMARGO BRIDGE COMPANY, RIO GRANDE CITY, TEXAS 

Mr. VALE. Thank you very much, Chairman Schumer and Ranking Member Cornyn and other distinguished members of the Committee, for the invitation to be here. My name is Sam Vale. In addition to owning and operating a private port of entry that the rent 

you pay could support all the others for 1,000 years, it is something 

we feel efficiencies at the ports are of utmost importance to our 

border security. The question that you are talking about today is 

something that we have been talking about for 30 years, and we 

will probably be talking about it for another 30 years. It is not new, 

and there is nothing static about the security on the border. It 

changes. It is different on the Canadian border. It is different on 

the Mexican border. It is different from port to port. The typical approach in Washington is one size fits all. That is not true. We are 

all different. We have got different traffic compositions, different 

people crossing for different purposes. So we feel that it is particularly important that we sit down and talk about these things on 

a port-by-port basis. 

We also find that there is a great failure to understand that the 

daily crosses at our ports of entry are primarily the same people. 

We have a significant portion of our border crossers that cross each 

and every day. And, by the way, we are also the people that generate sales taxes and property taxes, and we pay taxes to the IRS, 

and we make money for the Government. So the more we can do 

28 

business, the more the Government gets to have money to spend 

on the things that are needed for other people in the Government. 

We do not really need to have another security program added 

to what we have until we go back and examine the effectiveness 

of what is there. However, the need for comprehensive immigration 

reform is an equal priority to security because the foundation of security is identifying people. How can you leave 20 million people 

out of a databank and think you are going to identify people? You 

have got to know who is there. You have got to know who enters 

and who leaves the country. 

Our partners in Canada and Mexico are the No. 1 people we sell 

goods and services to. Good grief, we want them to be able to buy 

our stuff. 

When you talk about southbound inspections on the southern 

border, CBP has never really had that as a priority. Now, if it is 

about weapons, why don’t we have ATF down there in greater 

numbers. You do not need 100. You need 200. You need 100 doing 

nothing but intelligence gathering. By the look of a couple of you 

guys, you probably have read in the history books about World War 

II. What was the greatest source of intelligence? The partisans. We 

need more people. We need more intelligence. Our ATF people have 

the skills today to go out in the very short term and gather more 

intelligence so that the southbound inspections are based on realtime information, and then you add the computer models and all 

the toys and all the things that they like to put into this. It is really a critically important issue. 

We can also tell you that along the border, you want to export 

a gun? It does not have to look like a gun. It can be parts, a part 

going through California, a part going through Texas, a part going 

some other way. You can put them together pretty quickly. Just 

ask any of our Special Forces how they take them apart and put 

them together. 

So it is a complex process, and if they are crossing between our 

ports, bring stuff north, you would think they might want to take 

something south. It is kind of like what we do in trucking. You 

need a back haul. In any event, you get to something that you all 

did that was very good, the $720 million for stimulus package. Unfortunately, most of that was spent on small ports that do not carry 

a significant portion of the traffic. I am a small-port guy so I cannot say anything bad about small ports. But I can tell you this: 

Secretary Napolitano said that she completed the Mariposa port for 

$200 million designed before we had a stimulus package. That was 

included in what she paid for. 

What we need is boots on the ground. What we need is a surge 

like we had in Iraq. We need a lot of people there. We need Border 

Patrol. We need officers. We need inspectors. We need agents. And 

if you want to talk about how getting north on the border is, ask 

ICE to design a way to come into the United States, and I bet you 

that half of their stuff gets through. So with fences, without fences, 

it is not a simple matter, and we have got to stop talking in Pollyanna ways. They have built a good fence in Arizona in the marine 

military bombing base. Current technology. It stopped everybody. 

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

the record.] 

29 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you, Mr. Vale. I want to thank 

all of our witnesses. We are going to try to get through the questions before the vote is called. 

First, I am going to ask the same question to all five panelists— 

and I would like yes or no answers, and then we will get into detail—that I asked the first panel. 

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘‘The 

measures that we have taken since 2005 to secure the border have 

been successful in significantly lowering the number of illegal immigrants seeking to unlawfully cross the border, including a 27- 

percent reduction this year’’ ? Congressman Hayworth, yes or no. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes or no. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you for that kind reception. Somewhat. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Somewhat. OK, fair enough. 

Mr. WILES. I agree with him. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Somewhat. 

Mr. WILES. Yes. Which is rare. 

Mr. FOSTER. On the Texas border, I believe the apprehensions 

have fallen since 2005, 56 percent. What is watering those numbers 

down is the other borders, but, no, they have fallen. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But you do agree with the statement. 

Mr. FOSTER. Absolutely. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Dr. Massey. 

Mr. MASSEY. No. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You do not agree. 

Mr. MASSEY. No. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. And Mr. Vale. 

Mr. VALE. No. It is about jobs being available. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. You do not believe then that the—— 

Mr. VALE. I do not believe it was caused by our security measures. I think that is part of it, but not the controlling factor. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Got it. OK, good. 

The second question I have is—well, I think that answers it. Let 

me first go to Congressman Hayworth. You have testified that only 

200 miles of border fence have been constructed. We heard the previous panel, who were the ones who were doing it, who say there 

is 626. Can you explain that discrepancy? 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. In your absence, at 

the end of the testimony, Senator Sessions got the accurate figures. 

What is happening is there is a change and a redefinition, and you 

are no stranger to the legislative process. You know the intent of 

Congress sometimes changes with actual implementation. 

In terms of what was going on on the border, what has been 

counted by the Department of Homeland Security is not entire double-layered fencing, which was the original intent in the Secure 

Borders Act. We are counting single-layer old-style fencing, about 

10 feet high. And more problematic, the vehicle barriers, again, sir, 

in your absence, it was explained that the vehicle barriers are not 

foolproof, that pedestrians can gain access, and also we have seen 

reporting and documentation that with the use of collapsible 

ramps—— 

30 

Chairman SCHUMER. But wait a second. You are saying it is not 

the fence you want, but there is 626 miles of a fence at least 10- 

foot high, one barrier. Is that true or false? 

Mr. HAYWORTH. No. That is not what I am saying. I am saying—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. No, but is that true or false? 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, there is not 600 miles of single-layer fencing. What I have just said, sir, is that there is a combination of single-layer; the double-layered fencing the legislation called for; and 

some vehicle barriers. What I am also pointing out, sir, is one of 

the problem, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. But you said there is only 200 miles of fencing. We are getting into the definition of—— 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Only 200 miles of double-layered fencing. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Is that what your testimony—— 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would you like to hear about—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is that what your testimony said? 

Mr. HAYWORTH. What I am clarifying for you in the question 

time—and if you would like me to do it, I appreciate the courtesy 

of getting a chance to answer your question, sir. What I am saying 

to you, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I am just trying to resolve a discrepancy 

here. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, what I would say to you, sir, is this: Rhetorical discrepancies notwithstanding, the problem I am trying to 

report to you is what has been reported in the media in Arizona 

and nationally of the way that smugglers are defeating the barriers. And if they are defeating the barriers in terms of the socalled vehicle barriers with ramps, there are real problems. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That was not the question I asked you. I 

understand that you might feel we need more. I am just asking: Is 

there a fence, minimum 10-foot high, for the vast majority of the 

non-Rio Grande border? And the answer is yes. And, you know, if 

we are ever going to come to agreement here, we have to agree on 

the facts. 

Now, you can say, yes, there is, but it is not good enough, it is 

not stopping things, you do not agree with the 27-percent reduction, or it is due to something else. Those are all fair answers. But 

to simply put in your testimony that there is only 200 miles of 

fence, most people, if they looked—— 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Two hundreds miles—— 

Chairman SCHUMER.—at the fence for the other 450 miles would 

say that is a pretty big fence. You may say it does not work for 

the following reasons, but let us try at least—I am trying here to 

stick to the facts. 

I want to ask you just one other question, Congressman. Then 

I am going to move on. I believe that Americans will accept a system, broadly defined, that is pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal 

immigration; in other words, if you could guarantee to people or 

make people feel very good—which, admittedly, we did not in the 

last bill; that is why it failed; I agree with Senator Cornyn’s analysis—that we would stop the flow of future illegal immigrants, they 

would feel much better about a system of legal immigration. Do 

you agree or disagree with that? You can elaborate. 

31 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, thank you, sir, very much. Mr. Chairman, 

I believe that part of the problem has come through the process 

that so-called comprehensive reform means a simultaneous border 

enforcement with an alteration of the status of those who have 

come here illegally. I think it is important—and I think we have 

seen this in terms of a variety of policies legislatively—that we 

work first with what is the crucial problem. The crucial problem is 

first securing the border. The second thing is having along with 

that accurate verification of employees and those who are here. 

And despite the diversity of viewpoints here, we have heard that. 

And then, and only then, can the debate about guest workers and 

the immigration reform that some desire move forward. 

So my word of caution and my perspective is secure the border 

first. Comprehensive employee ID. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Got it. And you would agree that, in your 

words, we have secured it better somewhat. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Somewhat, but there is a long way to go, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I understand. That is a value system. I 

mean, you might say we should not do anything on legal immigration until there is not a single illegal immigrant who crosses the 

border. It is all a value system, and you are in one place, and I 

respect that and appreciate it. 

Mayor Foster, do you think the border enforcement measures 

have played a role in making El Paso more secure? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, again, the sheriff referenced El Paso. El Paso, 

with a population of over 700,000, has been the second or third—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Eagle Pass. I am sorry. 

Mr. FOSTER. Oh, Eagle Pass? Historically, Eagle Pass has been 

a very safe and tranquil city. We have had two murders in the last 

10 years. We are basically a very quiet, safe border community. I 

am in Piedras Negras, our sister city, on a daily basis. Yes, we are 

very secure. But this has enhanced—but, again, the focus today is 

on our ports of entry. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And my last question to Sheriff Wiles. You 

said also that you thought we were somewhat effective in curtailing 

flows across the border. Could you elaborate on that? 

Mr. WILES. Well, it is exactly what has been said by other members of the panel. Most of the issues that we deal with from a 

criminal aspect come right across the ports. Not to say that the 

Federal agents do not do the best job they can do, but the majority 

of drugs, criminals, individuals who will come over here to criminalize our citizens come right across the ports of entry. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. My time has expired. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Sheriff, let me follow up on that. Do you think 

the best solution to that is more Federal law enforcement officials 

at the ports of entry or better technology or data sharing? Or what 

do you think is the right solution? 

Mr. WILES. Well, all three of those things, and I think there has 

been some commitment by the present administration to do just 

that. We are seeing additional Federal agents, especially in the 

area of ATF, thank goodness. We only had nine agents in El Paso 

until President Obama’s administration committed to adding addiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:15 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 055033 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55033.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
32 

tional agents there, when we knew that many weapons—and we 

understand that not all of Mexico’s problems with weapons are 

coming from the United States, but certainly there is a problem. 

There are weapons from the U.S. going into Mexico, and we do our 

best to work with the Federal agents to conduct southbound 

checks, to stop stolen cars, money, and weapons from going into 

Mexico. But we need the assistance of the Federal Government who 

has expertise in dealing with these issues at the appropriate levels 

of the Mexican and U.S. Federal Governments. And until we got 

that commitment, we did not have it. 

Senator CORNYN. And you heard me, I think, in my opening 

statement talk about the administration’s commitment to continue 

and expand the ICE program of working with local sheriffs and police chiefs to screen the prisoner population at the local level for 

criminals who come in the country and perpetrate crimes, as you 

said, largely upon other immigrants. In other words, we are not 

talking about people come in without a visa. 

Mr. WILES. Right. 

Senator CORNYN. We are talking about robbers, rapists, murderers. Do you support the expansion of that in the El Paso County 

Jail? And how do you think it is working so far? 

Mr. WILES. Well, I think as long as it is targeted in that direction. We have a rather large county jail—it is two jails. It holds 

about 2,440 prisoners, and there are people coming in and out of 

there all the time, many of them for minor offenses—traffic offenses, public intoxication, things of that nature. And we do not 

want our time consumed with those types of issues. As long as it 

concentrated on those type of violent offenders that potentially 

could hurt our community, we definitely support that. 

Senator CORNYN. And if there is anything we can agree on, I 

hope we can agree on that. It sounds like just a common-sense approach to dealing with not the whole problem but part of the problem. And, indeed, as you said, these are the people who tend to 

prey on others in the immigrant community. 

Mr. WILES. Right. 

Senator CORNYN. This is something we ought to be able to agree 

on. 

Mr. WILES. Yes, sir. Well, nobody wants criminals here, whether 

they are our citizens or citizens from another country, victimizing 

people. 

Senator CORNYN. I wanted to ask Congressman Hayworth, what 

I confront when I come down to McAllen or El Paso or Eagle Pass 

is my constituents say, ‘‘You know, we do not see the problem here 

in terms of terrorists coming across the border.’’ But I want to just 

ask the question because of your experience in Congress and the 

information that you no doubt have had access to. 

We know that there are people that traverse Mexico that come 

from other countries because of the weak border Mexico has on its 

own southern border. Indeed, La Frontera recently reported that 

the Mexican authorities in Reynosa apprehended a dozen Iranians, 

among others, who had come up through Central America, through 

Mexico, and attempted to come into the United States. And then 

we know down in South America in the tri-border region, where 

33 

there is a significant Lebanese population, that there is strong financial support for Hezbollah there. Is that part of your concern? 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cornyn, absolutely. And 

I would supplement that with a report last fall from the sheriff of 

Cochise County who told me of apprehending a number of Chinese 

illegals coming across. But there are obviously national security 

concerns, and, again, we are hearing diverse perspectives here, 

Senator, but different pieces of the puzzle. And while obviously the 

concentration from some on this panel has been ports of entry involving trade—what was the great saying from baseball? ‘‘Hit’em 

where they ain’t.’’ When you have got a border as diverse and as 

large as ours, when you have people intent on crossing that border, 

there is an obvious security threat, and with that knowledge, that 

border security is ultimately national security. That is why what 

you are pointing out and other border sheriffs have pointed out is 

so important and must be preeminent in our policy decisions. 

Senator CORNYN. We seem to have a recurrent theme here in 

terms of Washington’s perspective on the border that it is all the 

same; and my experience and observation, and certainly talking to 

several of my constituents in your home towns, is that it is not, 

and that it is quite varied. And, in fact, the Federal Government, 

while looking at the 30,000-foot level, said, for example, Mr. Vale, 

that $720 million was included for land port infrastructure, which 

is a good thing. But your testimony is that it is not directed toward 

the high-volume ports of entry. Congress cannot pat itself on the 

back, in other words, and say, ‘‘Way to go. We sent money for infrastructure,’’ when, in fact, there is such diversity and difference of 

conditions there along the border. 

Would you agree with that? I think you would, but would you respond to that? 

Mr. VALE. Yes, sir. Congress did a good job in sending the dollars. What the Congress did not do is watch how they spent it. And 

that is the big issue. It was not anything that was stimulus related. It is the kind of things that you could have done in your annual appropriations totally legitimately. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I happen to agree with you, and things 

we should have done on an annual appropriations basis, because it 

is hard to see how stimulative that was, but they were necessary, 

and I am glad Congress took that step. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity, and I know we 

have a vote that is winding down here, so I am going to go vote. 

But thanks to my constituents who are here. Thanks to the entire 

panel for coming and sharing your expertise and perspective. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. I want to 

thank the panel. I had more questions, too, but we have a vote, and 

rather than keep everybody and detain them, we are going to leave 

the record open for 5 days, and we may submit written questions 

if you all wouldn’t mind answering those. And I want to thank the 

panel for being here. 

As I said, we are going to do comprehensive hearings on every 

aspect, every difficult aspect of immigration reform, because I believe the American people want a solution. They just do not want 

one perspective. They want a comprehensive solution, and you have 

provided a multiple of perspectives for us that we have to take into 

34 

account. So thank you all for being here, and thank you for your 

testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

35 


55033.001
36 


55033.002
37 


55033.003
38 


55033.004
39 


55033.005
40 


55033.006
41 


55033.007
42 


55033.008
43 


55033.009
44 


55033.010
45 


55033.011
46 


55033.012
47 


55033.013
48 


55033.014
49 


55033.015
50 


55033.016
51 


55033.017
52 


55033.018
53 


55033.019
54 


55033.020
55 


55033.021
56 


55033.022
57 


55033.023
58 


55033.024
59 


55033.025
60 


55033.026
61 


55033.027
62 


55033.028
63 


55033.029
64 


55033.030
65 


55033.031
66 


55033.032
67 


55033.033
68 


55033.034
69 


55033.035
70 


55033.036
71 


55033.037
72 


55033.038
73 


55033.039
74 


55033.040
75 


55033.041
76 


55033.042
77 


55033.043
78 


55033.044
79 


55033.045
80 


55033.046
81 


55033.047
82 


55033.048
83 


55033.049
84 


55033.050
85 


55033.051
86 


55033.052
87 


55033.053
88 


55033.054
89 


55033.055
90 


55033.056
91 


55033.057
92 


55033.058
93 


55033.059
94 


55033.060
95 


55033.061
96 


55033.062
97 


55033.063
98 


55033.064
99 


55033.065
100 


55033.066
101 


55033.067
102 


55033.068
103 


55033.069
104 


55033.070
105 


55033.071
106 


55033.072
107 


55033.073
108 


55033.074
109 


55033.075
110 


55033.076
111 


55033.077
112 


55033.078
113 


55033.079
114 


55033.080
115 


55033.081
116 


55033.082
117 


55033.083
118 


55033.084
119 


55033.085
120 


55033.086
121 


55033.087
122 


55033.088
123 


55033.089
124 


55033.090
125 


55033.091
126 


55033.092
127 


55033.093
128 


55033.094
129 


55033.095
130 


55033.096
131 


55033.097
132 


55033.098
133 


55033.099
134 


55033.100
135 


55033.101
136 


55033.102
137 


55033.103
138 


55033.104
139 


55033.105
140 


55033.106
141 


55033.107
142 


55033.108
143 


55033.109
144 


55033.110
145 


55033.111
146 


55033.112
147 


55033.113
148 


55033.114
149 


55033.115
150 


55033.116
151 


55033.117
152 


55033.118
153 


55033.119
154 


55033.120
155 


55033.121
156 


55033.122
157 


55033.123
158 


55033.124
159 


55033.125
160 


55033.126
161 


55033.127
162 


55033.128
163 


55033.129
164 


55033.130
165 


55033.131
166 


55033.132
167 


55033.133
168 


55033.134
169 


55033.135
170 


55033.136
171 


55033.137
172 


55033.138
173 


55033.139
174 


55033.140
175 


55033.141
176 


55033.142
177 


55033.143
178 


55033.144
179 


55033.145
180 


55033.146
181 


55033.147
182 


55033.148
183 


55033.149
184 


55033.150
185 


55033.151
186 


55033.152
187 


55033.153
188 


55033.154
189 


55033.155
190 


55033.156
191 


55033.157
192 


55033.158
193 


55033.159
194 


55033.160
195 


55033.161
196 


55033.162
197 


55033.163
198 


55033.164
199 


55033.165
200 


55033.166
201 


55033.167
202 


55033.168
203 


55033.169
204 


55033.170
205 


55033.171
206 


55033.172
207 


55033.173
208 


55033.174
209 


55033.175
210 


55033.176
211 


55033.177
212 


55033.178
213 


55033.179
214 


55033.180
215 


55033.181
216 


55033.182
217 


55033.183
218 


55033.184
219 


55033.185
220 


55033.186
221 


55033.187
222 


55033.188
223 


55033.189
224 


55033.190
225 


55033.191
226 


55033.192
227 


55033.193
228 


55033.194
229 


55033.195
230 


55033.196
231 


55033.197
232 


55033.198
233 


55033.199
234 


55033.200
235 


55033.201
236 


55033.202
237 


55033.203
238 


55033.204
239 


55033.205
240 


55033.206
241 


55033.207
242 


55033.208
243 


55033.209
244 


55033.210
245 


55033.211
246 


55033.212
247 

Æ 


55033.213