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

41-959 PDF 2008

WALLS AND WAIVERS: EXPEDITED 

CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHERN BORDER WALL AND COLLATERAL IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES 

AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

JOINT OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE 

AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Monday, April 28, 2008, in Brownsville, Texas 

Serial No. 110-68 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Steve Scalise, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(V) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Monday, April 28, 2008 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ............... 3 

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from American 

Samoa ............................................................................................................ 12 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 6 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 11 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .............................................................................................................. 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Tancredo, Hon. Thomas G., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado ..................................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Foster, Hon. Chad, Mayor, City of Eagle Pass, Texas ................................... 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Garcia, Juliet V., Ph.D., President, University of Texas at Brownsville, 

and Southmost College ................................................................................. 33 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35 

Jenks, Rosemary, Director of Government Relations, NumbersUSA .......... 63 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 65 

McClung, John, President and CEO, Texas Produce Association ................ 84 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 86 

Merritt, Kenneth L., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Retired) ..................... 87 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 89 

Neuhaus Schaan, Joan, Executive Director, Houston-Harris County 

Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council .......................................... 68 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 70 

Norris, Ned, Jr., Chairman, Tohono O’odham Nation ................................... 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Pen ̃ a, The Most Rev. Raymundo J., Bishop of the Diocese of Brownsville .. 54 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55 

Pe ́rez, Betty, Local Private Landowner .......................................................... 57 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 59 

Peterson, Laura, Senior Policy Advisor, Taxpayers for Common Sense ...... 91 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 93 

Schultz, Rick, National Borderland Coordinator, U.S. Department of the 

Interior ........................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Taylor, George Zachary, National Association of Former Border Patrol 

Officers ........................................................................................................... 97 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 98 

Vitiello, Ronald D., Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, Office 

of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security ................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Page

VI 

Additional materials supplied: 

Herron, John S.C., Director of Conservation Programs, The Nature 

Conservancy of Texas, Statement submitted for the record ...................... 116 

Purohit, Sandra, Government Relations, Defenders of Wildlife, Statement 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 117 

List of documents submitted for the record ................................................... 129 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ‘‘WALLS AND 

WAIVERS: EXPEDITED CONSTRUCTION OF 

THE SOUTHERN BORDER WALL AND 

COLLATERAL IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES 

AND THE ENVIRONMENT.’’ 

Monday, April 28, 2008 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, 

joint with the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Brownsville, Texas 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in 

Lecture Hall, Science, Engineering and Technology Building (SETB), University of Texas—Brownsville, Brownsville, Texas, Hon. 

Rau ́l Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks] 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bordallo, Faleomavaega, 

Ortiz, and Tancredo. 

Also Present: Representatives Napolitano, Reyes, and Hunter. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The meeting will come to order. If people will have 

their seats. I will appreciate that so we can begin this hearing. Let 

me at the outset thank everybody for their attendance, thank our 

distinguished panels, of which we’ll have three today. And I will 

begin with an opening statement. But before I do that, because of 

the number of panels and the constricted time in terms of some of 

my colleagues on the panel who need to be sure they make their 

travel arrangements, we’re going to ask that all the panelists try 

to keep to a five-minute oral presentation. Your full statements will 

be incorporated into the record, and any extraneous material you 

wish to include, the record will remain open for 10 days for that 

material. 

And as much as I hate to say this, given the fact that we’re all 

Members of Congress and time restrictions are of little effect on us, 

we will also insist that we keep our opening comments to five minutes and our questioning of the witnesses to five minutes so that 

all of us have an opportunity to hear the responses of our 

witnesses. 

2 

Let me begin by saying that this is a joint hearing of the Natural 

Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public 

Lands, and the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, 

and that this hearing come to order. I will ask that all the members present at the outset and those members that are not part of 

these Subcommittees or the Natural Resources Committee be permitted to sit on the dais. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

As I already thanked the witnesses, let me say that the issue before the Subcommittee today is a significant one, and the insight 

offered by our witnesses will be enormously helpful. Let me also 

thank all my colleagues for being here today. I would point out that 

on the dais we have a full Committee Chairman, five Subcommittee 

Chairs, a full Committee Ranking Member, and two former contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination. And—— 

Mr. HUNTER. We’ve got a quorum. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. In particular, let me say a special word of thanks 

to Congressman Solomon Ortiz for hosting this meeting and for the 

courtesy and generosity of him and his staff to those of us that are 

not from the community and are here for this hearing. 

The title of today’s hearing is ‘‘Walls and Waivers: Expedited 

Construction of the Southern Border Wall and the Collateral Impacts on Communities and the Environment.’’ It certainly is a 

mouthful. But it is a mouthful because the issue we are discussing 

today is enormously complex and it involves immigration policy, security policy, economics, culture, history, budget policy, natural resource protection, and much more. And it is that level of complexity 

that makes the current policy, and the waivers being used, so deeply disappointing. 

To examine the history and the culture of the Southwest, to examine its fragile and unique ecosystem, to examine the economic 

and the social factors influencing immigration, and to examine the 

pressing need for our national security, and then to decide the only 

policy solution is a 700-mile fence and a wall is simply a failure 

of leadership. 

The wall is not a solution. In my mind it’s a surrender. This wall 

is an admission of defeat by this Administration and the Congress 

in the face of an important public policy challenge. Likewise, to examine the myriad of laws which protect the air we breathe, the 

water we drink, and the people’s right to know and to participate 

in the policy process and then to decide that the only solution is 

to waive those laws completely is an abdication of our responsibility. 

Some might argue that the simple solutions are often the best, 

and, generally, I would agree. But our current approach to this 

issue is not simple, it’s simplistic. And, therefore, it is a disservice 

to the American people, who require, at this urgent time in our history, more than symbolic initiatives. 

Today’s hearing will focus not only on the negative collateral impact of the fragile southwestern environment but also the people 

and the economy in this area. However, because of the haste and 

the lack of foresight that has categorized this process so far, we 

will only scratch the surface of the real harms the proposed wall 

will cause. 

3 

It is my hope that today’s discussion might be another step toward a more thoughtful, more comprehensive, and more effective 

approach to balancing our many, many competing goals along the 

border, which properly include the security and safety of our borderlands. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Chairwoman of our Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans for any opening comments she may have. Ms. Bordallo. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́ l Grijalva, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Good morning. This joint hearing of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife 

and Oceans will come to order. 

I ask unanimous consent that all Members of Congress in attendance here be allowed to join the Members of the Subcommittees on the dais. Hearing no objection, 

so ordered. 

Let me begin by thanking the witnesses who will be testifying today. The issue 

before the Subcommittees today is a significant one and the insights offered by our 

witnesses will be enormously helpful. 

Let me also thank my colleagues for being here today. I would point out that on 

the dais we have a Full Committee Chairman, five Subcommittee Chairs, a full 

Committee Ranking Member and two former contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination. 

In particular, let me say a special word of thanks to Congressman Solomon Ortiz 

for hosting this meeting here in his Congressional District. 

The title of today’s hearing is: Walls and Waivers, Expedited Construction of the 

Southern Border Wall and Collateral Impacts to Communities and the Environment. 

That title is certainly a mouthful but that is because the issue we are discussing 

today is enormously complex—it involves immigration policy, security policy, economics, culture, history, budget policy, natural resource protection and more. 

And it is that level of complexity that makes the current policy—and the waivers 

being used to pursue it—so deeply disappointing. To examine the history and culture of the Southwest, to examine its fragile and unique ecosystems, to examine the 

economic and social factors influencing immigration and to examine the pressing 

need for our national security, and to then decide that the only policy solution is 

a 700 mile long wall is simply a failure of leadership. 

This wall is not a solution—it is surrender. This wall is an admission of defeat 

by this Administration and the Congress in the face of an important public policy 

challenge. 

Likewise, to examine the myriad laws which protect the air we breathe, the water 

we drink, and the people’s right to know and to participate in the policy process, 

and to then decide the only solution is to waive those laws completely, is simply 

an abdication of our responsibility. 

Some might argue that simple solutions are often the best, and I would agree. 

But our current approach to this issue is not simple, it is simplistic—and therefore 

it is a disservice to the American people. 

Today’s hearing will focus not only on the negative, collateral impacts on the fragile southwestern environment, but also on the people and economy of this area. 

However, because of the haste and lack of foresight that has characterized this process so far, we will only scratch the surface of the real harms the proposed wall will 

cause. 

It is my hope that today’s discussion might be another step toward a more 

thoughtful, more comprehensive, and more effective approach to balancing our many 

competing goals along our borders. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A 

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva. I am 

pleased to join you this morning in co-chairing this important oversight field hearing on matters which generate sharply divergent 

4 

opinions among Members of Congress and within the American 

public. I would also like to thank the president of the University 

of Texas at Brownsville, Dr. Juliet Garcia, and her staff for their 

gracious hospitality and assistance in hosting and coordinating this 

joint field hearing. I also want to thank you, Chairman Grijalva, 

and our colleague, Congressman Solomon Ortiz, for their leadership 

on this issue. And I commend our other colleagues for their sincere 

interest in this matter and for their participation in today’s hearing. 

Few people would challenge the position that the Federal government has a fundamental responsibility to secure our nation’s borders. However, the methods by which our borders are secured and 

the manner by which the Federal government implements this 

strategy are also fundamental to the public’s acceptance and the 

government’s success in meeting this responsibility. Our free and 

open system of representative government is built upon the tenets 

of public participation, robust debate, transparency, and public accountability in decision making. 

Granted, abiding by these tenets often can mean delays, extra 

costs, and, at times, legal challenges. Nonetheless, I believe that 

the only way our government can succeed and endure is if the people themselves feel vested in the important decisions that must affect their daily lives. 

Public involvement in government decision making is just as important on the Island of Guam, which I represent in the U.S. Congress, as it is here along the southern border of Texas. At present 

the Department of Defense is preparing to relocate 8,000 Marines 

and their families from their current base on Okinawa to Guam. 

This move would cost $14 billion. Constituents in my district desperately want to be kept informed of this major project that will 

affect their lives, yet their legitimate desire to be heard is no different than that of the people in the communities here in Texas, 

New Mexico, Arizona and California that will be affected by construction of a southern border wall. 

We need to understand the practical implications of what it will 

mean to our communities and our environment to live on a daily 

basis with a border wall, to the extent that this hearing serves as 

a forum for people finally to be heard by their government, and I 

am honored to provide that opportunity and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do ask 

for unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement and additional materials submitted by The Honorable Eddie Lucio, Jr., a 

Senator in the Texas State Senate. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection. 

[NOTE: The statement submitted for the record by 

Senator Lucio has been retained in the Committee’s official 

files.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me now turn to the Ranking Member, a member of the full Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from 

Colorado, Mr. Tancredo, for comments. 

5 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

COLORADO 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sincerely appreciate 

your holding this hearing for our Subcommittee today because border security, or lack thereof, is an issue that has far-reaching environmental impacts, and I am pleased that we are finally taking 

time to address it. The impact of mass illegal immigration on national security, on economic security, on cultural cohesiveness and 

the rule of law have tended to characterize the debate up to this 

point. On the other hand, environmental degradation, the safety of 

our national parks and natural resources, and the preservation of 

the wilderness areas rarely have been considered despite the fact 

that roughly 43 percent of the border with Mexico is Federal land. 

In the 1990s we used fencing to secure the high-volume corridor 

in San Diego and El Paso, but we left the vast tracts of border vulnerable. The resulting shift in illegal alien activity in areas without 

fencing is now threatening to destroy Federal wildlife refuges and 

the treasured national monuments. Make no mistake, this damage 

continues today and will only worsen if we do not act to protect 

these areas with fencing and infrastructure. 

Illegal aliens and smugglers have created hundreds of new trails 

and roads while crossing borderlands, and in doing so destroyed 

saguaro cactus and other sensitive vegetation that can take decades to recover, including habitat for endangered species. These 

roads and trails disturb wildlife, cause soil erosion and compaction, 

along with the hundreds of vehicles abandoned by smugglers which 

are found on Federal lands each year and are not only expensive 

to remove, but towing them from remote areas can result in additional damage. 

Tons of trash and human waste are left behind each year, affecting wildlife, vegetation and water quality. I’m sure most of us on 

this panel, many of us in this room, have seen sites where after 

a period of time literally sometimes thousands of people have gathered and left tons of trash only to despoil the land and provide a 

danger to the wildlife in the area and to the cattle that are being 

raised in the area. 

The risk of fires is increased from migrants’ traffic as well. Illegal aliens start warming fires and cooking fires and then leave 

them unattended, and extinguishing those fires has added a degree 

of danger—as if that task needs to be even more hazardous. Just 

last week a fire started in the Coronado National Forest. Because 

of the established dangers and well-known routes for illegal immigration and drug-running through this area, a law enforcement 

presence was required to protect the firefighters. This is a common 

practice out there and an all-too-common activity. 

The ecological impacts of uncontrolled illegal immigration on the 

national forests and parks along our southwest border are no secret. The GAO recently documented some of the challenges faced 

by Federal agencies tasked with managing our land. As a member 

of the Natural Resources Committee I helped commission the June 

2000 report entitled ‘‘Border Security: Agencies Need To Better Coordinate Their Inner Strategies and Operations on Federal Land.’’ 

The GAO found that illegal border activity, especially alien border 

6 

crossings and drug smuggling on Federal lands and private lands 

in the Southwest have risen sharply since the mid-1990s, creating 

previously unforeseen problems for land management agencies, 

posing new dangers to law enforcement officers, visitors, employees, and the environment. 

I note with dismay that despite the broad public interest and 75 

percent support for additional border fencing, the 2009 budget for 

the cost of the Border Patrol contains no new funding for border 

fences and barriers beyond the the Secure Border Initiative’s dubious commitment to technological solutions. Only 168 miles of the 

370 miles of planned construction of fencing has been completed 

through March of 2008, along with the 135 miles of the planned 

300 miles of vehicle barriers. In 2008 we will have 370 miles of border fencing on a 1,950-mile Southwest border. 

I hope we can continue to work together to expand our border security through fencing and infrastructure that has proven its effectiveness. Our Federal lands deserve this protection. Ultimately, 

both wilderness and property owners are only as secure as our 

weakest link. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And before Mr. Hunter speaks and— 

he asked for the privilege and we’re happy to accommodate that. 

In my introductions I failed to include the committees that my colleagues chair. Obviously Congressman Reyes, Chairman of the full 

Select Committee on Intelligence; Ms. Grace Napolitano, who is 

with us today, from Natural Resources, our committee. She’s the 

Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power. Mr. Ortiz, Armed 

Services Readiness and Military Construction Subcommittee Chair. 

And our good friend from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, 

who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the 

Global Environment under Foreign Affairs. And we’re proud to 

have them with us today. And with that, let me turn to our colleague Mr. Hunter for any comments he may have. Sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me to the hearing and letting me participate even though 

I’m not a member. And I want to—it’s kind of neat to have such 

great colleagues here at this table along with you and Mr. 

Tancredo; my great colleague from the Armed Services Committee, 

Silvestre Reyes, who I regard as probably the greatest Border Patrol chief in history and a great Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives; Mr. Faleomavaega, my 

good friend; and Grace Napolitano, my colleague from California; 

and, of course, Ms. Bordallo, who represents Guam so ably; and 

Solomon Ortiz, who has given so much to the Armed Services Committee in issues of security. So it’s good to be with you. 

And, you know, one reason I asked to be here is because I wrote 

the border fence law of 1986—or of 2006. It was signed I believe 

October 26 of 2006 by the President. And originally I wrote it to 

mandate almost 854 miles of double border fence across the smuggling corridors of the Southwest. And the reason I did that was 

simple. First, the fence was necessary. And I found that in my 

home district in San Diego—and I’ve got a couple of pictures up 

7 

there in front that show the San Diego—the smugglers’ corridor between San Diego to Tijuana that existed before we built that fence, 

and then a picture after we built the fence. And that’s a double 

fence with a high-speed road running between it. 

And when we built that fence, we did it because the border was 

absolutely out of control. We had 300 drug trucks a month roaring 

across the border loaded with cocaine and marijuana for America’s 

kids. We had massive smuggling of illegal aliens. We had massive 

crime. In fact, we had criminal gangs that roamed the border and 

went back and forth robbing and raping and murdering, an average 

of 10 to 11 murders a year in that deadly border area where nobody would go down from either side of the border as the night 

went down because of the gangs. 

And it was so bad that we finally had to put a plainclothes police 

unit in who dressed like illegal aliens and waited for the border 

gangs to attack them so that they could protect the people who 

were coming across from being murdered or hurt. 

When we built the double fence, we stopped all the drive-through 

drug smuggling cold. We stopped those 300 drug trucks a month. 

We put the border gangs out of business—and many of them were 

armed with automatic weapons—because they lost their ability to 

move back and forth and that’s how they found their security. If 

they were pursued from the north by law enforcement, they would 

step south across the border. If they were pursued from the south 

by the Mexican law enforcement groups, they would step north 

across the border. 

When we put up the double border fence, we took away their mobility and that put them out of business. The drive-through drug 

smuggling went down to zero. The murders on our sector of the 

border went down to zero. The smuggling of people and narcotics 

was reduced from over 202,000 arrests before we put the border 

fence in to less than 9,000. That’s a reduction of more than 90 percent. 

And when we built the fence in Yuma over the last couple of 

years, we’ve seen a reduction there from an astounding figure of 

138,000 arrests to down to less than 4,000. That’s a decrease of 

more than 95 percent. 

So the first point I would make simply, Mr. Chairman, is we 

needed the fence. And, in fact, my great friend Silvestre Reyes was 

one guy who came before our committee as the Border Patrol chief 

and testified in favor of the fence when we were having such a 

tough time getting it through in the 1990s. 

Now, the fence is necessary, and I think the statistics show very 

clearly that the fence works. And it’s necessary for a couple of reasons beyond those we saw in San Diego. Since 9/11 we have to be 

worried about knowing who comes into this country and what they 

bring with them when they come in. 

Now, we caught over 58,000 folks coming across from Mexico last 

year who were not citizens of Mexico. We caught over 800 people 

from Communist China. We caught 14 people from Iran, and we 

caught three people from North Korea. That means anybody in the 

world who has a television set knows that the way to get into the 

United States is no longer through the airports. You get to Mexico—if you have a few bucks you can do that—and you come across 

8 

that border into the United States. We have to know who is coming 

into this country and what they’re bringing with them. 

Now, the question comes up about the waivers. You know, I 

wrote the waiver language also that was inserted in the REAL ID 

Act. And I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, why I did that. The last 

piece of fence that we tried to build in San Diego was Smugglers 

Gulch. That’s a 4-mile stretch where cocaine and people continued 

to be smuggled after we built the rest of the double border fence. 

And we started to get sued by environmentalists. 

We had one action by the environmentalists that required a year 

of study to see if the gnatcatcher would fly over. The gnatcatcher 

is a little bird. It lives on both sides of the border. But we had to 

delay the fence for one year to see if the gnatcatcher would fly over 

the 10-foot high fence. After we determined that, yes, indeed, the 

little critters could get airborne for 10 feet, we then had a series 

of stalling actions by the California Coastal Commission, by Fish 

and Wildlife and other regulatory agencies, and by groups suing. 

And it took us 12 years; 12 years to get that 4 miles of fence started at Smugglers Gulch. At that rate it would take us 2 or 300 

years to get the Southwest border fence built. 

And that, Mr. Chairman, is the reason why I wrote the waiver 

language that allows the Homeland Security Secretary, Mr. 

Chertoff, to make those waivers. Now, he’s had—despite the fact 

that he has waived—he’s invoked and triggered the waivers, he has 

had lots of mitigating actions that have been initiated for fish and 

wildlife. He’s had hundreds of town meetings with people along the 

border, with groups, with office holders. I think he’s done the right 

thing. 

And, finally, I would say this. I think that every family in America who has been touched by the tragedy of illegal drugs has a 

stake in getting this border fence built and built very quickly. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And let me extend the privilege to my 

colleagues. Let me begin with the Chairman, Mr. Reyes, for any 

comments you might want to add as an opening statement, sir. 

Mr. REYES. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a full statement for the record. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No objection. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. REYES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Chairwoman Bordallo 

and my great friend Congressman Ortiz and also Dr. Garcia, good 

to see you again. Good to be back here. Across the way we have 

the sector chief, Chief Vitiello. Thanks for your work and please 

thank all the Border Patrol agents for the work that they do to 

keep us safe. I know how hard they work. I know how dangerous 

that job can be. And I know the circumstances in which you find 

yourself here before this hearing. So thank you for being here and 

thank you again for your leadership. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. REYES. And to my very good friend and someone that I first 

met right here in Brownsville, Congressman Hunter, who was my 

Chairman on the Armed Services Committee, and who is correct, 

9 

I did testify before one of the committees when I was chief in El 

Paso about the unique circumstances and why fencing was necessary out in Congressman Hunter’s district at the time in California. 

I’ve always said that it’s important that we consider the tools 

that are necessary with which to keep our agents safe, with which 

to make their job much more effective. But fencing should be utilized where it makes sense. I’ve always been asked how much fencing do we need on the southern border. Because everybody always 

talks about the southern border and forgets that we have a border 

on the north as well. And I’ve always said probably 10 percent of 

the border needs to—we need to consider the potential for fencing. 

I certainly don’t think that we need 700 miles of border. I think 

it’s ludicrous to even contemplate 2,000 miles of border. We’re having many issues with the areas where we have installed border 

west of El Paso where the fence is so high and so heavy that it’s 

now splitting apart and, literally, an individual can come through 

that fencing. 

It’s a separate issue when we talk about vehicles. It makes sense 

to put a system in that prevents vehicles from running through, 

trucks loaded with narcotics and other things. 

I also believe very strongly that we’re better off by working with 

the Mexican government and working toward a solution where we 

both co-manage the border. It makes—to me it makes better sense. 

I always prioritize. I was a chief here for nine years and three-anda-half years in El Paso before retiring, and I’ve always believed 

that it’s important to prioritize working with your counterparts 

across the border. I know that the chief, and really all chiefs along 

the nine sectors with Mexico, believe that that’s also an essential 

priority that is important. 

Right now we’re working on what we are calling the Merida initiative. It’s a window of opportunity to work with Mexico to help 

them with training and with equipment and also intelligence communications equipment so that they can work with our Border Patrol. And we’re also looking at having them reinstate their own 

Border Patrol, which they had in place up until the early ’60s. 

So there are ways that we can work toward a better-managed 

border. But certainly 700 miles of border or 2,000 miles of fence to 

me is not the solution. We need to understand that there is a 

unique relationship between Mexico and the United States. We 

have the best law enforcement officers in the world wearing that 

green uniform, and they’re the most capable. 

The chief here and chiefs along the border should be consulted 

by DHS and by Congress about what works and what doesn’t. If 

we were to do that, we wouldn’t have to spend $50 billion on 700 

miles of border. We wouldn’t have to spend money that we’re going 

to go back and reinvest in maintenance because it’s too high, too 

heavy, and splitting apart under its own weight. 

And the last thing I want to say is that communities like the one 

that we’re in here—we just came from talking to the director of the 

Audubon, and he had some people there from Seattle who told us 

that they’re able to see the area and they are able to enjoy a habitat that is better than even Central America. These are the things 

we’re going to give up if we succumb to the fear that we need 700 

10 

or 2,000 miles of border. We need common sense is what we need. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Silvestre Reyes, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Texas 

Good morning. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Rau ́l Grijalva and Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo for convening this important hearing. I also want to 

thank my good friend and colleague who represents the city of Brownsville, Congressman Solomon Ortiz. 

Thank you for the opportunity to join you. Today’s hearing is extremely important 

to those of us who represent border communities, and the issues we will discuss are 

especially important to the residents of these communities who will suffer the consequences of political games played by a Republican-led Congress. 

Before coming to Congress, I served for 26 1/2 years as a Border Patrol agent, 

thirteen of which as a Sector Chief, first in McAllen, Texas and later in El Paso. 

On a daily basis, I was forced to deal with the realities of border enforcement and 

illegal immigration. Our mission was to protect America’s 6,000 miles of international land border and 2,000 miles of coastal waterways and to detect and prevent 

people from entering the United States illegally. 

During the course of my career, I patrolled the rough terrain of the United StatesMexico border region, supervised thousands of hard-working, dedicated Border Patrol agents, and did everything within my power to strengthen our borders and reduce illegal immigration. It was a responsibility that my Border Patrol colleagues 

and I took very seriously. 

Nobody understands America’s borders or has a greater interest in securing our 

nation’s borders than those of us who live and work along them every day. That 

is why since coming to Congress, I have lobbied my colleagues for greater resources 

for border security, including additional Border Patrol agents, equipment, and technology. 

As a Border Patrol chief, I supported strategic placement of fencing along the border to assist with operational control. However, I do not support fencing along the 

entire border or even 370 miles for that matter. I voted against the Secure Fence 

Act of 2006, which was a perfect example of political forces masquerading as security measures during Republican control of Congress. 

I have always been a vocal advocate for local community concerns which must be 

taken into account before the Department of Homeland Security begins construction 

on new border fencing. On a number of occasions, I arranged Congressional briefings to ensure other Members of Congress received the proper information regarding 

the fence. Recently, however, the concerns of the border have been overlooked and 

often disregarded. 

When border communities raised legitimate concerns about an issue of great local 

importance a few months ago, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff 

remarked that border communities ought to ‘‘grow up.’’ This ‘‘grow up’’ comment was 

a disappointing message which suggests a lack of understanding of the dynamic nature of border communities. Most recently, the Secretary’s blatant disregard of community concerns was once again demonstrated by his use of a waiver authority to 

set aside more than 30 laws in order to construct the barrier. 

I recently joined 13 of my colleagues in submitting an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to hear an appeal filed by the Sierra Club and the Defenders of the 

Wildlife. I firmly believe that the waiver authority was intended to be used as last 

resort. Instead, the Department has taken the easy way out and shirked its responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the land. 

With that, thank you again for allowing me to participate today. I look forward 

to hearing from the other Members of the panel and our witnesses. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let me now 

turn to my colleague on the Natural Resources Committee, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano from California, for any comments 

she may have. Madam Chair. 

11 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will submit some 

comments for the record. But, first of all, let me say I’m glad to 

be home. I was born and raised and attended Brownsville High 

School and in ’54 graduated and I am partially a part of the Texas 

Southmost College as recognition mentor. So it’s good to be home. 

I do associate myself with the remarks of Congressman Reyes in 

regards to the words about the necessity of a fence and the protection of the men and women who work on our Border Patrol. And 

I’ve known this for many years—since I was in the California State 

House and conducted a three-year study on immigration—that we 

have a failed policy in immigration. So you will consider—you 

will—may as well get used to the fact that nothing is going to 

change until immigration policy is taken care of, because then we 

would be able to hold that flow. We should be going after people 

who pay these individuals under the table and are not honest with 

them. 

The deportations, unless they’re formal, we don’t have enough 

jails to put people in, Federal jails. And it’s unfortunate that we 

have the fence being considered in the south but not on the Canadian border. But where does the concern—the terrorists that supposedly came through the Canadian border and not through the 

Mexican border. And, unfortunately, we seem to take a very dim 

view of people that look like me and the rest of us up here, brown 

skin. 

I am concerned because it is very hypocritical to say that we do 

not want that cheap labor that keeps our economy going in the 

U.S. And, unfortunately, we don’t want to render services, we don’t 

want to be able to take care of them, they should go home if they 

get sick. Unfortunately, our laws are not made to help those that 

help our economy and that help us in the United States. 

So not only is the fence ludicrous—and I agree, we need to stop 

that ability for people to come across, especially when they’re 

smugglers, when they’re rapists, when they’re people who break 

our laws. Those are the ones we do not want in the United States. 

But people who come and help our economy, pay their taxes, send 

their kids to school, and are law abiding, I have no problem with 

them continuing to be a part of the U.S. economy, which is what 

makes this country so great. 

Mr. Chair, we ought to be open and transparent, have honest 

dialogue. And while I was reading some of these submissions, that 

some of the dialogue was only written, was not made public, was 

not open, was not transparent, I think that’s wrong. I want to see 

that hopefully this committee will ask for copies of those submissions by the general public. 

And we need to be able to, as Congressman Reyes did, work with 

our Mexican government to address some of these issues and be a 

little more perceptive of what really needs to be done in the border 

where the people who are suffering will be able to have input in 

the process. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me, if I may, to the people in the 

audience, I understand as much as anybody else the importance of 

12 

this issue and the level of emotion, concern and frustration that 

this issue brings to many of us. I would ask you if you could refrain—you should refrain from the applause or comments from the 

audience. The decorum of this hearing—it’s an important hearing 

and I would hope that you will join with me in respecting that decorum, respecting the panelists. And as much as you agree or disagree with a comment that’s made here, I would hope that you 

would refrain from expressing that publicly. Thank you. 

Let me now turn to my colleague also from the Natural 

Resources Committee, Mr. Faleomavaega, for any comments, the 

gentleman from American Samoa. Sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN 

SAMOA 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like 

to submit for the record my opening statement, and I also want to 

commend you and our Madam Chair Bordallo for calling this joint 

hearing. I would be remiss if I would not also express my deepest 

appreciation to our colleague, Congressman Solomon Ortiz, whose 

district this is and for which hospitality and courtesy has been extended to us, I deeply appreciate; and Dr. Garcia, who’s president 

of this great university, for all the goodness in allowing us to hold 

this hearing in this facility. 

Mr. Chairman, also I want to note a special sense of appreciation 

of my colleagues Congressman Hunter and Congressman Tancredo. 

They will not be with us next Congress, of course, assuming that 

we get reelected, which we don’t know. But I do want to commend 

them. Philosophically, we have very, very different ideas—I acknowledge these—in terms of what direction our country should go. 

But, nevertheless, I have the highest respect for them and they will 

be sorely missed and—serving as members of this great institution 

in the House of Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record with the 

members’ consent the 37 Federal laws that Secretary Chertoff as 

of April 1 of this year has waived to allow him to conduct this border fencing construction project. We have an unwritten rule, Mr. 

Chairman, as I’m sure that all of our colleagues tend to agree—at 

least I certainly agree—that we should always respect the sentiments and the views of the member whose district he or she represents. 

And we’re here specifically to find out what the leaders and the 

citizens of this great city of Brownsville and within the district of 

the representation that Congressman Ortiz offers. I really think 

that our colleagues should pay close attention on the sense of the 

community. And I think we do have some very, very critical issues 

in the fact that we’ve got this 2,000-mile borderline between Mexico 

and the United States. 

I, for one, as I’m sure my colleagues agree, that what Congressman Hunter has shared with us about the serious problems between California and Mexico with the drug trafficking and all the 

things that go on there, there should be some sense of—you know, 

of border fencing, if that’s the purpose. But when it comes to the 

fact that this border fencing thing seems to have little cracks in beVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

tween, that there seems to be some exceptions, that this is really 

not a fence for a 2,000-mile stretch, but little potholes that I would 

call it—why exceptions? 

And I really—it’s my intention, Mr. Chairman, in the course of 

this hearing that I want to look at closely also on the treaty relationship existing between Mexico and the United States on the borders. And if I’m reading this right about Secretary Chertoff given 

the right to waive even the borders existing under the treaty relationship between Mexico and the United States, we have some very 

serious problems here. And it will definitely be my intent to share 

this concern with the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to pursue this as to whether or not we’re honoring our treaty relationship with Mexico when it comes to considering the borderline itself. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I do want to commend you and 

Madam Chairman Bordallo for calling this hearing. I welcome our 

witnesses and look forward to hearing from them. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Last, but certainly not least, let me 

turn to my colleague in whose district we are having the privilege 

of holding this hearing. Mr. Ortiz, any comments? And thank you 

for your hospitality. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I open my statement I would like to have unanimous consent to enter into the 

record statements from our local community for the record. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection, sir. 

[NOTE: A list of documents retained in the Committee’s 

official files can be found on the last page of this hearing.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. And I’d like to thank all the members who are here 

with us today. Chairman Hunter, of course, was my Chairman for 

many years on the House Armed Services Committee. Tancredo 

and I serve on the Natural Resources Committee. And I’d like to 

thank Chairman Bordallo and Chairman Grijalva for blocking this 

time so that we could be here in Brownsville. Chairman Reyes and 

I have known each other for many years when he was the Border 

Patrol sector chief and I was sheriff in Corpus Christi. Mr. 

Faleomavaega and Grace—you know, I think that Brownsville is 

blessed to have two congressmen, Grace and I, to represent this 

area. 

But let me say that every day in Congress we hold committee 

hearings and subcommittee hearings on different issues, topics and 

pieces of legislation. Today this hearing is addressing something 

that will directly impact the culture and the livelihood of our South 

Texas communities, the proposed building of the wall along the 

border. 

The goal here is to give the public a voice and an avenue to discuss their concerns over the border wall and how this is going to 

impact our sensitive environmental lands. I am encouraged by all 

those in attendance today, which shows how important this issue 

is and the vast number of people who will be affected if this wall 

is built. 

14 

You know, securing our nations borders is one of Congress’s main 

priorities. We need to address illegal immigration, drug trafficking, 

and the violence that happens on our communities, both on the border and everywhere else in the United States of America. This 

problem, however, would not be solved by constructing a wall that 

tears through our public and historical lands, forces our citizens to 

surrender their property, and reverses all the work and investment 

that Congress and the local community have done to protect the 

natural environment. 

Now, take, for instance, the very property we’re meeting on right 

now. Right behind this building we have the historic Ft. Brown. It 

served as an integral battleground of the Mexican-American War, 

and troops stationed there fought in the last Civil War battle. The 

proposed border wall would put Ft. Brown on the Mexican side. 

Would we put a wall to divide the battlefield at Gettysburg? 

The Sabal Palm Audubon Center here in Brownsville, home to 

rare birds and endangered wildlife, may also end up on the Mexican side of a planned wall. It is also disturbing that the government is fooling citizens by not giving them a fair market value on 

the lands it intends to seize. Yet our communities are not even 

being given the opportunity to truly voice their concerns. 

The people along the American borders are the most impacted by 

border security policy. We all support border security, but simply 

ask for smart policies. The funding for the wall and the process 

used to begin its construction is not—in my opinion and the opinion 

of many people, is not a smart policy. 

By now we have all heard about the Department of Homeland 

Security’s decision to waive 36 laws that protect our health, environment and quality of life with the stroke of a pen. These 36 laws, 

some of them were enacted back in 1918, and some of them eight, 

10 years ago. If they’re able to waive these 36 laws, what is next, 

that you won’t be able to buy a diesel truck because it’s too expensive to buy the gasoline? What is the next law that they’re going 

to waive? 

And I know that my Chairman controls the time very close to his 

heart, so my time is about to run out. I want to thank the panelists 

for joining us this morning. President Garcia, thank you for allowing us on this beautiful university, and I hope that it will remain 

intact. Thank you so much. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas 

I’d like to thank all of my good friends and colleagues, especially Chairwoman 

Bordallo and Chairman Grijalva, for organizing and attending this hearing and taking time out of their busy schedules to visit South Texas. 

Every day in Congress, we hold committee and subcommittee hearings on different issues, topics, and pieces of legislations. 

Today, this hearing is addressing something that will directly impact the unique 

culture and livelihood of our South Texas communities—the proposed building of a 

wall along the border. 

The goal here is to give the public a voice and an avenue to discuss their concerns 

over the border wall and how it will impact our sensitive environmental lands. 

I am encouraged by all those in attendance today, which shows how important 

this issue is and the vast number of people who will be affected if this wall is built. 

15 

Securing our nation’s borders is one of Congress’ main priorities. We need to address illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and the violence that happens on our 

communities—both on the border and everywhere else in America. 

These problems, however, will be not be solved by constructing a wall that tears 

through our public and historical lands, forces our citizens to surrender their property, and reverses all the work and investment the Congress and local community 

have done to protect the natural environment. 

Take for instance the very property we are meeting on right now. 

Right behind this building we have the Historic Fort Brown. It served as an integral battleground of the Mexican-American war and troops stationed there fought 

in the last Civil War battle. 

The proposed border wall will put Fort Brown on the Mexican side. 

Would we put up a wall to divide the battlefield at Gettysburg? 

The Sabal Palm Audubon Center here in Brownsville, home to rare birds and endangered wildlife, may also end up on the Mexican side of a planned wall. 

It is also disturbing that the government is bullying citizens by not even giving 

them a fair market value on the lands it intends to seize. 

Yet, our communities aren’t even being given the opportunity to truly voice these 

concerns. 

The people along America’s borders are the most impacted by border security policies. We all support border security, but simply ask for smart policies. 

The funding for the wall, and the process used to begin its construction, is not 

smart policy. 

By now, we have all heard about the Department of Homeland Security’s decision 

to waive 36 laws that protect our health, environment, and quality of life with the 

stroke of a pen. 

The National Environmental Policy Act. The Clean Air Act. The Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. The Farmland Protection Policy Act. Are these laws, some 

that have been on the books since 1900, not important enough to consider when we 

talk about building a border wall? 

In 2005, the Republican-controlled Congress granted DHS this power by including 

it into a bill that provided funding for our brave troops in Iraq/Afghanistan and relief to those suffering in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Is that what our federal government is reduced to? Slipping in provisions granting 

them overreaching authority into legislation that is aimed to support our troops 

abroad and our citizens suffering from natural disasters? 

This isn’t the way the founders of our Constitution envisioned our government to 

be. 

There are many opinions on the issue of the border wall, and I sincerely believe 

Congress abdicated some of its responsibilities by giving DHS this blanket waiver 

authority. 

We live in a country ruled by checks and balances, and this decision by DHS will 

set a dangerous precedent. 

I know DHS wants to construct the wall by the end of the year, but we should 

be more concerned with being good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars and doing it 

right not fast. 

In neighboring Hidalgo County, DHS is working with the local officials to put together a plan that will fortify the deficient levees and fulfill the wall requirements. 

The long-overdo refortification of our region’s levees would prevent the potentially 

disastrous damage a flood in the Rio Grande Valley could do. 

This is the type of coordination that needs to be ongoing with all groups, including 

those that are concerned about the environment. 

I therefore fully support Chairman Grijalva’s Borderlands bill, which remedies 

this problem and gives DHS the flexibility to decide what approach is best for border security and allow for land managers, local officials and communities to be a 

part of the border security discussion. 

Again, I thank the Committee, my colleagues and all the witnesses for coming to 

South Texas to discuss this important issue. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz. And let me welcome the 

panel finally. I was trying to avoid us all doing that, but, oh, well. 

Let me ask you—let me at the outset let you know that—all the 

panelists know that we’ll be swearing in the witnesses today. So 

pursuant to Clause 2 of House Rule 11, I ask that the witnesses 

16 

on this panel please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn 

in. Please repeat after me. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let the record indicate that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You are now under oath and we can 

begin with the opening statements. Let me welcome all of you and 

begin the panel discussion with Mr. Rick Schultz, National Borderland Coordinator, Department of Interior. Welcome, sir. Your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RICK SCHULTZ, NATIONAL BORDERLAND 

COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman 

and honorable members of the Subcommittees, I am Rick Schultz, 

the National Borderland Coordinator for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the department’s 

view on the construction of border security infrastructure along our 

nation’s Southwest border. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may, Mr. Schultz, if you want to bring the 

microphone closer to yourself. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. How does this sound? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Much better. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. DOI and its agencies take very seriously the responsibilities to administer the uniquely beautiful and environmentally sensitive lands along the Southwest border. Recognizing 

their ecological and cultural value, we strive to maintain their 

character on behalf of the American people. 

Unfortunately, the safety of our visitors and employees on DOI 

lands has been compromised by drug trafficking and illegal immigration. These unsafe conditions were markedly illustrated within 

DOI by the tragic death in 2002 of Mr. Kris Eggle, a National Park 

Service Ranger. In addition, natural and cultural resources have 

been adversely affected by the illegal activities. These impacts include destruction of wildlife habitats and the dumping of trash and 

vehicles along the border. 

Due in part to our experiences, we recognize the need for our nation to enhance its border security. In this regard we acknowledge 

the border security issues facing the Department of Homeland Security, and believe they fulfill a critical mission for the nation. 

We have made it a priority to work closely with DHS as they 

seek to construct 670 miles of border fence by December of 2008. 

In particular, we have strived to assist DHS in minimizing impacts 

on wildlife, ecosystems, and cultural resources. 

Building border infrastructure, an undertaking with numerous 

players and many moving parts, would present significant challenges even under normal conditions. These challenges are heightened given the short time frame mandated by law for completing 

border fencing. 

We have regular and open dialogue with DHS at several levels 

and have found them to be sensitive to DOI’s mission. Where 

avoidance or minimization of impacts upon environmental and cultural resources was not possible, DHS has significantly mitigated 

these impacts. 

17 

Still, there have been some challenges related to DHS’s extremely compressed time frame and the complexity of the issues. 

These factors have challenged our field managers as they strive to 

fulfill their missions and uphold their statutory responsibilities. We 

very much appreciate their hard work, their concerns and their 

dedication as they address these difficult border security issues. 

When Secretary Chertoff recently invoked REAL ID Act waivers 

of certain environmental and DOI-administered statutes, he reaffirmed DHS’s commitment to environmental stewardship. This 

commitment included mitigation funding up to $50 million for 

threatened and endangered species to offset impacts associated 

with pedestrian and vehicle fences. DHS also identified the need 

for wetland and cultural resource mitigation. 

As requested, my written testimony contains several examples 

that illustrate our efforts. These include cooperative efforts to remove the invasive salt cedar on DOI lands and Cocopah tribal 

lands for security purposes. They include DHS mitigation funding 

for several endangered species, including the Sonoran pronghorn, 

and they include the remediation of inadvertently damaged cultural resource sites. Collectively these projects reflect the DHS and 

DOI commitment to minimize the impact of border infrastructure 

on these natural and cultural resources. 

Without diminishing the value of the above efforts, the construction of border security infrastructure on DOI land results in a 

mixed bag of environmental benefits and adverse environmental effects. Although some of our ecological communities may recover, 

due to the infrastructure, the footprint of the fence and the associated access roads result in other adverse impacts. These impacts 

include inhibiting the movement of certain wildlife species, some of 

which are threatened or endangered species. 

Within national wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, our governing statutes prohibit us from permitting the construction of certain border security infrastructure. When we informed DHS of 

these facts, they ultimately chose to exercise their waiver under 

the REAL ID Act. 

Now, in an ideal world, the need would not exist to construct border fences to enhance our nation’s security. In reality, however, 

Congress has directed DHS to construct this border security infrastructure. Our challenge has been achieving the above while maintaining the integrity of these ecologically and culturally sensitive 

lands. Although more needs to be done, we believe we’re on the 

right track in developing open dialogue, tangible mitigation alternatives, and a strong relationship with our colleagues within DHS. 

And this concludes my remarks. And thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to express our views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz follows:] 

Statement of Rick Schultz, National Borderland Coordinator, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chairwoman, and Members of the Subcommittees, I am Rick 

Schultz, National Borderland Coordinator, Department of the Interior (DOI). 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Interior Department’s view on the construction of border security infrastructure along our Nation’s southwest border. As 

manager of one in every five acres of the United States, the DOI’s land managing 

agencies, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, take very seriously our reVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
18 

sponsibility to administer uniquely beautiful and environmentally sensitive lands 

along the southwest border. Recognizing the significant ecological and cultural values of extensive lands managed by Interior near this border, we strive to maintain 

their character and fulfill our mission to protect and preserve these assets on behalf 

of the American people. 

The safety of both visitors and employees on DOI lands has been significantly 

compromised by drug trafficking and the illegal, cross-border flow of people. These 

unsafe conditions were markedly illustrated by the tragic deaths of Mr. Kris Eggle, 

a National Park Service Ranger, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in 2002 

and of Luis Aguilar, a senior U.S. Border Patrol agent, earlier this year at the 

BLM’s Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in California. Many of the natural and 

cultural resources under our responsibility have also been adversely affected by the 

illegal activities. These impacts include but are not limited to destruction of wildlife 

habitats; trampling of vegetation and increased soil erosion; and the deposition of 

human trash and vehicles along the border, including within wilderness areas. 

We recognize the need for our Nation to enhance its border security. In this regard, we acknowledge the border security issues facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS fulfills a critical mission for the Nation. 

Several years ago, DOI, USDA, and DHS recognized the need to coordinate management of border security with the management of DOI and USDA managed lands 

near the border. Consequently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 

DHS, the Department of Agriculture, and DOI was entered into in 2006. This MOU, 

which is focused on land management and law enforcement related issues, has 

served to set the tone for ongoing dialogue and a positive relationship between DHS 

and DOI. 

Consultation with DHS 

Due to our significant interests in the southwest border, Interior has made it a 

priority to work closely with DHS as DHS seeks to construct 670 miles of border 

fence by December 2008. In particular, Interior has strived to assist DHS in minimizing impacts on wildlife, ecosystems, and cultural resources. Building border infrastructure, an undertaking with numerous players and many moving parts, would 

present significant challenges even under normal conditions. These challenges are 

heightened given the short timeframe mandated by law for completing border fencing. Despite these circumstances, DHS has included Interior in discussions focused 

on constructing border security infrastructure in a manner that minimizes its impact upon environmental and cultural resources. 

Consultation between DHS and DOI on border environmental and cultural resource issues occurs both at the national and field levels. We have regular and open 

dialogue with DHS concerning a variety of issues. Recently, DOI established the position of National Borderland Coordinator, the position I currently occupy. My primary responsibilities are to work with DHS to address environmental and cultural 

resource issues that otherwise could not be resolved at the field level. My presence 

and involvement in border security activities have been well-received within DHS. 

This connection has helped strengthen the working relationship between our respective agencies. 

I have found both leadership and staff in DHS headquarters to be sensitive to 

DOI’s mission, responsibilities, and related concerns. Where avoidance or minimization of impact upon environmental and cultural resources was not possible, DHS 

has demonstrated its commitment to mitigating these impacts. Several examples 

within this testimony illustrate this commitment. 

Still, there have been some challenges related to DHS’s extremely compressed 

time frame, their use of several contractors and subcontractors, and the complexity 

of issues. These factors have challenged our managers as they strive to fulfill their 

missions and uphold their statutory responsibilities. In many cases, including the 

construction of the border fence within the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the infrastructure was modified to accommodate DOI concerns. 

We appreciate the hard work and dedication of our field managers as they have 

strived to address border security issues affecting their units. Our managers operate 

in often risky circumstances along the border. They share the Nation’s desire for a 

secure and safe border. At the same time, they are dedicated to fulfilling this Department’s mission and upholding our statutory and regulatory responsibilities. 

Working with DHS remains a priority, one that continues following Secretary Michael Chertoff’s decision to invoke Real ID Act waivers of certain environmental, 

DOI-administered, and other statutes in April of 2008. DHS remains committed to 

working with DOI to address complex border issues, including environmental issues. 

We see the continuing need for a long and productive relationship between our reVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
19 

spective agencies that extends far beyond the construction of border security infrastructure. 

When DHS Secretary Chertoff invoked two Real ID Act waivers for the expedited 

construction of border security infrastructure, he reaffirmed DHS’s commitment to 

environmental stewardship. This commitment, as it applies to DOI-administered 

lands and programs, included mitigation funding up to $50 million for threatened 

and endangered species. Projects to be funded are conservation measures previously 

identified by Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) field biologists in cooperation with 

others. DHS also identified the need for wetland and cultural resource mitigation. 

In addition to these funding provisions, Secretary Chertoff has also reaffirmed 

DHS’s commitment to solicit and respond to the needs of State, local, and tribal governments, other agencies of the federal government, and local residents. Overall, 

these measures represent a very positive commitment by DHS in recognizing its environmental stewardship responsibilities for endangered species, wetlands, and cultural resources. 

Securing our Nation’s border is our collective challenge. How do we best enhance 

our Nation’s border security while maintaining the integrity of these ecologically 

and culturally sensitive lands? Although we have yet to fully address all of these 

issues, we believe we are on the right track in developing open dialogue, tangible 

mitigation alternatives, and a strong relationship with our colleagues within DHS. 

DOI Experiences 

As you requested, I would like to provide several examples that illustrate our collective efforts at the border. 

• Example 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC System. The Service is currently working with DHS on ways to streamline and enhance the endangered 

species consultation process. As part of this effort, the Information Planning 

and Consultation (IPaC) system is being developed, with some funding provided 

by DHS. This online system will result in timely input and faster decisions associated with threatened and endangered species. In addition, the preparation 

of biological assessments and associated biological opinions for future border security activities will be streamlined. 

• Example 2. Sonoran Pronghorn Mitigation. As mitigation for construction of a 

hybrid pedestrian fence on the Barry M. Goldwater Range and for a vehicle 

fence on Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, the Service and DHS reached 

agreement in 2006 on conservation measures for the Sonoran pronghorn that 

inhabits the area. More specifically, $811,980 will be provided to the Service for 

development of three wells, three forage enhancement plots, and associated 

water supplies. DOI is currently working with DHS on the potential impacts 

to the pronghorn in other areas. For example, we are currently in discussions 

with DHS regarding the significant adverse effects that towers proposed on the 

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge would have on the Sonoran pronghorn. 

We have provided DHS with options for relocating these towers to an area that 

would minimize their effects, but still address border security concerns. 

• Example 3. San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area. The Real ID Act 

waiver of certain Federal environmental laws and select DOI-administered statutes in October 2007 allowed construction of a pedestrian fence on this Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) unit to move forward on schedule. The Secretary 

invoked his waiver authority to ensure the expeditious construction of the fencing in light of a lawsuit filed by the Defenders of Wildlife alleging the inadequacy of the National Environmental Policy Act review of this project. Despite 

the waiver and as a result of close coordination with DOI, a historic corral and 

one prehistoric Native American village and burial site located within the footprint of the fence construction activities were not disturbed during construction 

because DHS developed and implemented a data recovery plan that was completed at a cost of over $800,000. Currently, the BLM, which is responsible for 

administering the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 

this area, is properly caring for the remains from the disturbed grave sites. We 

believe this experience highlights the benefits of effective field level coordination 

between DHS and DOI for projects of this nature. 

• Example 4. Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. In 2007, DHS proposed to 

construct 0.8 miles of pedestrian fence across Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge in Arizona. Its footprint, including the access road, was located outside 

the Roosevelt Reservation and comprised approximately 5.8 acres. Since the 

construction of the fence would be inconsistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Service and DHS reached agreement to 

execute a land exchange for the property in question. Currently, potential lands 

for this exchange have been identified and appraisals of these properties are in 

20 

process. The benefit to the Service was an agreement with DHS to replace adversely affected acreage with land of equal monetary value and possibly higher 

quality habitat. • Example 5. Remediation of Cultural Resource Sites. A cultural resource site located near Columbus, New Mexico, was inadvertently damaged by a National 

Guard unit working on behalf of DHS in the fall of 2006. DHS reached an 

agreement with the BLM under which DHS committed to paying the full cost 

of restoring this site. Funds amounting to approximately $250,000 from DHS 

have been made available for this remediation. 

Inadvertent damage to a second cultural resource site was also discovered 

in southeastern Arizona on BLM lands. Work is proceeding in cooperation 

with DHS to fully remediate this site as well. • Example 6. Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge. The Service has been 

working very closely with DHS to minimize impacts to threatened and endangered species from the proposed pedestrian fence on the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge. Several field meetings were held and, initially, fence design and locations were modified to either avoid or minimize impacts particularly as they related to the wildlife corridor. Where avoidance or minimization 

was not achieved, the Service proposed the acquisition of an additional 1,700 

acres of land to offset the impacts of the proposed pedestrian fence. The cost 

of these lands is estimated at $7 million which DHS has committed to providing 

as part of the $50 million set aside for threatened and endangered species mitigation projects. 

• Example 7. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. The southeastern portion 

of this unit of the National Park Service (NPS) was identified for pedestrian 

fence near the Lukeville, Arizona, Port of Entry. Of particular concern to NPS 

was the impact of this proposed fence and its access road on ecological communities located on Monument Hill. From the DHS security perspective, control of 

illegal entry within this area using pedestrian fence was very important. After 

extended negotiations at the field level, DHS was permitted to construct the 

fence in exchange for mitigation. To offset the environmental impacts of this infrastructure, DHS committed to funding conservation measures amounting to 

$964,000 (as part of their commitment to fund up to $50 million for threatened 

and endangered species). These conservation measures were largely determined 

by Service biologists in consultation with the NPS and DHS engineers. 

• Example 8. Lower Colorado River Limitrophe. High numbers of rapes, robberies, and assaults on immigrants and border patrol agents were occurring on 

BLM and Bureau of Reclamation-managed lands located in the Lower Colorado 

River Limitrophe in Arizona (on the border by Baja, California, Mexico). Heavy 

vegetation provided cover to drug traffickers and other criminals. In April 2007, 

BLM led a cooperative effort to begin expeditious removal of invasive salt cedar 

that was providing cover for this criminal activity. The multi-agency team, including the BLM, Reclamation, DHS, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the State 

of Arizona, Yuma County, and the Cocopah Tribe, are continuing this effort to 

treat the remaining 1,895 acres of DOI-managed lands, 3,020 acres of Cocopah 

tribal land, and 337 acres of private land. 

Impacts upon National Wildlife Refuges and Federal Treaty Obligations 

As indicated above, the construction of border security infrastructure on public 

lands, national parks, national wildlife refuges, and tribal lands results in a mixed 

bag of environmental benefits and adverse environmental effects. On one hand, valuable wildlife habitats and ecological communities may benefit from the infrastructure by reducing illegal, cross-border immigration. On the other hand, the construction of pedestrian barriers also inhibits the movement of large mammals, some of 

which are threatened or endangered species. To a certain degree, DOI-recommended 

modifications to fence designs or fence locations have minimized the adverse effects 

of the fence on these species. In other cases, offsetting mitigation measures are required to reduce the overall impact of the border security infrastructure. 

Within national wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, our governing statutes prohibit us from permitting the construction of certain border security infrastructure 

as proposed by DHS. In light of this, we informed DHS of these facts as they were 

preparing to construct infrastructure on these lands. Ultimately, DHS chose to exercise its authority under the Real ID Act to waive these and other statutes associated 

with the administration of DOI lands. 

During our discussions, DHS was made aware of our responsibilities for migratory 

bird species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Although additional work needs 

to be completed in this area, several best management practices developed in cooperation with DHS for threatened and endangered species also apply to migratory 

21 

birds. At a minimum, use of these best management practices will reduce the impact of the border infrastructure on these species. 

Closing Comments 

In an ideal world and under differing circumstances, the need would not exist to 

construct border fences and related infrastructure to enhance our Nation’s security 

or reduce the influx of drug trafficking. In reality, however, Congress has directed 

DHS to construct border security infrastructure. A project of this scope cannot be 

accomplished without affecting both environmental and cultural resources. The challenges for DOI and DHS are complex. On the negative side, we have some adverse 

environmental impacts. On the positive side, border infrastructure, including pedestrian and vehicle fences, is expected to increase our visitor and employee safety, reduce drug trafficking, reduce the deposition of human trash, and in some cases lessen adverse environmental effects to wildlife habitats and related ecological communities. We also appreciate DHS’s commitment to provide funding for mitigation activities, and pledge to use those funds to implement critical measures that will help 

minimize possible adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources. 

In closing, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Ms. Chairwoman, for 

the opportunity to express our views. As stated above, both DHS and DOI have 

faced some complex challenges in balancing our Nation’s security with maintaining 

the quality of our environment. We do not expect these challenges to diminish, 

which means that our close working relationships will continue to be crucial to our 

effectiveness far into the future. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Let me now turn to Chief Ronald 

Vitiello, Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, Office of 

Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Patrol, United 

States Department of Homeland Security. Thank you, sir, for being 

here, Chief, and we appreciate and look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD D. VITIELLO, CHIEF PATROL AGENT, 

RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL, 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. VITIELLO. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, Chairman 

Grijalva and distinguished members. My name is Ronald Vitiello. 

I’m the Chief Patrol Agent of the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley 

Sector. I am honored to appear on behalf of the U.S. Border Patrol 

to discuss our duties, responsibilities, operations, and national 

strategy. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for protecting 

more than 4,000 miles of border with Canada, 1,900 miles of border 

with Mexico, and about 2,600 miles of coastal border to include the 

island of Puerto Rico. 

The U.S. Border Patrol is the sole entity responsible for securing 

our nation’s borders between the official ports of entry and bases 

its operations on the national Border Patrol strategy. To that end 

our objectives are to apprehend terrorists and terrorist weapons illegally entering the United States; to deter entries through improved enforcement; detect, apprehend and deter smugglers of humans, drugs and other contraband; and to improve the quality of 

life of border communities by reducing crime and the economic vitality—and enhancing economic vitality in these areas. 

The Border Patrol uses a combination of efforts in achieving our 

goals. The Border Patrol depends on a defense in depth posture utilizing agents in the field, interior immigration checkpoints, and coordinating enforcement operations, as well as partnerships with 

other Federal, tribal and state law enforcement agencies. 

22 

During Fiscal Year 2007 alone, the Border Patrol apprehended 

nearly 877,000 persons attempting to enter the United States illegally, including human smugglers, drug traffickers and illegal 

aliens, and seized over 1.8 million pounds of marijuana and more 

than 14,000 pounds of cocaine. As of April 20th, 2008, this Fiscal 

Year 2008, the Border Patrol has arrested 422,000 illegal aliens, 

seized 952,847 pounds of marijuana and over 6,600 pounds of cocaine. In this area of responsibility, my area, the Rio Grande Valley 

Sector, in 2008 we have apprehended just over 42,000 illegal aliens 

and seized 189,377 pounds of marijuana and 3,461 pounds of cocaine. 

Securing our nation’s diverse border terrain is an important and 

complex task that cannot be resolved by a single solution alone. To 

secure each unique mile of border requires a balance of personnel, 

technology and tactical infrastructure that is tailored to each specific environment. The installation of fencing has proved to be an 

effective tool to slow, redirect and deter illegal entries, especially 

in certain areas where personnel and technology alone cannot sufficiently secure the border. 

It is important to note that the flow of illegal traffic not only 

jeopardizes our ability to secure our borders, but it has also caused 

severe and profound impacts to the environment. For example, illegal roads divert the normal flow of water and rob native plant 

cover of the moisture it depends on to survive. Illegal entrants also 

leave trash and high concentrations of human waste, which impact 

wildlife, vegetation and water quality. Numerous wildfires caused 

by campfires of illegal entrants have caused a significant threat to 

human safety and the lands along the border, as well as impacts— 

increased impacts to soil, vegetation, cultural sites and other sensitive resources. 

We believe the efforts to stem illegal border—cross border activity in certain areas of high traffic will result in an improvement to 

the environment and increase the public’s ability to enjoy it as a 

resource. 

In addition to our commitment to responsible environmental 

stewardship, CBP continues to solicit and respond to the needs of 

state, local and tribal governments, other agencies of the Federal 

government, and local residents. 

CBP has gone to great lengths to obtain public input throughout 

our planning efforts regarding the construction of fence along the 

Southwest border. As a result of these outreach efforts, there were 

many instances where we were able to make modifications to our 

original plans to accommodate landowner/community concerns 

while still meeting our operational needs. 

One of the best examples of our cooperation efforts can be seen 

in the levee barrier project in Hidalgo County, Texas. Hidalgo 

County had plans to use local funds to raise levees along the Rio 

Grande River to address flood protection concerns. The county and 

other local officials proposed integrating a concrete retaining wall 

into the levee improvement project along the 22 miles of the southern side of the levee and committed to completing the project within CBP’s planned cost. 

Within the Rio Grande Valley we have also made numerous 

alignment changes to the proposed fence segments to limit impacts 

23 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge areas, a bird 

watching observation facility in the city of Roma, and negate the 

need to relocate approximately 30 residents. 

The Border Patrol’s objective is nothing less than securing operation control of the border. We recognize the challenges of doing so 

and we have done so for many years. Our national strategy gives 

us the means by which to achieve our ambitious goal. We face 

these challenges every day with vigilance, dedication to service, 

and integrity, as we work to strengthen and protect America and 

its citizens. 

In closing, let me add some important points to assist in understanding our operations. Those of us pursuing operational control 

of the border recognize that fencing alone will not solve our problems. It is not a solution. We have always planned to supplement 

tactical infrastructure and mix it properly with significant technology enhancements, along with a well-informed and equipped 

Border Patrol agent deployment. 

Despite predicted changes in traffic patterns once the fencing is 

installed, we will continue to deploy much as today. Here in the Rio 

Grande Valley we will be present along the border on both sides 

of any fence. We will be in the river, at the water’s edge, and on 

the patrol roads used currently and those constructed with fencing. 

No land will be ceded to Mexico. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today and for your support of the CBP and DHS missions. 

I will be pleased to respond to your questions, and I would also like 

to thank Dr. Garcia for her continued hospitality to the Border Patrol and for allowing this hearing today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vitiello follows:] 

Statement of Ronald D. Vitiello, Chief Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley 

Sector, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Department of Homeland Security 

CHAIRWOMAN BORDALLO, CHAIRMAN GRIJALVA, AND DISTINGUISHED 

MEMBERS: My name is Ronald Vitiello, and I am the Chief Patrol Agent of the 

Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley Sector. I am honored to appear on behalf of the 

U.S. Border Patrol to discuss our responsibilities, operations, and National Strategy. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for protecting more than 

4,000 miles of border with Canada, 1,900 miles of border with Mexico, and 2,627 

miles of coastal border to include the island of Puerto Rico. The U.S. Border Patrol 

is the sole entity responsible for securing our Nation’s borders between the official 

ports of entry and bases its operation on the Border Patrol National Strategy. To 

that end, our objectives are to apprehend terrorists, and terrorist weapons illegally 

entering the United States; to deter entries through improved enforcement; detect, 

apprehend and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other contraband; and to improve the quality of life in border communities. The Border Patrol uses a combination of efforts in achieving our goal. The Border Patrol depends on a ‘‘defense in 

depth’’ posture, utilizing agents in the field, interior immigration checkpoints, and 

coordinated enforcement operations, as well as partnerships with other federal and 

state law enforcement agencies. 

During Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 alone, Border Patrol agents apprehended 876,704 

persons (858,638 on the southwest border) attempting to enter the United States illegally, including human smugglers, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens, and seized 

1,859,299 pounds of marijuana and 14,242 pounds of cocaine. As of April 20, 2008, 

in FY2008, the Border Patrol has arrested 422,433 illegal aliens (411,329 on the 

southwest border) and seized 952,847 pounds of marijuana and 6,625 pounds of cocaine. In my area of responsibility, the Rio Grande Valley Sector, in FY2008 alone 

we have apprehended 42,004 illegal aliens and seized 189,377 pounds of marijuana 

and 3,461 pounds of cocaine. 

24 

Securing our Nation’s diverse border terrain is an important and complex task 

that cannot be resolved by a single solution alone. To secure each unique mile of 

the border requires a balance of personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure 

(such as roads, pedestrian and vehicle fencing, and lights) that is tailored to each 

specific environment. The installation of fencing has proven to be an effective tool 

to slow, redirect, and deter illegal entries, especially in certain areas where personnel and technology alone cannot sufficiently secure the border. 

For example, in an urban environment, an illegal entrant can be across the border 

and into the community in a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds. In this environment, fencing provides a critical barrier. In a rural environment agents have more 

time to bring an illegal incursion to the proper resolution, making it more likely 

that vehicles will be used as a conveyance for getting from the point of entry to staging areas and community infrastructure that supports them. In this environment, 

vehicle fence can be utilized to prevent vehicles from entering and limit the speed 

and carrying capability of illegal entrants, along with sensor and surveillance technology to detect and track illegal entrants on foot. Remote areas may be completely 

uninhabited with no roads at or near the border. It could take someone hours or 

even days to be able to cross the border and get to a road or community infrastructure. Vehicle fence could be applied to remote areas where a vehicle could travel 

cross-country. 

The effectiveness of tactical infrastructure can be seen in the 14-mile congressionally mandated fence in San Diego, California, which, in combination with increased 

personnel and technology, has proved effective in reducing the number of apprehensions made in the San Diego Sector. Over a 12 year period between 1992 and 2004, 

overall apprehensions made in the San Diego Sector declined by 76 percent. The Imperial Beach and Chula Vista Stations, whose areas of responsibilities fall within 

the 14-mile project area, combined for 361,125 apprehensions in 1992. By 2004, total 

apprehensions in these two stations dropped to 19,038 as a result of the increase 

in fencing, manpower, and technology. 

In the Yuma Sector during the same 12 year period, apprehensions increased by 

591 percent. More recently, however, no sector has seen a bigger decrease in apprehensions and vehicle drive-throughs. With the addition of tactical infrastructure and 

increased staffing over the past two years, apprehensions in the Yuma Sector in 

FY2007 decreased by 68 percent and are down 76 percent to date in FY2008. Vehicle drive-through traffic within the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) decreased 

from 694 in FY2006 to 251 in FY2007 and 150 in FY2008 (all statistics covering 

only the timeframe between October 1 and April 3 of the given fiscal year). Vehicle 

drive-through activity elsewhere within the Yuma Sector during the same time period decreased from 423 in FY2006 to 145 in FY2007 and 0 in FY2008. 

In fact, Congress recognized that tactical infrastructure is critical to securing the 

Nation’s borders by mandating that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

‘‘achieve and maintain’’ operational control of the border and requiring DHS to construct—in the most expeditious manner possible—the infrastructure necessary to 

deter and prevent illegal entry. DHS is responding to this mandate and installing 

fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on hundreds of miles of the 

southwest border. DHS will have 670 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing completed by the end of December 2008. These priority miles of fencing are to be constructed in areas where fencing would be most practical and effective in deterring 

smugglers and aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States. 

Operational assessments by the local Border Patrol agents and Chiefs—based on 

illegal cross-border activity and the Border Patrol’s extensive field experience—identified multiple locations where fencing would most effectively enhance border security. These operational assessments identified approximately 370 miles of pedestrian 

fencing. In Rio Grande Valley Sector, I identified approximately 70 miles of border 

on which pedestrian fencing is operationally necessary to gain effective control of 

the border, and my fellow Sector Chiefs performed these same assessments in their 

areas of operation. 

In addition to the Border Patrol’s operational assessments, several other factors 

contribute to decisions to construct tactical infrastructure in certain locations, including engineering assessments, which include the cost to construct; environmental 

assessments; and input from state and local stakeholders, including landowners. 

Each of these steps is a standard element of the planning process that enables us 

to make informed decisions in deploying the right mix of tactical infrastructure. 

As noted earlier, to meet our operational goals, DHS is committed to building a 

total of 370 miles of pedestrian fence and 300 miles of vehicle fence along the southwest border by the end of December 2008. In a letter to Secretary Chertoff on March 

20, 2008, Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior James Cason informed him that 

while Department of the Interior (DOI) managers were attempting to facilitate the 

25 

construction of border infrastructure on federal land, they had come to realize DOI 

could not accommodate approval of some tactical infrastructure projects based on 

legal obligations. 

Given these obstacles and the ambitious timeline for a project of this scope and 

scale, on April 1, 2008, Secretary Chertoff determined that it was necessary to utilize the authority given to him by Congress to waive any legal requirements he determined necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of infrastructure needed 

to secure the border. Absent the Secretary’s use of the waiver authority, it would 

not be possible to achieve the objectives set forth. The first waiver applies to certain 

environmental and land management laws for various project areas along the southwest border, encompassing roughly 470 total miles. The waiver will facilitate additional pedestrian and vehicle fence construction, towers, sensors, cameras, detection 

equipment, and roads in the vicinity of the border. The second waiver was signed 

for the levee-border barrier project in Hidalgo County, Texas. This roughly 22-mile 

project will strengthen flood protection in the area while providing the Border Patrol 

with important tactical infrastructure. In addition to environmental and land management laws, this waiver addresses other legal and administrative impediments to 

completing this project by the end of the calendar year. 

In planning for a project of this magnitude, DHS cannot anticipate every potential 

legal impediment that may arise during construction. Accordingly, each law listed 

in the waivers was either an immediate impediment to expeditious construction or 

was determined to be a potential source of administrative delay or litigation. As Secretary Chertoff stated in his April 1, 2008, press release concerning the waiver, 

‘‘criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation.’’ 

However, the Secretary’s decision to invoke his waiver authority does not mean 

that CBP has turned its back on environmental stewardship or continued consultation with stakeholders who will be directly affected by the construction of new border infrastructure. We will continue to coordinate closely with the federal land managers to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are minimized to the fullest extent practicable. 

As an example of our commitment to the environment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) representatives participated in the first comprehensive review of 

the proposed fence alignment in the Rio Grande Valley in September 2007. USFWS 

provided comments on each fence section and made suggestions, where necessary, 

relative to fence realignments that would substantially reduce potential impacts to 

threatened and endangered species, or would impact components of the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and nature reserves in the region. Throughout the planning process, the USFWS has continued to provide advice on the fence 

types and alignment of the fence project segments, including input regarding incorporating cat passages into the fence in specific areas that have the potential to serve 

as movement corridors for the ocelot and jaguarondi. 

It is important to note that the flow of illegal pedestrian and vehicle traffic across 

the border not only jeopardizes our ability to secure our borders, but it has also 

caused severe and profound impacts to the environment. For example, illegal roads 

divert the normal flow of water and rob native plant cover of the moisture it depends on to survive. Illegal entrants also leave trash and high concentrations of 

human waste, which impact wildlife, vegetation, and water quality. Numerous 

wildfires caused by campfires of illegal entrants have caused a significant threat to 

human safety and the lands along the border, as well as increased impacts to soil, 

vegetation, cultural sites, and other sensitive resources. We believe that efforts to 

stem illegal cross border activity in certain areas of high traffic will result in an 

improvement to the environment and increase the public’s ability to enjoy it as a 

resource. 

In addition to our commitment to responsible environmental stewardship, CBP 

continues to solicit and respond to the needs of state, local, and tribal governments, 

other agencies of the federal government, and local residents. CBP has gone to great 

lengths to obtain public input throughout our planning efforts regarding the construction of fence along the southwest border. CBP has engaged in extensive discussions about the placement of fencing with state and local stakeholders, including repeated consultations with landowners. CBP has contacted more than 600 different 

landowners, hosted 11 public open houses, held 15 publicly-advertised town hall 

meetings, and conducted 84 meetings with state and local officials and public 

groups. 

As a result of these outreach efforts, there are many instances where we were 

able to make modifications to our original plans to accommodate landowner/community concerns while still meeting our operational needs. For example, we made numerous alignment changes to the Rio Grande Valley segments to limit impacts to 

26 

the USFWS National Wildlife Refuge areas, a bird watching observation facility in 

the City of Roma, and negate the need to relocate approximately 30 residences. The 

fence alignment at the Roma Port of Entry (POE) was initially proposed to be on 

top of a 30-foot bluff. During our site visit in September, it was determined that 

placing the fence at the top of the bluff would impact historical buildings and bring 

about constructability issues. Based on these findings, Border Patrol, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and USFWS came to a compromise to construct the fence at 

the bottom of the bluff, where it would still provide operational utility. We will continue to consult with our state and local stakeholders, including landowners, to ensure that our investments effectively balance border security with the diverse needs 

of those that live in border communities. 

The Border Patrol’s objective is nothing less than securing operational control of 

the border. We recognize the challenges of doing so, as we have dealt with them 

for many years. Challenges continue to lie ahead and the need for a comprehensive 

enforcement approach remains. Our national strategy gives us the means by which 

to achieve our ambitious goal. We face these challenges every day with vigilance, 

dedication to service, and integrity as we work to strengthen national security and 

protect America and its citizens. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

present this testimony today and for your support of CBP and DHS. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you might have at this time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Chief. Let me now ask The Honorable 

Chad Foster, Mayor, City of Eagle Pass, for your comments. Welcome, Mayor. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHAD FOSTER, MAYOR, 

CITY OF EAGLE PASS, TEXAS 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, sir. Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman 

Bordallo, and Subcommittee members. I’m Chad Foster, mayor of 

the City of Eagle Pass and Chairman of the Texas Border Coalition. I’m speaking today on behalf of 2.1 million Americans in 14 

border counties on the 1,250-mile Texas-Mexico border. Our region 

is a region of contrast, tradition and culture. The multinational, 

multicultural nature of our community on both sides of the international boundary gives our region a distinct sense of place. 

You are in a place today where the blending of cultures is 

unique, where Brownsville and Matamoros played central roles in 

shaping the history of our continent. Two civil wars occurred simultaneously right here and created such a cross-cultural alliance that 

we could spend days rediscovering it. Welcome to our home. 

The Texas Border Coalition thanks you for your leadership in exploring the issues related to the border wall and the waivers of the 

Federal law executed by the Department of Homeland Security— 

Michael Chertoff, Secretary—to expedite the construction. 

The proposed fencing of the Texas-Mexico border has been built 

on a false premise that one size fits all. The reality is that Texas 

is the only southern state with a natural international boundary in 

the majestic Rio Grande River. 

Farmers irrigate from the river, ranchers water their herds from 

the river, and children are baptized in the river. It truly is a river 

of life. That’s why any physical barrier must first take into consideration how to minimize the impact on private landowners as well 

as the many municipalities that hug the banks of the river. To this 

day, this has not been the case. 

The Texas Border Coalition supports smart and effective measures that will achieve true border security, such as the Vega 

Project in Webb County, the Eagle Pass Park project, the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project, and clearing the banks of the Rio 

27 

Grande, north and south, of vegetation such as carrizo cane and 

salt cedar that provide hiding places for illegal border crossers. 

We support physical barriers in areas where they make sense 

and are agreed to by elected county and municipal officials. We 

support smarter, more effective solutions where fences won’t work, 

that include radar, cameras, sensors, and more effective deployment of Border Patrol personnel. 

The Texas Border Coalition believes that Congress committed a 

strategic error in the approval the Secure Fence Act and then compounded that error in providing the Secretary of Homeland Security with the unilateral authority to waive—in effect repeal—all 

Federal laws to expedite the construction of the wall. We support 

repeal of the unconstitutional waiver-repeal authority and urge the 

repeal of the Secure Fence Act in favor of measures that will provide our region with real security. 

Illegal border crossing arrests at the Texas-Mexico border have 

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

to the deterrence of our Border Patrol and Border Protection 

agents. Arrests this year along the southern border are likely to— 

are roughly going to be half of the nearly 1.6 million we saw during 

the peak of the year 2000. 

We are winning control of the border between the ports of entry, 

and that puts our ports under greater stress. According to the Government Accountability Office, we need 4,000 new officers to secure 

the ports of entry. We need $4 billion in infrastructure and technology. If the goal is security, and that is one of the main concerns 

of the Texas Border Coalition, we need your help to fund these priorities that are ignored by President Bush’s budget. 

Let me remind you the 9-11 terrorists entered the United States 

through ports of entry. Most undocumented aliens enter the United 

States through ports of entry. Most illegal drugs enter the United 

States through ports of entry. No border wall will solve those problems. 

It is in this context that we question whether DHS commitment 

to secure the border is no more than a hollow promise that depends 

on ineffective measures. We have recommended alternative measures at both ports of entry and between them that will provide for 

a safer border region and a safer America. We need more boots on 

the ground with the equipment required to provide for commerce 

and security. 

The Administration has developed a pattern of rejecting these 

practical ideas and effective solutions in order to pursue a misguided policy. That pattern has reached a logical, ridiculous extreme with the waivers executed by Secretary Chertoff. 

We’ve met with Secretary Chertoff to share our concerns, which 

he’s acknowledged, but said Congress tied his hands. He told us to 

change the law. Our delegation did just that, repealing restrictive 

portions of the Secure Fence Act and authorizing him flexibility, all 

in the Fiscal 2008 Comprehensive Appropriations Act. He has chosen to ignore the new law in pursuit of the strategy he devised to 

accomplish the old statute. 

In their headlong rush to achieve an arbitrary deadline to erect 

an ineffective wall, the Administration has chosen to abandon our 

28 

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

culture, our history and our religious liberties. 

These waivers will affect the natural movement of animal species, including large mammal species that are on the threatened or 

endangered species lists and cause irreparable harm to the unique 

ecosystems and biosystems located along the Rio Grande River. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If we could wrap it up now, I would appreciate it. 

Are you about to wrap it up? 

Mr. FOSTER. Can I have just two minutes—30 seconds and I’ll 

wrap it up. 

They will provide carte blanche for the destruction of our 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 elements of our national fabric guaranteed to the people of the United States under Articles I 

and II of the Constitution. We don’t demand the enactment of new 

law. We have already achieved that. We demand that Congress require the enforcement of our commitment to being a nation of laws. 

The Texas Border Coalition believes we can do better. Based on 

our experience, the only way to restore the rule of law is to repeal 

the Secretary’s waiver authority. We need change. To achieve it, we 

also urge your Subcommittees to support the repeal of the Secure 

Fence Act in favor of measures—of measures that will provide 

more security for our region. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foster follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Chad Foster, Mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas, and 

Chairman of the Texas Border Coalition 

Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman Bordallo and subcommittee members, I am Chad 

Foster, mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas and Chairman of the Texas Border Coalition. 

I am speaking today on behalf of 2.1 million Americans in 14 border counties of the 

1,250-mile Texas-Mexico border. Ours is a region of contrasts, exhibiting differences 

and similarities of language, culture, tradition, and economy. The multi-national, 

multi-cultural nature of our communities on both sides of the international boundary gives our region a distinct sense of place. 

You are in a place today where the blending of cultures is unique, where Brownsville and Matamoros played central roles in shaping the history of our continent. 

Two civil wars occurred simultaneously right here, and created such cross-cultural 

alliances and enmities that we could spend days rediscovering them. Welcome to our 

home. 

The Texas Border Coalition thanks you for your leadership in exploring the issues 

related to the border wall and the waivers of federal law executed by Department 

of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to expedite the wall’s construction. 

The proposed fencing for the Texas-Mexico border has been built on a false 

premise that one-size fits all. The reality is that Texas is the only southern state 

with a natural international boundary in the Rio Grande. 

Farmers irrigate from the river, ranchers water their herd in the river, and children are baptized in the river. It truly is a river of life. That’s why any physical 

barriers must first take into consideration how to minimize impact on private landowners as well as the many municipalities that hug the banks of the river. To this 

date, this has not been the case. 

The Texas Border Coalition supports smart and effective measures that will 

achieve true border security, such as the Vega Project in Webb County, the Eagle 

Pass Park project, the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project, and the clearing of 

the banks of the Rio Grande—north and south—of vegetation such as carrizo cane 

and salt cedar that provide hiding places for illegal border-crossers. We support 

physical barriers in areas where they make sense and are agreed to by elected county and municipal officials. We support smarter, more effective solutions where 

fences won’t work that include radar, cameras, sensors and more effective deployment of Border Patrol personnel. 

29 

The Texas Border Coalition believes that Congress committed a strategic error in 

the approval of the Secure Fence Act and then compounded that error in providing 

the Secretary of Homeland Security with the unilateral authority to waive—in effect 

repeal—all federal laws to expedite construction of the wall. We support repeal of 

the unconstitutional waiver-repeal authority and urge the repeal of the Secure 

Fence Act in favor of measures that will provide our region with real security. 

Illegal border crossing arrests at the Texas-Mexico border have been falling for 

more than two years, without a wall, a great tribute to the deterrence of our Border 

Patrol and Border Protection agents. Arrests this year along the southern border are 

likely to be roughly half the nearly 1.6 million during the peak in 2000. 

We are winning control of the border between the ports of entry, and that puts 

our ports under greater stress. According to the Government Accountability Office, 

we need 4,000 new officers to secure the ports of entry. We need $4 billion in infrastructure and technology. If the goal is security, and that is the one of the main 

concerns of the Texas Border Coalition, we need your help to fund these priorities 

that are ignored by the president’s budget. 

Let me remind you that the 9-11 terrorists entered the United States through 

ports of entry. Most undocumented aliens enter the United States through ports of 

entry. Most of the illegal drugs entering the United States come through ports of 

entry. No border wall will solve those problems. 

It is that context that we question whether the DHS commitment to secure the 

border is no more than hollow promise that depends on ineffective measures. We 

have recommended alternatives both at the ports of entry and between them that 

will provide for a safer border region, a safer America. We need more boots on the 

ground with the equipment required to provide for commerce and security. The Administration has developed a pattern of rejecting these practical, effective solutions 

in order to pursue a misguided policy. That pattern has reached a logical, ridiculous 

extreme with the waivers executed by Secretary Chertoff. 

We’ve met with Secretary Chertoff to share our concerns, which he acknowledged 

but said Congress tied his hands. He told us to change the law. Our delegation did 

just that, repealing restrictive portions of the Security Fence Act and authorizing 

him flexibility, all in the fiscal 2008 Comprehensive Appropriations Act. He has chosen to ignore the new law in pursuit of the strategy he devised to accomplish the 

old statute. 

In their headlong rush to achieve an arbitrary deadline to erect an ineffective 

wall, the Administration has chosen to abandon our nation’s laws that commit us 

to preserving our environment, our culture, our history and our religious liberties. 

These waivers will affect the natural movement of animal species, including the 

larger mammal species that are on the threatened or endangered species lists and 

cause irreparable harm to the unique eco-systems and bio-systems located along the 

Rio Grande River. They will provide 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 elements of our national fabric, guaranteed to the people of the United 

States under Articles I and II of the Constitution. We don’t demand the enactment 

of new law. We’ve already achieved that. We demand that Congress require the enforcement of our commitment to being a nation of laws. 

The Texas Border Coalition believes we can do better. Based on our experience, 

the only way to restore the rule of law is to repeal the Secretary’s waiver authority. 

We need change and to achieve it we also urge your subcommittees to support the 

repeal the Secure Fence Act in favor of measures that will provide our region with 

real security. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me now turn to a good 

friend from my part of the world, the Chairman of the Tohono 

O’odham Nation, Mr. Ned Norris. Your comments are welcome, sir. 

Good to see you. 

STATEMENT OF NED NORRIS, JR., CHAIRMAN, 

TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION 

Mr. NORRIS. (Speaking in O’odham language)—Ned Norris, Jr. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Chairwoman Bordallo, and distinguished Subcommittee members. My name is Ned Norris, Jr., and 

I am the Chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation. Thank you for 

30 

the opportunity to testify today. In the words of the United States 

Supreme Court, Indian tribes predate the United States. We are 

older than the international boundary with Mexico, but our land is 

now cut in half, with O’odham sacred sites, salt pilgrimage routes, 

and families divided. We did not cross the 75 miles of border within 

our reservations. The border crossed us. And the border comes at 

a price. 

According to the United—according to Customs Border Protection 

estimates, there were 15,500 illegal entries on Tohono O’odham 

Nation lands just last month. The O’odham suffer from break-ins 

and other crimes committed by border crossers, coastal resources 

destruction, increased demands on tribal law enforcement and 

health services, migrant waste, and environmental degradation 

from CBP and its contractors. 

Each year $3 million of the Nation’s limited law enforcement 

funds are spent on our unfunded mandate to secure the border, 

which we all know is a Federal, not a tribal obligation. 

In response to the border crossing crisis, the Nation has repeatedly partnered with CBP and actively supported alternatives to 

walls, including vehicle barriers, towers, checkpoints and other 

measures that reduce negative impacts on tribal lands. Despite the 

Nation’s cooperation, DHS’s inflexible desire to move forward with 

an unreasonable time frame continues to damage the environment 

and cultural resources. 

When the Nation objected to construction methods within a 

known jaguar habitat near the reservation’s eastern boundary, the 

CBP told us during an August 2007 meeting that the project could 

be postponed for two weeks for further review, and then proceeded 

as planned a few days later. 

After the Nation approved the use of barriers to block illegal vehicle traffic, CBP contractors failed to cap bollards used in construction. The resulting bird kills are being investigated as violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. When environmental assessments were conducted on ancestral O’odham lands between 

Naco and Douglas, numerous archaeological sites were identified in 

the construction zone. During an October 2007 field visit, fragments of human remains were found in heavy equipment tracks on 

the Christian Ranch archaeological site, a site now crossed by barriers and the border road. Imagine a bulldozer in your family 

graveyard turning up bones. 

As Secretary Chertoff has issued more waivers, the destruction 

has increased. After the 2007 waiver within traditional Hia Ced 

O’odham lands on the Barry M. Goldwater Range, a Boeing subcontractor widened 15 miles of the El Camino del Diablo, a desert 

crossing route listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 

without first performing an archaeological clearance. Two known 

Hohokam archaeological sites were damaged from the blading. 

Today, it is as if Congress never passed NEPA or acted to protect 

lands within waiver zones. The Department of Homeland Security 

is, of course, not the only Federal agency on the border. The Department of the Interior’s mission is to protect our natural and cultural heritage on nearly 800 border miles, and is mandated by Executive Order 13175 to recognize tribes’ inherent sovereign powers 

over their territory. 

31 

Interior has, however, abandoned its mission. In a March 20, 

2008 letter, the Department of the Interior acknowledged that its 

statutory obligations prevented it from approving DHS’s proposed 

border security infrastructure. But Interior supported the DHS 

waiver of these very laws. Twelve days later, Secretary Chertoff 

issued a waiver covering 470 border miles, including 55 miles on 

our reservation. Interior never consulted us before turning its 

back—before turning its back on the Nation or the land it is sworn 

to protect, nor did DHS consult with the Nation before issuing that 

waiver. In doing so, the DHS undermined our partnership and the 

Nation’s resolution supporting vehicle barriers, which expressly required Federal officers to perform cultural resource clearances and 

fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

For all these reasons, the Nation and the National Congress of 

American Indians support 2593 and the repeal of the DHS Secretary’s Section 102 waiver authority. 

Mr. Chairman and Chairwoman Bordallo, I am here to urge you 

to restore the rule of law. We support border security, but not at 

the price that is now being paid. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Norris follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Ned Norris, Jr., Chairman, 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

INTRODUCTION 

S-ke:g si’alim. Ban ̃ ce:gig Ned Norris, Jr. Good morning Chairman Grijalva, 

Chairwoman Bordallo, and distinguished subcommittee members. My name is Ned 

Norris, Jr. and I am the Chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. 

I. The Tohono O’odham Nation is negatively impacted by the border and 

has worked closely with Customs and Border Protection to find appropriate alternatives that will improve border security. 

In the words of the United States Supreme Court, Indian tribes ‘‘predate’’ the 

United States. We are older than the international boundary with Mexico and had 

no role in creating the border. But our land is now cut in half, with O’odham communities, sacred sites, salt pilgrimage routes, and families divided. We did not cross 

the 75 miles of border within our reservation lands. The border crossed us. 

And the border comes at a price. 

According to Customs Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) estimates, there were 15,500 illegal entries on the Tohono O’odham Nation in March alone. The O’odham suffer from 

break-ins and other crimes committed by undocumented aliens and drug traffickers, 

damage to our cultural resources, increased demands on tribal law enforcement and 

health services, migrant waste, stolen vehicles that are abandoned by smugglers 

and often disabled by federal agents, and environmental degradation from vehicles 

driven by smugglers and CBP agents alike. 

Each year, $3 million of the Nation’s limited law enforcement funds are spent on 

our unfunded mandate to secure the border, which we all know is a federal, not a 

tribal, obligation. 

In response to the border crisis, the Nation has repeatedly partnered with CBP 

and actively supported alternative strategies to walls, including vehicle barriers, 

towers, checkpoints, integrated camera-radar systems, and other measures that reduce negative impacts on tribal lands while still achieving the overarching goal of 

increased border security. 

II. The Department of Homeland Security’s rush to install border security 

infrastructure and waive critical laws has seriously damaged environmental and archeological resources. 

Despite the Nation’s willingness to work cooperatively, DHS’s inflexible desire to 

move forward within an unreasonable timeframe has unnecessarily damaged the environment and cultural resources. 

32 

When the Nation objected to construction methods within a known jaguar habitat 

near the reservation’s eastern boundary, the CBP told Nation’s officials during an 

August 2007 meeting that the project could be postponed for two weeks for further 

review, and then proceeded as planned a few days later. 

After the Nation approved the construction of barriers to block illegal vehicle traffic but allow animal migration, CBP contractors failed to cap bollards at border construction sites, resulting in bird kills in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and the project’s Final Environmental Assessment. 

When Environmental Assessments were conducted on ancestral O’odham lands 

between Naco and Douglas, archeological sites were identified within the border 

construction zone. During an October 2007 field visit to the Christiansen Ranch site, 

Site AZ FF:9:10, fragments of human remains were observed in the tire tracks of 

the heavy construction equipment. Barriers and the border road now cross the site. 

Imagine a bulldozer parking in your family graveyard, turning up bones. This is 

our reality. 

As Secretary Chertoff has increasingly exercised his Section 102 waiver authority 

the destruction on federal lands has likewise increased. After the 2007 waiver was 

applied to traditional Hia Ced O’odham lands on the Barry M. Goldwater Range, 

a Boeing Company subcontractor widened 15 miles of the El Camino del Diablo, a 

desert crossing route listed on the National Register of Historic Places, without first 

performing an archaeological clearance. Two known Hohokam archaeological sites 

were damaged from the blading. 

Today, it is as if the Congress never passed NEPA or acted to protect lands within 

the waiver zones, and as if the numerous agreements between the Nation and the 

CBP never existed. 

III. The Department of the Interior violated its duty to Indian tribes and 

the lands under its jurisdiction by supporting Section 102 waivers. 

The Department of Homeland Security is, of course, not the only federal agency 

on the border. The Department of the Interior has jurisdiction over nearly 800 miles 

of the border. Interior’s mission is to protect our common natural and cultural heritage, and it is mandated by Executive Order 13175 to recognize tribes’ ‘‘inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory.’’ 

Interior has, however, abandoned its mission. 

In a March 20, 2008 letter, the Department of the Interior acknowledged that its 

legal obligations under the Wilderness Act and other statutes prevented it from approving DHS’s proposed border security infrastructure. But Interior supported the 

DHS waiver of these very laws. Twelve days later, Secretary Chertoff issued a waiver that is applicable on 470 miles of the border, including 55 miles on our reservation. Interior never consulted us before turning its back on the Nation or the land 

it is sworn to protect. 

Nor did DHS consult with the Nation before issuing that waiver. In doing so, the 

DHS undermined our partnership and the Nation’s resolution supporting vehicle 

barriers, which expressly required federal officers to ‘‘perform cultural resource 

clearance and fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.’’ (Tohono 

O’odham Legislative Council Resolution No. 04-095.) Has the Nation’s sovereign 

power to make laws also been waived? 

IV. Indian tribes across the United States support legislation to repeal the 

Secretary of Homeland Security’s Section 102 waiver authority, mandate consultation, and restore the rule of law. 

For all these reasons, the Nation, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, and the National Congress of American Indians support H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act of 2007, and other legislation that would repeal the DHS Secretary’s Section 102 waiver authority, require consultation with tribes and border 

communities, and otherwise respect existing laws and citizens’ rights in the effort 

to secure the border. 

We know from our own experience living on the border that security can be improved while respecting the rights of tribes and border communities, while fulfilling 

our duty to the environment and to our ancestors, and without granting any person 

the power to ignore the law. 

CONCLUSION 

Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Bordallo, I am here to provide the Nation’s 

unqualified support for H.R. 2593 and to urge you to restore the rule of law on the 

border. We support border security but not at the price that is now being paid. 

Thank you. 

33 

Attachments 

• Tohono O’odham Legislative Council Resolution No. 04-095, ‘‘Supporting Vehicle 

Barriers and All-Weather Road Project Along the International Boundary Within the Tohono O’odham Nation’’ • March 20, 2008 Letter from Associate Deputy Secretary James E. Cason to 

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff • National Congress of American Indians’ Resolution # ECWS-08-001, ‘‘Supporting Amending Secure Fence Act and Requiring DHS Secretary to Consult 

and Coordinate with Tribes in Jointly Developing a Border Strategy for Tribal 

Lands along the Unites States’ International Borders’’ 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me join with my other colleagues, Dr. Garcia, 

in thanking you and this wonderful institution for their hospitality 

and for helping arrange not only this hearing room but all the 

other work that had to go along for this—for this hearing to occur. 

Thank you. And with that let me introduce Dr. Garcia, President, 

University of Texas Brownsville and Southmost College. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF JULIET V. GARCIA, PH.D., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT BROWNSVILLE AND SOUTHMOST 

COLLEGE 

Ms. GARCIA. Good morning, Chairman Grijalva and Madam 

Chair Bordallo, Congressman Solomon Ortiz. Grace Napolitano, 

we’re glad to have you back on our campus. And, of course, Congressman Silvestre Reyes and all of our new friends that come to 

understand, from the very community that might be so affected, 

the important issues that we face. 

Early last summer we were notified of plans by the Department 

of Homeland Security to build a fence 18 feet high on top of the 

levee on the university’s—the levee north of the university’s ITEC 

campus—ITEC campus is the campus where we teach international 

technology and educational center—essentially placing all of the 

ITEC on the Mexican side of the fence. In addition, the plans would 

also build a fence 18 feet high on top of the levee just south of the 

Scorpion baseball field and of our parking lot, essentially placing 

our entire golf course on the Mexican side of the fence. 

In October we received a letter from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection asking for a right of entry onto university property. The 

request sought access to university land for possible construction of 

a fence. The same document informed us that there was some question if they would be responsible for any damage done during this 

time of their activities. 

I did not sign the document that would have granted access for 

several reasons. It is my responsibility as president to be a good 

steward of the resources that have been entrusted to my care. To 

have signed this request, this right of entry would have violated 

that public trust. There was first a risk to property investment because the government sought access to lands from the levee to the 

building in the very heart of our campus adjacent to the student 

union, very close to where we sit in this building and the life and 

health sciences building. 

Our campus is one of the fastest growing in the UT system with 

an enrollment of 17,000 students and expected to grow to 20,000 

within five years. The campus currently has eight construction 

34 

projects in different stages of development for a total investment by 

the taxpayers of this community and in the State of Texas of over 

$140 million in new construction alone. Allowing the Department 

of Homeland Security unlimited access to a large portion of the 

campus had the potential of jeopardizing a significant public investment that it was our duty to protect. 

It is also my responsibility as president to guard the safety of our 

students. If I am aware of potential danger to them, I am required 

to take necessary action to ensure their safety. The right of entry 

was refused because it was meant to support preparations for the 

building of a fence that would jeopardize campus security. 

DHS has repeatedly reported to us that they plan to build a 

fence on the levee for the purposes of channeling illegal entrance 

to a point presumably for easy apprehension. That point is the 

same opening in the fence that would also be used for entry and 

exit to the golf course—the headquarters of our golf team—and directly behind the baseball park and the recreation center. 

I could not sign the original right of entry because having an 

opening in an 18-foot high fence for the purpose of channeling all 

illegal entrance, including criminals, in the heart of our campus 

right next to classroom buildings, the library and the recreation 

center, the baseball park and the soccer field, would gravely endanger, not protect, our students and jeopardize campus security and 

safety. 

I could not sign the original right of entry because there had 

been a lack of opportunity for genuine public input. When congressmen call town meetings, it goes to gather its citizens engaged in 

civil discourse. In contrast, here the only public hearing that we 

were afforded was held on December 12 at the Brownsville Events 

Center, where we were required to submit feedback through a computer terminal or through a court reporter surrounded by armed 

agents. For those of us who chose to participate through verbal 

input, it was necessary to meet in an open field across from the 

Events Center while being photographed. 

I could not sign the original ROE because the university has become a key player in the promotion of the ecotourism industry and 

the reclamation of important wildlife areas inclusive of thousands 

of acres of the Bahia Grande area. Many have worked for decades 

to design a campus that is respectful of the natural and rich environment of this very special ecological zone. Signing the right of 

entry would have jeopardized ecological systems of our region and 

obstructed the development of the campus environment. 

Finally, I was unable to sign the ROE because it jeopardized the 

historical nature of the campus as you’ve already heard. What was 

being demanded of us under threat of legal action was unimpeded 

access by military and civilian agencies to a UT system campus in 

state and locally financed buildings for an extended period of time 

for purposes of determining that the land and the buildings could 

be condemned and seized. 

In January we were notified that a suit had been filed in Federal 

court because of our refusal to sign, yet we continued to meet with 

various representatives from the Federal government at the same 

time that they were filing the suit. After days of intense negotiations between the university and the U.S. Department of Justice, 

35 

an agreed settlement was reached just hours before we went to 

Federal court. The order—not our request, but the court order by 

a Federal judge, now requires consultation with the university before accessing the property, and they must take care to minimize 

and jointly study environmental impact, environmental problems 

and impact on the culture of the campus and on the historical nature of the campus. Judge Andrew Hanen stated that the agreed 

settlement could be used as a template for working with other 

landowners. 

I thank you for the time you have spent on our campus. There 

are many of us in Brownsville who did not have the honor of being 

able to address you. But just so you know, there are many voices 

that have similar feelings to what you have heard from the mayor 

and from others on this podium today. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Garcia follows:] 

Statement of Juliet V. Garcia, Ph.D., President, 

University of Texas at Brownsville, and Southmost College 

Good Morning Chairman Grijalva and Madam Chair Bordallo and members of the 

joint oversight committee. Thank you for this invitation to testify before you on this 

very important issue. 

The first topic you have asked me to address was the level of consultation between the Department of Homeland Security and our university to review and revise project segments slated to cross our campus and the surrounding community. 

As background, I will provide a quick timeline of the events that have transpired 

over the last year. 

Early last summer, we were notified of plans by the Department of Homeland Security to build a fence 18 feet high on top of the levee north of the university’s International Technology Education and Commerce campus (ITEC), essentially placing 

ITEC on the Mexican side of the fence. In addition, the plans would also build a 

fence 18 feet high on top of the levee just south of the University baseball field and 

of the Education and Business Complex parking lot, essentially placing our golf 

course on the Mexican side of the fence, literally dividing our campus. 

In October, we received a letter from U.S. Customs and Border Protection asking 

for the right of entry onto University property. The request sought access to survey 

University land for the possible construction of the fence, to store equipment and 

supplies, take samples and to do any other work they found necessary for the proposed construction of the fence. 

The same document informed us that there was some question as to whether they 

would be responsible for any damage done during this time by their activities. Finally, the letter stated that should they determine a need for any University land, 

the University would be paid market value for the land. 

I did not sign the document that would have granted access for several reasons. 

I felt the action posed serious harm to the University on many fronts, including risk 

to property investment, student safety, execution of our mission, disruption of the 

university ecosystem and the region’s ecotourism industry, as well as damage to the 

historical nature of the campus. 

Because we could not in good conscience sign the document granting right of 

entry, the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers notified us in December 2007 

of potential litigation to gain entry to the campus. 

What was being demanded, under threat of legal action, was unimpeded access 

by military and civilian agencies to a UT System campus and its state and locally 

financed buildings for an extended period of time for purposes of determining if land 

and buildings would be condemned and seized. 

The only public hearing we were afforded was held on December 12 at the 

Brownsville Events Center where we were required to submit our feedback through 

a computer terminal or through a court reporter surrounded by armed agents. 

In January, despite requests from our attorney for extensions of time to engage 

in discussions of alternatives, we were notified that a suit had been filed in federal 

court because of our failure to sign the original Right of Entry request (ROE). This 

heavy handedness and unwillingness to genuinely discuss alternatives to the ROE’s 

conditions was sufficient cause for serious concern. 

36 

Yet we continued to meet with various representatives from the federal government including the local Border Patrol officials, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Army Corps of Engineers. While it was frustrating at times, when the 

various federal agencies did not have knowledge of the others’ activities, we persisted, believing that a compromise could be reached that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to proceed with its goal of better securing the border, 

while at the same time allowing the university to preserve the integrity of our region and our educational mission and moreover, protect the safety and welfare of 

our students, faculty and staff. However, we feel that the purpose of meetings from 

the government’s standpoint was simply another opportunity for them to tell us of 

their intention to build a fence, rather than to explore alternatives. 

After days of intense negotiations between the University and United States Department of Justice attorneys, an agreed settlement was reached on March 19th, 

just hours before the federal hearing was to take place. 

Federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen approved the agreement, which states the following: 

• The University has agreed to a limited right of entry to DHS for six months 

for the purpose of studying the implementation of security measures on the border in the campus area. 

• DHS will work with the University to jointly assess alternatives to a physical 

barrier. 

• DHS has been authorized to conduct such studies, including environmental assessments, as required to consult with the University regarding alternatives to 

a physical barrier. 

• DHS will consider the University’s unique status as an institution of higher 

education and will take care to minimize impact on its environment and culture. 

• DHS will conduct investigations to minimize the impact of any tactical infrastructure on commerce and the quality of life for the communities and residents 

located near the University. 

• DHS will take all reasonable action to promote safety and minimize any impact 

on the University’s educational activities. 

• DHS will coordinate all entry to the campus and give prior notice of all activities on campus to Campus Police. 

• DHS has agreed that should damage to University property occur they will repair or make an appropriate fair market value settlement. 

• DHS has agreed to hire contractors that carry sufficient liability insurance. 

• DHS has agreed to not clear land, mow grass or otherwise alter the physical 

landscape of University property without the University’s consent. 

• The University retains the right to assert statutory and/or constitutional challenges to future government actions affecting University property. 

During the hearing, Judge Hanen thanked both the University and the federal 

government for working hard to reach an equitable solution. He felt that the dialogue between the two sides would hopefully lead to a better resolution regarding 

this temporary easement, as well as any potential future barrier. Judge Hanen also 

stated that the agreed settlement could, perhaps, be used as a template for working 

with other landowners involved. 

While we have often felt during this process that the Department of Homeland 

Security was unwilling to openly and legitimately consult with local communities regarding the effects an 18-foot high wall would have on our region, we are pleased 

that the court system fulfilled the purpose our forefathers had planned. It brought 

together two parties to be fairly represented and heard. 

Since the hearing the Department of Homeland Security, through the U.S. Border 

Patrol, has notified the University of various archeological and environmental surveys and/or assessments that have taken place. While we have received notification 

from the federal government that they are conducting surveys and/or assessments 

on IBWC and University property we have not been provided the opportunity to 

jointly participate in assessing alternatives to a physical barrier. There is a meeting 

between representatives of the University and DHS scheduled for tomorrow, and we 

are hopeful that will be the beginning of the joint assessment, and not simply a repeat of the previous unproductive one-way communications. 

Potential Impact on property investment and safety 

As a native of this community, I can speak to the fact that every piece of infrastructure you see in the Rio Grande Valley today was hard fought. We didn’t have 

a university in the Lower Rio Grande Valley until 1991 when UT Brownsville was 

established. We still do not have a veteran’s hospital closer than San Antonio. The 

37 

lack of infrastructure is compounded by our rapidly growing population, and the 

need for expanded trade and commerce. 

Seizing land for a border fence poses a great risk to our property investment. In 

the case of our university, our campus is one of the fastest growing in the UT System with an enrollment of 17,000 and expected to grow to 20,000 within five years. 

The campus currently has 8 construction projects in different stages of development 

for a total investment by the taxpayers of the local community and of the state of 

more than $140 million dollars in new construction alone. Allowing the DHS unlimited access to a large portion of the campus has the potential of jeopardizing a significant public investment that it is our duty as stewards to protect. 

It is also my responsibility as President to guard and protect the safety of our 

students. If I am aware of a potential danger to them, I am required to take necessary action to ensure their safety. 

DHS had repeatedly reported to us that the plan to build a fence on the levee 

was for the purpose of channeling illegal activity to a point presumably for easy apprehension. That point in the proposed fence, is the same opening used for entry 

and exit to the golf course. The golf course is home not only to our Scorpion golf 

team, but also to members of the community including other school children. This 

site serves as a laboratory for learning in our community, just as any other facility 

on our campus. 

The current plans call for an opening in the 18-foot high fence for the purpose 

of channeling all illegal activity, into the heart of our campus right next to classroom buildings, the library, the Recreation, Education and Kinesiology Center, the 

baseball park, and the new soccer field would greatly endanger our students and 

jeopardize campus security and safety. 

Potential Impact on the Academic Environment 

In addition, the building of a fence on this campus or adjacent to the campus runs 

counter to our mission, which is in part to convene the cultures of its community, 

foster an appreciation of the unique heritage of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, encourage the development and application of bilingual abilities in its students and 

provide academic leadership to the intellectual, cultural, social and economic life of 

the bi-national urban region it serves. 

To support a plan that would build an 18-foot-high steel barrier between two 

friendly countries would be to directly contravene our mission and destroy the campus climate that has been so painstakingly and carefully created. 

Potential Impact on the Environmental and Historic Environment 

The University has become a key player in the promotion of the ecotourism industry and in the reclamation of important wildlife areas inclusive of the thousands of 

acres of the Bahia Grande area. Many have worked for decades to design a campus 

that is respectful of the natural and rich environment of this special ecological zone. 

We also strive for the development of a campus environment that fosters the physical and mental well-being of our students. To create this environment we are designing and constructing bike trails, jogging paths and eco-trails. 

In our master plan, which was created four years ago, we defined our core values 

which include: 

• Respecting the Educational Nature of the Campus 

• Providing a Safe and Secure Environment 

• Encouraging Community Involvement 

• Providing Accessibility 

• Creating Harmony in Design 

• Planning for Openness in Design and Space 

• Creating Intimate Gathering Areas 

• Providing an Inviting Ambiance 

• Respecting the Historical Nature of the Campus 

• Being sensitive to the Ecology 

• Incorporating the Region’s Unique Cultural Character 

Clearly, an 18-foot high wall running through our campus would negate all that 

we have worked so hard to create. 

UTB/TSC has a unique cultural nature. The campus encompasses several significant historical sites, including historic Fort Brown and Fort Texas. 

Of course, we believe in protecting our borders. 

Of course, we believe in strong immigration policy. 

But we also understand that a process of intended or unintended intimidation is 

no substitute for either. 

Every attempt we have made up until this week has proved fruitless in discovering common ground for a solution. 

38 

I love our country and the best that it represents of an experiment to govern a 

free people. My life’s work has been spent trying to guarantee that the next generation has access to an education and becomes vested in protecting, participating in 

and defending this democracy. It has been my duty to be a good steward not only 

of the resources entrusted to me, but also of the values and principles of our democracy. 

I remain hopeful that we can make genuine progress toward a meaningful, consultative conversation and that the Agreed Order with the conditions specified has 

for the first time, the potential to discover an innovative and effective manner to 

achieve the mutual goals of the DHS and of the University. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. And, Doctor, I had the 

privilege and the pleasure of meeting with community members 

yesterday most of the day from Veteran organizations to religious 

groups to people that work here at this institution. And your comments and I think the mayor’s comments were repeated time and 

time again. And so I appreciated that opportunity to do that. 

Let me begin with a couple of quick questions and then move 

along and allow my colleagues the same opportunity. Let me direct 

us to Mr. Schultz and the Chief. If you could briefly explain to me 

this inconsistency that we have. If we are believing that the 

premise for the wall and the fence barrier is the uniformity of security across the southern border, then this begs the question—this 

is where I have the—I can’t explain it to myself. 

We had to have a court order in order for the university here to 

participate in consultation and planning because the fence is 

going—the wall is going through that property. Yet we have properties that perhaps are less security needed, such as the Hunt 

property, such as the property at the River Bend. And yet we have 

single property owners that their property is—their security there 

is high end. And I’m assuming the security in the Hunt property, 

which is 5 to 6,000 acres, and at the River Bend, then that must 

not be—there must not be a security need because those have been 

exempt. Am I correct in that assessment? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It’s important, Congressman, to understand that 

what I’ve done since my assignment here in July and when this 

project started within the sector confines is for us to go out and 

look at current activity levels, look at the kind of access that was 

available and is required to secure particular parts of the border. 

I’m not familiar with us having particular land that they own 

along the border. I’m familiar with the River Bend requirement. 

And what we did is we looked at the kind of access we had. We 

looked at the kind of activity that was occurring in those locations, 

and then made an assessment about where—if the terrain was enhanced, if the features—the terrain features were enhanced with 

fencing, would that assist us in being more efficient and being 

more effective in those particular locations. And where that was 

the case, where we believed that this fencing gave us some an additional advantage, then we’ve made that a part of the plan, the proposal that we’d like to go forward and have the installation occur 

in those locations. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And Interior’s discussion with Homeland Security, 

so I’m assuming these two exempted area are of higher environmental quality, therefore an exception is something that was 

worked out? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I don’t understand the question, Chairman. 

39 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If Interior is working with Homeland Security as 

we go along, according to your testimony—— 

Mr. SCHULTZ. That’s right. 

Mr. GRIJALVA [continuing]. And we have two major exemptions 

as other property owners are having to litigate in order to get the 

consultation, I’m assuming in your consultations those exceptions 

were something that you felt were environmentally high enough to 

be exempt. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean exempt 

from the—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Fence, wall. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. From the fence. I don’t know what the answer is 

to that question. I don’t think, at least at the headquarters level, 

we had that type of detailed discussions about those sections of 

fence. They could have been discussed at the local level in consultation with local officials. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So as we go through this process, would it not be 

good to quantify and qualify the exemptions that occur in this 

whole fence-building, why, whether it’s environmental, whether it’s 

not pertinent to operational control, whether it is some other reason. Don’t you think that kind of inventory would be important. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. It would be helpful, I guess. We have relied on the 

Border Patrol for their decisions on where they believe they need 

the fence. And once they decide where they need the fence, we will 

work with them as much as possible to try to minimize the impact 

on the infrastructure on DOI interest. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, and perhaps for my renewed edification and the edification of my colleagues that probably don’t need 

it—I’m probably the one that does—briefly, the government-to-government meaningful consultation and relationship between the Nation and the Federal government and its impact on what is occurring on your Nation right now given the waiver and how—did that 

consultation occur at all prior to that? 

Mr. NORRIS. No. I can’t honestly sit here and tell you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that that consultation did, in 

fact, occur. There are many things that are occurring on our Nation’s lands that are done without consultation. In fact, as recent 

as four, almost five years ago, we had to bring in the representatives from the Tucson Sector into a meeting at our offices and discuss with the Border Patrol why they were doing some—conducting 

some of the activities they were doing on our Nation’s lands. 

And it became apparent that we were talking to the wrong people because their continued comments to us, ‘‘Well, we’re just following orders. We get our orders from Washington, D.C., and that’s 

what we’re following.’’ And so we immediately let them know that 

we’re talking to the wrong people, that we need to deal with Washington, D.C. 

We have continuously made efforts to consult with and have continuously numerous times invited Secretary Chertoff to the Tohono 

O’odham Nation’s lands so that way we can have a face-to-face contact with him and express our concerns about what’s been going on 

on our Nation’s lands. And we have not been honored any invitation that we have extended to him. 

40 

Secretary Chertoff finds the opportunity to visit border areas to 

the east of the Tohono O’odham Nation’s lands and to the west of 

the Tohono O’odham Nation’s lands, but has never made—acknowledged our request to come visit us and discuss these issues that are 

critically important to us on the Nation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, and my time is up. Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a 

couple of questions for this round. In your statement, Chief Vitiello, 

you reference as a reason for Secretary Chertoff to use his authority to issue a blanket waiver of over 30 environmental statutes as 

a response to the Department of Interior’s inability to accommodate 

approval of some tactical infrastructure projects. And this raises 

the question of why did the Secretary issue a blanket waiver when 

it was known that Interior only objected to a portion of the projects 

on Federal lands? Can you give me an answer on how many project 

segments did Interior say they could not accommodate and what 

percentage of the total does this represent? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I’m happy to get back to the committee about specific technical details of which parts that you refer to within the 

Department of Interior’s and our consultations. I can only tell you 

that in our particular area, there are approximately 70 miles of 

fence that we have established locations along the border where we 

feel that fencing would assist us in our—in our work. And we also 

know, based on the time lines authorized in appropriation, that the 

waiver makes sense in order for us to complete under the time line 

outline. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I guess that’s really not my question. I just wondered what percentage. Because Interior had said that they only 

object to some, not all. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I don’t have that technical knowledge about that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. 

Mr. Vitiello: I would be happy to get back to you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. The other one, Chief, was—I was really very impressed with how you informed 600 different landowners, hosted 11 

public open houses, held 15 publicly advertised town hall meetings, 

and conducted 84 meetings with state and local officials and public 

groups. It seems to me you covered everything. But you discussed 

your agency’s activities, as I have just repeated—the other Federal 

agencies and local residents, including uncounted numbers of meetings, open houses, town hall meetings—while it is somewhat reassuring to know that your agency can at least demonstrate that it 

has conducted public outreach, your statement provides no reassurance about the quality of the consultation. 

So I would like you to explain or describe the kind of information 

that is provided during public outreach sessions, what kind of information is solicited, and then describe the process the agency 

uses to incorporate this information into your decision making. And 

after listening to Chairman Norris, his Nation was never informed. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Typically these meetings, in our experience here, 

would have been a scenario where we have identified particular 

parcel landowners. In some cases we went to county commissions, 

local leadership, mayors and such, and informed them about what 

we knew of the state of the situation; about where we were requesting fencing; what we felt our operational requirement is; 

41 

where we thought fencing made sense in particular locations. Some 

was an edification for why given the activity level. 

The quality—and I’ll give you an assessment here locally. There 

are about 400 different people who are impacted directly, as in they 

own land right along the border here in the Rio Grande Valley. 

We’ve talked to each and every one of them, both through my office, the Army Corps of Engineers, the people at SBI and at CBP 

and the totality of the people that would necessarily need to be involved in an operation or in a construction project like that. And 

with about 400 landowners in this area, we’re in a situation where 

just over 270 or so were ready to proceed. We are in a dialogue and 

continue to be in discussions with them, and the balance are in 

varying forms of ongoing consultation, or, in some cases, the litigation aspect. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, Chief, I don’t know what the outcome was 

after all of this interaction with the landowners and so forth, but 

it seems that we have a roomful of people here that don’t agree 

that they were even informed. Chairman Norris, would you like to 

comment on the exchange you had. 

Mr. NORRIS. Yes, I would. And thank you, Chairwoman, for the 

opportunity. It seems to me that our experience has been that the 

attitude with the Department of Homeland Security has been that 

it’s pretty much the attitude that, ‘‘Well, we’re the Federal government. We’re the United States government and you’re a Federal reserve, and so we’re going to go and come in and do whatever the 

hell we want to do within the Federal Indian reservation,’’ which 

is an unfortunate situation because that is definite ignorance of the 

tribal sovereignty authority that we have in the tribal government. 

And that’s all we ask. We want to be at the table with the 

United States government. We want to be able to discuss with 

them—and, you know, it’s not the say that the Nation itself has not 

extended itself to the effort to secure the border. We have allowed 

various vehicle barriers. We have allowed SBI in. We have allowed 

the establishment of law enforcement centers. We have allowed the 

increase of border presence on our Nation’s lands. So we are working with them. 

But with regards to the long-term, the impact of a wall on our 

Nation’s lands, the Tohono O’odham Nation will never agree to a 

wall fence. And the primary reason for that, Congresswoman, is the 

fact that we have 1,500 enrolled tribal members that live south of 

the international border. We have nine tribal communities that 

exist. We have about almost 5,000 people that are eligible for membership in the Tohono O’odham Nation’s lands. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Chairman Norris. My 

time is up. 

Mr. NORRIS. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me now turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. 

Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

your testimony. One of the things that I think I heard more often 

than anything else that seemed I think inaccurate in terms of describing the project that we are to focus on today is the implication 

that the wall is a singular solution to a problem. I do not know of 

anyone, either Border Patrol or the Administration—certainly I 

42 

have never thought of a barrier along the southern border, no matter how long, as the solution—as the solution to the problem with 

illegal entry into this country. It is just simply part of a solution. 

It just helps us begin to control parts of the border where we presently do not have that control. 

And so I just wanted to emphasize, at least from my point of 

view and my observation of this issue, that the thing we’re arguing 

about today is not the simplistic application of some sort of barrier 

that will then solve all of our immigration policies—problems. That 

is certainly not the case. I understand that. 

I also believe that there may certainly have been problems with 

the kind of communication that should go on and is necessary to 

go on in order to obtain the support of the local community for an 

ongoing effort of this nature. And I turn to the Chairman in particular because I have visited the Nation on more than one occasion. 

I remember several years ago when I was there and there was 

an—a concern expressed to me by almost every single person, every 

single member of the tribe, that the present situation was untenable; that the amount of drug trafficking through the area was— 

certainly that it could not be dealt with by the local law enforcement activity or agency that was involved, the number of people 

that you had on the force; that the effect of the drug activity wasn’t 

just simply the passage of drugs through the tribal lands, it was 

what was happening on the tribal lands, the number of children 

who had become addicted. 

And I remember a long litany of concerns. And I also remember 

at the time that one of the things that was described as a potential 

solution was some sort of barrier. I also remember the discussion 

about the need to have this kind of transportation—open transportation—for the people who live on both sides of that border today 

and who are also part of the Tohono O’odham tribe. 

Do you not think—and I totally believe and understand the frustration that you expressed, the kind of—the way that this thing 

has unfolded on the land. But do you not believe that there is a 

need for something there that will restrict that movement and 

allow people, allow members of the tribe to actually get back and 

forth for various purposes and just visiting, but at the same time 

try to restrict the ability of people coming through there who are 

doing such great damage to the tribe? And do you not think that 

if a—some sort of barrier is constructed that comes up let’s say to 

tribal lands and ends there, that that does create even a greater 

threat to the environment and to the tribe itself? Because, of 

course, it becomes a funnel. And that’s the whole purpose of what 

we’re trying to do here, is actually funnel people into areas where 

we can stop them with human resources. But it seems like—that 

unless we can progress with some sort of barrier there, that we 

are—potentially the tribe is open to far more danger and far more 

destructive elements than it is without something. 

Now, I guarantee you I would work with you—and to the extent 

that I have time to do so in the Congress that I’m in and will be 

in my term sometime—but the time I’m there, I commit to you my 

efforts to try to bring together some degree of cooperation, if that 

is your desire. But I just need to know specifically what it is you 

43 

believe would protect both the sovereignty of your Nation and the 

security of our borders. 

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. Chairman—Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, all those situations that you 

described, sir, are—continue to be concerns of the Tohono O’odham 

Nation and its people. Those situations do exist. We’re a little bit 

tired of being tour guides. We’ve had a number of people from Congress come out and visit our Nation and see what’s going on on our 

Nation’s lands and see the increased border issues that are impacting our Nation, but we don’t see any result of that. We continue 

to expend tribal dollars, to the tune of $3 million a year, on the 

United States government’s immigration problem. And we need to 

take the situation to the next level. 

Definitely we are concerned about the influx of human cargo. We 

are concerned about the influx of drug trafficking. We are concerned about the fact that too many of our tribal members are 

being bought into that business. And, yes, definitely we want to be 

able to see what we can do together. Not imposed on, but together 

in working with the Department of Homeland Security, allowing us 

to be at the table to discuss these issues with them, allowing us 

to share with them what impacts their activity is going to have on 

our Nation’s lands, allowing us to be able to share with them what 

sovereignty issues we are concerned about when it comes to dealing 

with us on a government-to-government level. 

So, definitely, sir, we welcome and continue to offer the opportunity to sit at the table with the United States government, and 

would like to be able to do that with the Department of Homeland 

Security. We continue to invite Secretary Chertoff. We want him 

out here. We want him out to our Nation’s lands. He’s probably one 

of the only visitors we—that we haven’t had the opportunity to tour 

on our Nation’s borders and express our concerns. We want that 

opportunity, but we want some action. We want some active—opportunity to actively participate in the decisions that are being 

made in Washington, D.C., that are negatively impacting our people and our land. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman, and now I’d like to recognize the gentlelady from the State of California, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. OK. I am on. In all 

this process, I don’t see the Department of Homeland Security represented here. And I’m not sure why. But that should be one of the 

things—— 

[Applause.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Please. It takes my time. Please. 

That—in order to be able to get answers from some of the agencies, we need to have them present, or at least it goes on the 

record. Dr. Garcia, those words that you talked about, have them 

submitted for the record for this hearing, because it will be open 

for 10 days. Anybody can submit for the record. That is law. 

Now, one of the other things that we have heard repeatedly is 

it’s a tough process. We all agree with you. We have not been able 

to get that done for a number of reasons because there’s people in 

Congress stymieing the process that we try to put through. 

44 

And, Mr. Schultz, on your second paragraph you indicate this impact by this illegal migration. But the fences and the roads don’t 

damage that environment? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Congressman—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Congresswoman, sir. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Congresswoman. Pardon me. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I’m a woman. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. The roads and the fences do damage the public 

land as well, which is why we need to work with them to try to 

minimize the impacts of the roads and fences on those natural and 

cultural resources. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Because of what I’m reading from some of the 

testimony that was provided to us prior to today, there are a lot 

of this—and Mr. Chairman Norris indicates that there was no consultation with them as to how to minimize or what their ability is 

to be able to have input, to be able to do that. Dr. Garcia is saying 

the same thing in essence. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Congresswoman, there has been significant discussion between Fish and Wildlife Service folks, folks that work with 

the Bureau of Land Management and Park Service folks to try to 

minimize the impact. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. But that’s only between the agencies. 

What about the people who are affected, the farmers? And my understanding is that this was taken into a computer or sent to a separate room to put in their input without public opinion being open. 

I mean, we’re—if people want to accept the dialogue, the plans that 

you have, you have to be transparent. And if you are not, then 

you’re going to have people sit up and say, ‘‘Hey, wait a minute. 

This is the United States.’’ We don’t follow that anymore. 

We don’t—you know, building a wall—we’re tearing down 

China—the Berlin Wall. And so other areas that we are seeing we 

do not need walls. We need more security for the people that work 

the borders, more technology, more funding. But we end up taking 

those funds away. And I know Interior could use the funds. In my 

Subcommittee, I can tell you I go through that all the time. 

And to Mr. Norris, were you included at all in any of the planning? I think you said, but I want it for the record specifically. 

Were you included? Were you asked to be at the table? Were you 

asked for input about how it would impact your tribal lands? 

Mr. NORRIS. Initially we were not. After we had raised the concern of not being at the table, after we—and I’m talking about previous administrations to mine continuously asking that we need to 

be at the table, continuously pressuring the local sectors of the Border Patrol at our office and being told, ‘‘Well, these decisions are 

made in Washington, D.C.’’ And that we need to be at the table in 

Washington, D.C., we have had some impact and some ability to 

share our thoughts and our positions. 

One of the things that we did find out is that the Department 

of Homeland Security was consulting with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And what we found out was that once we had seen an increase in border presence on our Nation’s lands, we understood 

that they got the approval and the permission from the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs to be increasing their presence on these lands. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Did the BIA—— 

45 

Mr. SCHULTZ. We weren’t involved in that process. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Did the BIA ever consult you? 

Mr. NORRIS. No. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Did any other agency consult you? 

Mr. NORRIS. Well, not at the Federal level. But at the local level 

we have been knocking on their doors and they have opened those 

doors. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You have been knocking. They have not—as 

part of the landowners—been asked to participate. 

Mr. NORRIS. We have not. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won’t take any more 

time, but I do have some questions for the record. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. And let me now turn to our 

colleague, Mr. Hunter, for any questions you might have, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again—and, incidentally, I didn’t realize this is Solomon Ortiz’s district. And I just 

would be remiss if I didn’t say as a fellow member of the Armed 

Services Committee what a great job he’s done on that committee. 

We’ve flown on a lot of choppers together—from down in Central 

America with the 82nd Airborne, in the DMZ in Korea—on lots of 

those trips accompanied by the—Mr. Reyes, a very articulate gentleman. And I appreciate you letting us be here, Solomon—— 

Mr. ORTIZ. You’re quite welcome. 

Mr. HUNTER [continuing]. To have this hearing. You know, folks, 

we’re all in this together. And what I’ve gotten from your testimony 

is a couple of things. One thing is that we all acknowledge you’ve 

got to control the border. The second thing is that there’s lots of 

custom making to be done along this—along this border to ensure 

that controlling the border is consistent with local communities. 

Now, Chairman Norris, you started out by showing your—showing the damage that’s being done by the smugglers moving massive 

numbers of people and narcotics through the reservation, right? 

And you’d like it to stop. But you haven’t—you haven’t come up 

with a solution. And, you know, I’ve looked at this for a long time 

and we tried to do the same thing in San Diego. We tried lots of 

stuff, and we also tried to do it at one time just by amassing Border Patrol. In fact, we had a third of all the Border Patrol for the 

entire U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada border all together. We had 

about a third of that Border Patrol just in San Diego. And we still 

couldn’t stop that flow with people alone. 

And one of our institutions said, ‘‘You have to have something 

that slows folks down. You’ve got to have a fence.’’ They recommended a triple fence. And I will get my friend, Silvestre Reyes, 

in trouble by reminding him that he helped me get the first triple 

fence in. I’m sure he’s going to remind me that that’s not in good 

taste after this hearing is over. But hopefully we’re friends so we’ll 

get past that. 

But, you know, I’ve looked at all the things we’ve tried to use as 

a substitute. We just tried one of the substitutes in Arizona, a socalled virtual fence. I told the Department of Homeland Security it 

wasn’t going to work. I said, ‘‘You’re going to spend a ton of money 

on the problem. You’re going to have guys with alligator shoes selling you this radar stuff. They’re going to be late. They’re going to 

be way over budget, and in the end it’s going to be a mess.’’ And 

46 

it ends up with guys in a radar tower trying to vector guys in offroad vehicles down through gullies and through brushland after a 

moving target once these folks come into the U.S. 

Whereas if you have the double fence and it’s not a wall, it’s two 

fences with a high-speed road in between, the Border Patrol can 

move 60 miles an hour on that road. That means in one minute a 

Border Patrolman who is a mile away, once he’s alerted, can be at 

the scene of entrance by smugglers coming into the United States. 

Now, Chairman Norris, my first question to you would simply be 

wouldn’t that be desirable for the Nation if you also had several 

ports of entry where members of the tribe, legitimate members of 

the Nation could come through and where they would monitor that 

border to make sure that people who are not members of the Nation did not come through without U.S. clearance? Would a fence 

with ports of entry make sense to you? 

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Congressman Hunter, I don’t necessarily agree that the answer is a 

port of entry. When you look at the Nation—and as I described in 

my testimony, we didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us. 

You know, we have had traditional passage of what is now the 

international border since time immemorial. We have enjoyed the 

opportunity to live as a people since time immemorial, well before 

the United States was even here, well before this international border was established. 

You asked me that we haven’t come up with any solutions. We 

may not have come up with any solutions, but we have also allowed the establishment of vehicle barriers; we have allowed the 

establishment of the virtual fence; we have allowed the establishment of law enforcement centers; we have allowed the establishment of beacon lights; we have allowed the establishment of many 

more activities that the Border Patrol has wanted to establish 

within our Nation’s lands, all in the interest of assisting and securing the—securing the United States border. We have done that as 

a people. We have allowed that as a people. 

We don’t believe that the full-fledged wall is the answer along 

the international border. We have too many people that we have 

to be concerned about as far as tribal members of the Nation is 

concerned. We have too much interest in Mexico as a people—both 

historically, both culturally, both spiritually—that we have to be 

able to traverse back and forth in and outside of Mexico into the 

United States. 

And so the answer isn’t a wall. The answer isn’t a wall to continue to divide our people from what has been traditionally their 

opportunity to come in and outside of the United States and participate in cultural, participate in spiritual, participate in traditional activities of our people. So, you know, in answer to your 

question, you know, we have done—we believe that we have done 

what we have allowed you—for the United States government to 

allow to establish that. 

We want a place at the table. If you’re planning to build a wall 

along our international—75 miles of international border, we want 

to know about it. We want to know today and we want to know 

what opportunities we have to have some discussions with you 

about that type of activity. 

47 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Reyes, any questions? 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to call my 

friend—Duncan Hunter a friend and certainly a colleague. And 

where—I think I said on this 2,000-mile border with Mexico, about 

10 percent is—in my opinion, based on 26 and a half years of working as a Border Patrol agent—is about what I think we would 

need. In the area that Chairman Hunter was talking about in San 

Diego, that was certainly a huge challenge because it was known 

as a soccer field and you had these huge waves of undocumented 

people coming through and we just did not have enough Border Patrol agents at that time. 

Now, we’re on our way to hiring 18,000 Border Patrol agents. I 

think when you talk about the investment—foolish investment, in 

my opinion—of $50 billion on a fence or a wall, it doesn’t make 

sense. I’d rather invest that in Border Patrol agents. These guys 

are trained, they’re dedicated, they’re professional. And I just can’t 

say enough about the difference between hiring agents and putting 

up these kinds of barriers. 

If you go back and you look at any area—and you saw when Dr. 

Garcia put up the areas here at the university. You saw how that 

border zigzags here in this particular area. There is no way that 

you can, I think, engineer a fence or a wall—and correct me if I’m 

wrong, Chief—that would go through like a Chinese snake around 

the border area. To me it makes sense—this is a perfect example 

of where we would use technology, we would use personnel, we 

would go to the community and say, ‘‘This is what—this is the 

challenge that we’re facing. This is what we need to do. This is how 

we intend to do it. Give us your feedback and let’s come up with 

an agreed-upon strategy.’’ 

That’s—I’ve had many conversations with Secretary Chertoff and 

raised with him about consulting the local communities. I mean, 

making local communities partners because that’s—I think—I believe that’s the right way to do it. When I put in ‘‘Hold the Line’’ 

in El Paso, I was told, ‘‘It will never work,’’ you know. ‘‘None of 

that will be possible.’’ Well, we proved people wrong. 

I think if you give the Chief an opportunity, if you give him the 

resources, the personnel—don’t hang a fence around his neck. And, 

of course, he’s sitting here. I’ve been in his position before. He’s sitting here toeing the party line. He’s got to if he wants to remain 

chief of this sector. 

Mr. VITIELLO. And I do. 

Mr. REYES. But I can tell you, these guys are the professionals. 

I’ve been out of that line of work for 12 years now in Congress, and 

I would put my—I would stake my credibility, my reputation, on 

these guys right here. Because they will tell you what to do. They 

will get together with the other chiefs there and say, ‘‘Look, how 

do you think we need to do this thing? Let’s work this as partners.’’ 

But, Chairman Hunter, we need to—instead of forcing 700 miles 

of fence, as you and I have discussed many times, let’s give them 

the resources, let’s hire the agents, let’s get the technology in place. 

I know that the mayor—because I’ve had many conversations with 

Mayor Foster and the mayors of the coalition—there are ways that 

we can address it. 

48 

And the other part, by the way, is let’s make Mexico a partner 

in this thing. We are wasting billions of dollars in the Middle East 

on a weekly basis. It seems to me like we ought to be able to invest 

a couple or $3 billion with a partner like Mexico to help manage 

this border. I think there is that solution. 

Now, I just wanted to ask one question. Mayor, in the context of 

your issue in Eagle Pass, we have been told that there are multiple 

strategies with multiple types of fencing that—that could be considered for an area like Eagle Pass. Could you tell this committee the 

consultations that you’ve had, the options that you’ve been provided, the—perhaps the opinions that have been sought? 

Mr. FOSTER. I want a fresh clock. Yes, sir. We’ve worked with 

DHS—I’m going to say ’06 after the Secure Fence Act came out— 

but we’ve been working with them. Our municipal golf course goes 

up to the river between our two international bridges and continues to our golf course north of Bridge 1 in the city park. They 

want to eradicate 1.25 miles of carrizo cane, which is a wonderful 

idea. It would open up the golf course, the city park. It would open 

up the Cedar River. They wanted to overlay a structure to support 

Border Patrol vehicles on top of the existing cart path. Great idea. 

They wanted to continue that road along the banks of the river into 

our city park. Wonderful idea. They wanted to put 15 stadium light 

towers about a quarter of a mile off the river to illuminate our golf 

course and our city park at night. Wonderful idea. Then they wanted to put a decorative fence along that same alignment. Well, we, 

like most Texas border communities, have a resolution against any 

fences or any form of physical fiscal barrier within the city limits. 

And we tabled the item. 

I was approached by DHS late December of ’06 and they made 

me aware, ‘‘Washington has allowed us to take the fence facet off 

of that project.’’ 

‘‘Let me get you on a council meeting.’’ They were on our first 

council meeting of ’07, January 9. They made the same presentation, but with the deletion of the fence facet. To me, it’s a park 

improvement project. We’re a five-member council. We approved 

that project on a 3-2 vote. After the council meeting I asked the 

two dissenting council members, ‘‘What is your issue with this 

project?’’ 

‘‘We do not trust them.’’ That was on January 9th. Later that 

January, the Texas Border Coalition had the opportunity to meet 

with Secretary Chertoff in Washington, and I used that as an example of how border communities can work with DHS and everybody walk off with a win-win. He said, ‘‘My hands are tied by the 

Secure Fence Act, and in my comments, that’s been changed.’’ 

As the President’s signature hit the paper on December 26th of 

2007, we’re no longer bound by the Secure Fence Act. In the State 

of Texas where you have such a magnificent natural boundary as 

the Rio Grande River, we continue to advocate eradicating the 

carrizo cane, the salt cedar that facilitates line-of-sight to the Border Patrol agents to the physical banks of the river. Let’s upgrade 

our technology, our sensors that are embedded in the banks of the 

river. And let’s get more boots on the ground. Because these gentleman have a tireless job, but they are so very successful. 

49 

In our Texas border I think statistically speaking apprehensions 

are down somewhere in the neighborhood of 78 percent. Conversely, on the California border, where you do have physical barriers, apprehensions are up somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 

percent. So I think we can—we have control of our Texas border. 

The statistics speak for themselves. But the analogy is we’ve got 

a kitchen sink with a broken pipe. Instead of sending in a plumber 

to fix the pipe, which is immigration reform, we keep sending in 

more money. And when we fix the sink, we’re going to get the 

neighbors off, get them off the river, and we’re going to put them 

on the bridge as a guest worker. Canada, as we speak, is flying 

guest workers from Monterrey and Mexico City to Canada. And we 

can do the same. But we lack immigration reform. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Now let’s turn to the gentleman from 

American Samoa for any questions you might have, Mr. 

Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve been listening very attentively at some of the questions and—not wanting to 

be repetitious of some of the questions that were raised by members of the panel. Mr. Schultz, I have read I think there are approximately 30 Federal laws that come under the jurisdiction of the 

Department of Interior that have been waived by Secretary 

Chertoff. And I just wanted to ask you, in your capacity as a National Borderland Coordinator, do you work directly under the Secretary of the Interior. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I work—Mr. Congressman, I work for the Deputy 

Secretary of the Interior. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. With the Deputy Secretary of the Interior. 

So we have the Under Secretary of the Interior, the Deputy Under 

Secretary, then the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, then the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. So you are under the 

Deputy Under Secretary of the Interior? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I’m under Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn 

Scarlett. That’s who I work for. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And in the process of screening and approving these 30 Federal laws that Chertoff decided to waive, what was 

your procedure in waiving these Federal laws? Was it extensive, or 

just DHS says, ‘‘We want to waive these laws whether you like it 

or not’’. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Congressman, over the past nine months or so 

we’ve been working with Homeland Security on a variety of issues, 

including statutes that we deal with, and also the relatively compressed time frame under which DHS is required to build a fence. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You mentioned—in your testimony you said 

you’re under extremely compressed time. Are you saying that come 

December 2008, if the border fence does not appear between 

Brownsville and Matamoros, is all hell going to break loose. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Congressman, that’s not my decision. What we’re 

trying to do is respond to requests in a timely fashion that we have 

received from Homeland Security for access to our lands and for 

permits. 

50 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many illegal aliens have been monitored in this borderline you have between Matamoros and Brownsville as an example. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Honestly, Congressman, I don’t have the answer. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Maybe we should have checked it out. 

Mr. VITIELLO. So far for the fiscal year, Congressman, the Rio 

Grande Valley Sector has apprehended just over 42,000 illegal 

aliens in this particular area, and that includes folks that are 

smuggling drugs and human smugglers as well. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Vitiello, you said that no land will be 

ceded to Mexico. And after listening to Dr. Garcia’s testimony, the 

whole golf course is going to be ceded over there—am I correct— 

in the way the fence is being proposed now. 

Mr. VITIELLO. As currently proposed, the fence will be north of 

what is the golf course now. But our activity with regard to enforcement—the enforcement footprint, if you will, that is exercised 

by the Border Patrol—will remain as it is today. We’ll be patrolling 

the river by boat as we do now. Agents will be on the river’s edge 

and using the levee roads and the roads that are constructed along 

with this fence to patrol the border much in the same manner that 

we are now. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, the good citizens of Brownsville have to 

get permission to go over and play golf. 

Mr. VITIELLO. That’s not correct. We’re going to be present on 

both sides of that fence. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And how many Border Patrol people are 

going to be involved in the security and the monitoring and all. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Between Brownsville and Ft. Brown there is approximately—there’s well over 600 agents that are on duty in this 

area, that are assigned to these regions. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just between the borderline between Mexico 

and the U.S. now, speaking just to Congressman Ortiz’s district, 

what’s the total mileage that we’re talking about in the borderline 

between Mexico and the U.S. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I’m not sure about the jurisdiction of the district. 

My area, the Rio Grande Valley sector, is 316 miles U.S.-Mexico 

border, and it’s like 380 miles up along the Texas Gulf Coast. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That 300-some miles, can you just wing it? 

About how many is involved in Congressman Ortiz’s district? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I’m going to be—it’s going to be in the neighborhood of 60, 70. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And there’s going to be fences in that whole 

300-mile stretch. 

Mr. VITIELLO. No, that’s not correct. What we’ve got—I don’t 

know how many segments, but if you add up the segments that 

we’ve requested, it’s just under 70 miles. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So there are some exceptions. 

Mr. VITIELLO. They’re not exceptions. What we looked at were 

the activity levels and made an assessment where fencing would 

assist us in the work that we do. Typically in this area the fencing 

is dedicated to locations where there’s an urban interface where 

both cities in Mexico and the U.S. are close to the border or are 

built up close to the border. That fencing in those areas assists us 

in being more efficient and more effective. 

51 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to say to Chairman Norris it 

was my privilege a couple of years ago to visit your Nation. And 

hopefully a couple of my relatives playing for the Arizona Wildcats 

will come and help your football team. Chairman Norris, one thing 

you mentioned about being at the table. If you’re not at the table, 

you’re going to be on the menu. And please stay the course and 

continue your efforts in making sure that the people and your Nation’s needs and interests are protected. 

And, Mayor Foster, you know, as someone once said, unjust laws 

are no laws at all. And would you consider these waivers of these 

37 laws just an effort on the part of the Federal government to do 

this? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir, absolutely. We—our country is based on 

law. We are based on and we operate by law. I mean, that would 

be lawless if we had—again, for that reason, we’re asking to have 

the Secretary’s waiver authority repealed. I mean, where does it 

end? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is this proposed fence construction, is it 

going to have any impact on economics between Matamoros and 

Brownsville as an example? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. In the Valley, there’s 69.9 miles of fencing 

scheduled that would be within 1 to 3 mile slips. It will have an 

economic impact. I mean, we have—one of the issues with the 

Texas border, of the 2,000 miles of southern border, Texas enjoys 

approximately 1,250 miles. We’re the most populated border. We 

have the most relations with sister cities. That’s not to say that we 

don’t have issues on those borders. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I’m sorry, Mr. Foster. The Chairman is 

going to kill me if I continue with the questioning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Mr. Ortiz. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much. You know, we are talking about 

and I’ve talked to some people here about creating funnels. They 

would call it a certain way, but we have created a funnel. Because 

when we have a 2,000-mile border and only 700 miles of fences, 

they don’t think they can go around those 700 miles and go to 

those 1,300 miles? And one of the things that we haven’t touched 

on today is the Canadian border. What have we done—Chief, 

maybe you can help me. Are we doing anything on the Canadian 

border? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I’m not aware of any specific projects that are ongoing with the Canadian border in regards to fencing as a separate 

infrastructure. I can tell you that in my previous assignment in 

Vermont on the Canadian border, the only particular areas of that 

border where we knew that infrastructure to block the paved roads 

and unpaved roads that crossed the border—we looked for tactical 

infrastructure to stop that traffic, that traffic that we knew was 

putting us all in jeopardy. So there may not be the same kind of 

tactical infrastructure contemplated for the northern border, but it 

will be part of a complete solution. 

But let’s not forget that the fence that we’re requesting here is 

not an ultimate solution. We recognize that people can defeat physical infrastructure. We’re asking for fencing. We’re doing very well 

in improving the level of staff, Border Patrol agents and mission 

52 

support folks in every sector. And then we’re looking on top of all, 

where there will be fence and where there won’t be fence, a technological solution that cues the activity and increases our efficiency. 

So it’s not just walls or fences. It’s part of a complete solution that 

includes all three elements. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Am I correct that the border, the length of the border 

in Canada is twice as long as the Mexico side? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes. 

Mr. ORTIZ. OK. Are you familiar—and I know you are—with the 

OTMs? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Have you heard of that? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It’s the agency vernacular for folks that we arrest 

that are not from Mexico. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And I can remember, you know, and I think I brought 

that to the forefront, that the—if you were coming across, you 

know, and if you were a Mexican, those were the only ones that 

were apprehended. Am I correct? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, there was and there is a difference in sort 

of the options available for folks that are not from Mexico that are 

arrested here. Since Mexico is our neighbor, the people that are apprehended here from Mexico are treated in a separate way under 

the administrative process. 

Mr. ORTIZ. But the thing is this. Now, I remember going to some 

of the checkpoints here. People would come in and say, ‘‘I’m not 

Mexican. Arrest me. Arrest me. I’m not Mexican.’’ They had no 

identification whatsoever. And they were given a piece of paper 

with no picture, no fingerprints, no nothing, and they were told to 

report to an immigration law office within 45 days. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Previously we did not have the detention space or 

funding available to hold folks that were arrested here that weren’t 

from Mexico to allow them to have their due process right. Under 

the administrative proceeding, they were given a notice to appear. 

That policy has ended. 

Mr. ORTIZ. But it lasted for about two or three years. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I’m sorry. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Or maybe longer than that. The OTMs, how long was 

it being done? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It was for many years. But I can tell you that in 

2006 in this sector and all the others in the south along the border, 

those folks are now detained and held in custody until their administrative process is completed. So that the policy of catch and release—called catch and release—has been ended. With the great 

support from Congress and the leadership shown by the Department of Homeland Security, we are now able to detain everyone 

who is amenable to deportation proceedings within the United 

States. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And I know we have numbers. We have two more 

panels. But it looks to me like all of a sudden we saw the light. 

The fence—the fence, you know, that’s what we need to do after we 

let thousands and thousands and thousands, maybe millions of people come in, not only from Mexico—most of the people from Mexico 

come here looking for jobs. People from all over the world came 

through because they were not Mexicans. And all of a sudden we’ve 

53 

seen the light and the answer is a fence, a 700-mile fence—and let 

me—and I want to be real quick now. Are we having any damages 

done to the fencing that is being built now? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I’m aware that once infrastructure is in place on 

the border, if it’s not protected and patrolled adequately, smugglers 

will try to defeat any physical infrastructure. That’s part of our 

charge when we’re trying to take operational control of the border, 

we’re aware of when that activity occurs and do our best to stop 

it. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Can you give us an estimate as to how much it costs 

to repair? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I’m happy to go back to the agency and get this 

sort of nationwide wrap-up on these types of things but I don’t 

have it today. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And we appreciate the work that you do and I know 

that sometimes you’re mandated by higher-ups and we understand 

that. 

Mr. VITIELLO. We appreciate the support. And let me be clear 

that the 69.6 miles that we’ve requested for the Rio Grande Valley 

is something that I’ve been able to validate since my assignment 

began in July. And I would not be asking the taxpayers or the Congress or the department, the CBP, to support that if I didn’t believe 

it was necessary. 

Mr. ORTIZ. We can’t afford to be spending another $20 million 

like we did on technology in Arizona when our people are having 

to pay $4 a gallon on gasoline. And that’s, to me, you know, taxpayers’ money. That’s the taxpayers’ money. I appreciate the work 

you’ve done. And, again, we have two other panels. I think—go 

ahead. 

Mr. FOSTER. Maybe the Secretary could get Boeing to waive that 

fee. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Vitiello. Anyway, let me—I 

have—in lieu of follow-up questions, I would encourage my colleagues at the dais here to forward written questions. I certainly 

had a couple of rounds, but I think that for the sake of time and 

for the sake of our other panelists that have patiently been waiting, I will submit those for the record. And with that, let me thank 

this panel very much for your testimony today. It’s much appreciated and invite the next panel up. Thank you. 

[Brief recess.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Pursuant to Clause 2 of 

House Rule 11, I ask that the witnesses please stand and raise 

their right hand to be sworn in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let the record indicate that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You’re now under oath and we’ll begin 

to hear your testimony. And we’ll begin with The Most Reverend 

Raymundo Pen ̃ a, Bishop of Brownsville. And, Bishop, with all due 

respect, you don’t know how uncomfortable I was swearing you in 

right now. That’s another story for another time. Welcome, sir. 

Thank you, Father, for your time, and we look forward to your testimony. 

54 

STATEMENT OF THE MOST REV. RAYMUNDO J. PEN ̃ A, 

BISHOP OF BROWNSVILLE 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Madam 

Chair, and members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife 

and Oceans. I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you regarding this very important issue. As I begin my testimony, let me 

offer a few observations that will allow for a substantive and truthful discussion on the proposed topic of this hearing. As a man dedicated to pastoral ministry, let me remind everyone here that the 

issues before this Subcommittee should not be used for partisan advantage. We have to guard against policy disputes that encourage 

or excuse ethnic hostility or discrimination. We must continue to 

seriously discuss legitimate concerns regarding the protection of 

our borders, curbing the flow of unlawful immigration, the potential displacement of native workers and the possibility of exploitation with guest worker programs. 

These issues are not to be ignored, exaggerated, dismissed or 

used as political weapons. The Church calls for charity and justice 

at all times and especially in a public forum such as this. 

The wall has been discussed very frequently and thoroughly in 

this part of Texas because our community is a border community. 

For many Americans the emphasis is on the word border, but for 

us who have lived in this area for generations, the reality is that 

community comes first, and our community has existed long before 

the border was ever drawn. 

This wall, built on U.S. soil, will not only move the U.S. border 

inward from the Rio Grande River, but will also alienate people 

and businesses who live and work between the wall and the border, 

in effect creating a zone where U.S. citizens and businesses exist 

south of the border. 

In addition to the existing human community, which has thrived 

in this land for hundreds of years, the Rio Grande Valley houses 

several wildlife refuges and parks that preserve God’s creation. 

Therefore, let me humbly advise the Subcommittee that the word 

‘‘expedite’’ should not be part of the dialogue. For a great many 

people living in the Rio Grande Valley, building a wall along the 

border would not mean protection from the outside world, but the 

building of a barrier between families, friends and businesses. 

I am very concerned as well about the wall’s proposed location 

and the possibility that it might be a barrier that may prevent us 

from fulfilling our pastoral mission in parts of this diocese. It 

would be wrong to discuss this in terms of expecting—of expediting 

construction before our community has had a chance to voice its 

opinion on the merits of why we oppose the wall. 

We oppose the construction of the wall because one-dimensional 

solutions may be simple, but they are often illusions and can make 

things worse. No fence we can build will be long enough or high 

enough to wall out the human and economic forces that drive undocumented immigrants into our country. We oppose the wall because immigration policies that begin and end at our borders will 

not be successful. We oppose the wall because residents of the Valley and visitors from across the country stand to lose the opportunity to visit and enjoy the vibrant wildlife areas unique to our 

55 

Valley, places where all can discover and connect with God’s creations and with one another. 

I have, therefore, supported Valley Interfaith’s petition against 

the border wall and have invited our parishioners to support it as 

well. To date over 10,000 registered voters have signed this petition. Instead of a wall, we need Congress to pass comprehensive 

immigration reform. Instead of a wall, we need national policies 

that help overcome the pervasive poverty and deprivation, violence 

and oppression that push people to leave their own homes. We 

need policies that promote family unity, debt reduction, economic 

development, foreign aid and fair global trade. These are essential 

elements that the Church recommends for effective comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

Let me say again that rather than debating the impacts of a 

wall, what we need is a constructive discussion that neither diminishes our nation nor divides our communities, but instead achieves 

realistic, practical and principled steps toward solving the challenges that face our nation. I thank you for this opportunity. I 

thank you for your attention and I will welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Bishop Pen ̃ a follows:] 

Statement of The Most Reverend Raymundo J. Pen ̃ a, 

Bishop of the Diocese of Brownsville 

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and good morning to all the members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. I thank you for this opportunity to 

speak to you regarding this very important issue and I welcome you to our beautiful 

State of Texas and our home in the Rio Grande Valley. My name is Raymundo J. 

Pen ̃ a and I am the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brownsville. Our diocese operates one hundred and seven parishes and missions for the approximately 

eight hundred thousand Catholics who live in the Valley and we also serve the 

greater population of nine hundred and forty thousand through a shrine and retreat 

center, twelve parochial schools, five centers for social services, three homes for the 

aged, and religious education programs at all parishes and missions. 

As I begin my testimony, let me offer a few observations that will allow for a substantive and fruitful discussion on the proposed topic of this hearing, ‘‘Walls and 

Waivers: Expedited Construction of the Southern Border Wall and Collateral Impacts to Communities and the Environment.’’ 

This title sounds imposing and, indeed, the topic of building a wall between the 

United States and Mexico has generated a lot of controversy in our community. Passion and strong convictions can be good ingredients for an informative civic discourse, however, anger is no substitute for wisdom, attacks are no substitute for dialogue, and feeding fears will not help us find solutions to the challenges that lie before us. 

As a man dedicated to pastoral ministry, let me remind everyone here that the 

issues before this Subcommittee should not be used for partisan advantage. We have 

to guard against policy disputes that encourage or excuse ethnic hostility or discrimination. We must continue to seriously discuss legitimate concerns regarding 

the protection of our borders, curbing the flow of unlawful immigration, the potential displacement of native workers, and the possibility of exploitation within guest 

worker programs. These issues are not to be ignored, exaggerated, dismissed, or 

used as political weapons. The Church calls for charity and justice at all times, and 

especially in a public forum such as this. 

The ‘‘Wall’’ has been discussed very frequently and thoroughly in this part of 

Texas, because our community is a border community. For many Americans the emphasis is on the word ‘‘border’’ but for those families that have lived in this area 

for generations, the reality is that the community comes first and our community 

has existed long before the border was ever drawn. This Wall, built on U.S. Soil, 

will not only move the U.S. border inward from the Rio Grande River, but will also 

alienate people and businesses who live and work between the Wall and the border, 

in effect creating a zone where U.S. citizens and businesses exist ‘‘south of the border.’’ This is problematic not only for the movement of people and goods between 

56 

the U.S. area north and south of the wall, but also because it creates a new mentality of who is and who is not a U.S. citizen. 

In addition to the existing human community, which has thrived in this land for 

hundreds of years, the Rio Grande Valley houses several wildlife refuges and parks 

that preserve God’s creation. Wildlife areas including the International Falcon Reservoir, Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Nature Conservancy’s 

Southmost Preserve and Texas Sabal Palm Sanctuary would be threatened by such 

a wall. These parks enhance family life in our community. 

Therefore, let me humbly advise the Subcommittee that the word ‘‘expedite’’ 

should not be a part of this dialogue. For a great many people living in the Rio 

Grande Valley building a wall along the border would not mean protection from the 

outside world, but instead, the collateral impact of building a wall would mean 

building a barrier between families, friends, and businesses. The wall would mean 

physically living, on a daily basis, with a massive edifice that almost no one here 

wants. There is a great deal of confusion in our community about the location of 

the wall and which properties and communities would be directly impacted. I am 

very concerned about the wall’s proposed location and the possibility that it might 

be a barrier that may prevent us from fulfilling our pastoral mission in parts of this 

diocese. It is not clear to me if our historic church properties and missions might 

be impacted. It would be wrong to discuss this in terms of expediting construction 

before our community has had a chance to voice its opinion on the merits of why 

we oppose the wall. 

We oppose the construction of the wall because one-dimensional solutions may be 

simple, but they are often illusions and can make things worse. No fence we can 

build will be long enough or high enough to wall out the human and economic forces 

that drive undocumented immigrants into our country. We oppose the wall because 

immigration policies that begin and end at our borders will not be successful. We 

oppose the wall because it poses a serious threat of increased flooding in our region 

in the event of a hurricane, which on this coast is not a possibility, but a reality. 

We oppose this wall because residents of the Valley—and visitors from across the 

country—stand to lose the opportunity to visit the vibrant wildlife areas unique to 

our Valley, places where all can discover and connect with God’s creation and with 

one another. I have, therefore, supported Valley Interfaith’s petition against the 

Border Wall and have invited parishes in the diocese to support it, as well. To date 

over 10,000 registered voters have signed this petition. 

Instead of a wall, we need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. 

Instead of a wall, we need national policies that help overcome the pervasive poverty and deprivation, violence and oppression that push people to leave their own 

homes. We need policies that promote family unity, debt reduction, economic development, foreign aid and fair global trade. These are essential elements that the 

Church recommends for effective comprehensive immigration reform. 

I should also add that a collateral consequence from Congress not passing any 

comprehensive immigration reform has been the flood of local and state proposals 

in Texas to deal with this federal issue. In our most recent session of the state legislature, more than sixty bills were introduced that attempted, among other things, 

to fund local law enforcement agencies to act as federal border agents, bar the undocumented from access to any public education or emergency healthcare, and deny 

citizenship to any child born in Texas to undocumented parents. Fortunately, nearly 

all of these punitive measures were defeated, last year. Our next legislative session 

is scheduled to begin in January and we are bracing for all these bills to be re-introduced. 

Let me say again, that rather than debating the impacts of a wall, what we need 

is a different type of debate. We need a constructive discussion that neither diminishes our nation nor divides our communities, but instead achieves realistic, practical, and principled steps towards solving the challenges that face our nation. 

Thank you again for your attention, I look forward to any questions that you 

might have for me at this time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me now call upon Ms. Betty Pe ́rez, 

local private landowner active in this community. Looking forward 

to your testimony. 

57 

STATEMENT OF BETTY PE ́ REZ, LOCAL PRIVATE LANDOWNER 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. Thank you. My name is Betty Pe ́rez. I am with No 

Border Wall, a grassroots coalition of people coming from many different perspectives to oppose the wall. We thank you, Chairman 

Grijalva and Chairwoman Bordallo, for having this field hearing 

here in the Valley, and we thank you all for coming down to the 

border to hear from the community that will suffer most of the consequences of the border wall. 

Members of the coalition, of the No Border Wall Coalition, may 

differ as to the solution of the immigration problems and the security problems the U.S. suffers, but we are all united in one aspect, 

we don’t believe this wall is the answer. Our diverse group consists 

of people who really care about the Rio Grande Valley’s environment and who don’t want to see it scarred, social activists and clergy who believe that we are treating desperate Mexican people 

inhumanely, farmers and ranchers who mostly want to get water 

to their crops and their cattle and easily access their land, business 

professionals worried about the effects a wall will have on the economy of an already impoverished area, and historians and archaeologists who are afraid we’ll lose some of our rich history. There 

are people in this group that think this wall is plain and blatant 

racism, those that are afraid the border is becoming more and more 

militarized, and those who are dismayed at the way the government is trampling upon our Constitutional rights. 

We don’t want a war zone in the Valley. We don’t want to make 

enemies of our Mexican friends and neighbors, and we fear that the 

United States is trending toward isolating itself from the rest of 

the world when we wall ourselves off. 

We know that Secretary Michael Chertoff and the DHS mislead 

the Nation by saying that residents along the border have had an 

opportunity to make their views heard numerous times. In fact, the 

handful of open house meetings the DHS held left people frustrated 

and angry that their questions were not answered and that their 

opinions could only be written or given to a stenographer. Now 

even that input will not be released because of Mr. Chertoff’s waivers. Where did those comments go? 

Other than this hat I wear called No Border Wall activist, I wear 

a few others in giving my testimony today. I’m a landowner, a native plant grower, and I manage my family’s cattle ranch and 

dryland farm. Thankfully, it’s not right on the border. I helped organize a nonprofit canoe touring enterprise in the Rio Grande, 

which caters to ecotourists, and I can proudly say I’m a paddler. 

I’m a Valley native of Mexican descent and have roots here that go 

back centuries. There are a lot of people like me in the Valley who 

can talk long and proudly of our family history. My family’s ranch 

was bought in the ’30s, but my roots in the Valley go back into 

Mexico and to the Texas land grants of the 1700s. There are Valley 

people along the river who still own land first granted by the king 

of Spain. 

We know how hard it is to hold on to land through the years, 

through hard times, high taxes, drought and eminent domain, but 

the longer you do hold on to that land, the more the land becomes 

part of who you are. 

58 

As a rancher and farmer, I also understand how important access to water is. The Valley is still in its worst recorded drought 

in history. You brought rain. We thank you. It didn’t stop the 

drought, however. We measure rainfall by the hundredths of an 

inch. The ranch got 1.01 inches last night. The wall will diminish 

essential access to water for farmers and ranchers along the river. 

The hat that I wear that has led me to actively work against the 

wall is that of environmentalist. Because of the Valley’s location on 

a major flyway for migratory birds in an area that includes coastal, 

riverine, semi-arid and semi-tropical habitats, we have one of the 

nation’s richest collections of birds, butterflies and plants. We have 

rare species of cats that most of us only dream of seeing. We have 

a beautiful river, a getaway, a recreational relief from the heat, the 

dust and the busy metropolis that most of the Valley has become. 

It is this river that brings birders and butterfliers and an estimated $125 million a year from ecotourism, this river that we will 

lose access to because of the wall. 

And the Rio Grande is the basis of a fantastic dream for many 

of us, the completion of 275 miles of an international greenbelt running alongside it and across it from the Gulf of Mexico to Falcon 

Dam. This wildlife corridor extends down the Gulf Coast into Mexico’s wetlands and would have the potential to expand to the nearby 

mountains of Mexico, even down into Central America. 

In many places along the river the corridor of wild habitat extends north over the levee, so the proposed levee wall would cut off 

the habitat to the north from access to the river and the corridor. 

Congress has supported the wildlife corridor with funding for over 

20 years. The wall and levee wall will devastate it. It is a crime 

to take down 100-year-old trees lining the river in Starr County 

necessary for rare birds like the red-billed pigeon and the gray 

hawk for a wall that most of us believe won’t work. 

It is wrong to wall off our Sabal Palm Grove, the nation’s pristine Southmost Preserve and the refuge tract at the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. It is wrong to cut off access to water to terrestrial animals north of the levee wall. 

Today the coalition is submitting a letter to Congress asking for 

a moratorium on the construction of the wall. Quote, ‘‘A moratorium will allow time to assess the value of border walls in the overall national security strategy and ensure that we do not needlessly 

sacrifice the social, economic, and environmental health of our border region.’’ It has been signed by environmental, religious, social 

justice and business groups from all over the country. Our list of 

signatories grows by the day. I have submitted it in my written testimony and I’d like to personally present it to each of you today. 

We in No Border Wall have been concerned enough to do something about the wall, to call and write letters to you, our representatives, to organize rallies against it and get the word out to the 

rest of the Nation that something awful is happening down on the 

Rio Grande. We’re still trying to do that, and thank you for giving 

us this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pe ́rez follows:] 

59 

Statement of Betty Pe ́rez, No Border Wall Coalition 

My name is Betty Pe ́rez. I am an active member of the coalition, No Border Wall. 

Thank you Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Bordallo for organizing this field 

hearing, and thank you all for actually coming down to the border to listen to what 

our community has to say about the border wall. 

Secretary Michael Chertoff and the DHS are either out of touch or misleading the 

nation in saying that residents along the border have had this opportunity to be 

heard many times before. The handful of open house meeting they held, left people 

frustrated and angry that their questions were not answered and that their opinions 

could only be written or given to a stenographer. These meetings were not opportunities for public input or dialogue; they were rigid forums where DHS did not listen 

or respond to legitimate concerns. Now even that input we are told will not be gathered and released because of Mr. Chertoff’s abuse of the REAL-ID Act waivers. 

I’ll venture to say that if you get out and actually talk to the 3 million people 

who live along the Texas border and who are being directly affected by this intrusive wall, you will find that overwhelmingly, they are against it. Those who are for 

it have loud, angry voices, and those are the ones being heard in Washington. Mostly folks down here will say that the wall is a big waste of money, there’s serious 

doubt we can stop the Bush Administration from rolling over our wishes to stop it, 

and that someone’s getting richer because of it. 

I’ll sum up who the No Border Wall group is with words written by one of the 

No Border Wall founders, Scott Nicol: ‘‘NO BORDER WALL is a grassroots coalition 

of groups and individuals united in our belief that a border wall will not stop illegal 

immigration or smuggling and will not make the United States any safer. A border 

wall tells the world that we are a fearful nation, not a strong and confident nation, 

and that we are unable to address difficult issues in an intelligent and meaningful 

way. It will do irreparable harm to our borderlands and our country as a whole.’’ 

The coalition consists of people coming from a lot of different perspectives and 

backgrounds. There are people who really care about the Rio Grande Valley’s environment and who don’t want to see it scarred; there are social activists and clergy 

who believe that we are treating desperate Mexican people inhumanely; there are 

farmers and ranchers who mostly want to get water to their crops and their cattle 

and easily access their land; there are business professionals worried about the affects a wall will have on the economy of an already impoverished area. There are 

people in this group that think this wall is plain and blatant racism; those that just 

love this area and don’t want to see our unique culture ruined by a wall; those that 

are afraid the border is becoming more and more militarized; and those that are 

dismayed at the way the government is trampling upon our Constitutional rights. 

I should tell you now why we use the word wall. When I hear the word fence I 

think of the barbed wire fences that separate properties and pastures. Even the 

cows can get through those if the grass is a lot greener on the other side. Or I think 

of the cedar fence around my mother’s yard. It’s easy to get past a fence, not so 

easy to get past a wall. And that’s what has been proposed here by the Bush Administration—a wall that illegal immigrants and terrorists can get through by going 

over it or under it or around it—but that terrestrial wildlife will not be able to pass. 

You can’t change what a bad thing inherently is by giving it a sweeter name. It’s 

not a fence and it’s not just a levee with its river side made of 2’ thick and 18’ high 

cement. It’s a wall. Why is Secretary Chertoff building it? The appropriations bill 

passed last December removed the requirement that Mr. Chertoff build walls in our 

area. But he’s doing it anyway. 

When I think of a wall, I think of the one being built between Israel and Palestine, and of the ongoing violence on the border between those warring countries. 

Or I think of the wall between East and West Berlin, and how that monstrosity once 

separated the German people. Or I think of the Wall of China that isolated that 

country from the rest of the world for centuries. We don’t want a war zone here 

in the Valley. We don’t want to make enemies of our Mexican friends and neighbors, 

and we don’t think the United States should isolate itself from the rest of the world. 

Other than this new hat I wear called activist, I wear a few other hats in giving 

my testimony today—I’m a landowner and manage my family’s cattle ranch and dry 

land farm, which thankfully is fourteen miles north of the border and not directly 

affected by the wall. I helped organize a canoe touring enterprise on the Rio Grande 

when I was director of the Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, and can proudly wear 

the hat of a paddler now. I’m a Valley native of Mexican descent and have roots 

in the Rio Grande Valley that go back centuries on both my parents’ sides 

As a rancher, farm owner and native plants grower, I strongly relate to those who 

are in danger of being cut off from their water source by a wall. I worry about our 

cattle and crops, because it has been 6 months since we’ve had a decent rain. Much 

60 

of the water that our cattle and the wildlife drink on our land is drawn up by windmills. Our farm land is at the mercy of rain; we don’t have irrigation. The native 

plants we grow are watered from rain water that we collect off our roofs. To put 

it another way, water is not taken for granted in these parts. We measure rainfall 

by the hundredth of an inch after all. So if farmers and ranchers along the river 

have a difficult time getting to their water in 100-degree heat, you know why most 

of them are against the construction of this wall. 

There are a lot of people like me in the Valley who can talk long and proudly 

about their deep roots here. Although the ranch my family owns now was bought 

in the 30’s by my maternal grandfather, my roots in the Valley go back into Mexico 

and to the Texas land grants of the 1700’s on both my maternal and paternal sides. 

There are Valley people who still own family land going back centuries. All of you 

have no doubt heard about Dr. Eloise Tamez’ struggle to keep what family land she 

has in El Calaboz or of the citizens of Granjeno, who have already lost some of their 

land to the levee system. It’s hard to hold onto land through hard times, high taxes, 

drought, and eminent domain. But the longer you do, the more the land becomes 

part of who you are. It is wrong for our government to seize it and tear it in two 

for a wall that won’t work. 

At heart though, and maybe partly because of these other hats I wear, I’m an environmentalist. I got involved in actively protesting the wall, because I am an environmentalist. We have something quite unique here in the Valley that I strongly 

feel needs to be protected and enhanced. Because of our location on the Central 

Flyway for migratory birds, in an area that includes coastal habitats, riparian habitats, semi-arid and semi-tropical habitats, we have an incredible biodiversity of 

birds, butterflies and plants. We have rare species of cats that most of us dream 

of seeing. We have a beautiful river, a getaway, a recreational relief from the heat, 

the dust and the busy metropolis that most of the Valley has become. The river 

should be promoted for its recreational and health benefits and not made inaccessible. This is an area that has few such recreational opportunities and a population 

that has a large incidence of diabetes, due to poor eating habits and little exercise. 

And the river is the basis of a wonderful dream for many of us—the completion 

of 275 miles of greenbelt running along the Rio Grande, on the Mexican side too, 

from the Gulf of Mexico to Falcon Reservoir. This wildlife corridor would extend 

across the river, and down the wetlands of the Gulf Coast. It wouldn’t stop at Falcon 

either, this corridor for wildlife has the potential to expand into the nearby mountains of Mexico, and even down into Central America, keeping endangered and nonendangered species alive and healthy. It wouldn’t stop at our flood control levees, 

which were not intended to stop wildlife, or illegal immigrants and terrorists for 

that matter, but would reach into the tiny islands of brush on the north side of the 

levees that need to be connected to the river system. 

The levee-wall being proposed by some local representatives is a bad idea. It will 

be just as bad for the environment as the original fence proposals. It is absolutely 

impenetrable to terrestrial animals—a true wall even though local representatives 

have characterized it by saying we will no longer have the wall in some areas due 

to get it. Furthermore, with Chertoff’s latest waivers, specifically for the levee-wall, 

no environmental impact studies will have to be made for it. The idea is being 

rushed along with no proper studies of its safety. And it is bound to insure that 

the Mexican side of the river with levees two-feet high in some places is what ends 

up getting potential flood waters from a hurricane. 

When I had the time to volunteer for the Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, I lobbied in DC two times to get Congress to appropriate money so that land along the 

river, mostly farmland, could be bought at good prices from willing sellers and 

turned into the corridor. We were relatively successful. Nearly $90 million dollars 

into the project, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge is over halfcompleted. And now Congress has voted to bulldoze through hundreds of those hardearned acres. When 95% of native brush is already gone in the Lower Rio Grande 

Valley, then each acre cleared is significant. 

Ecotourists from all over the world generate more than $125 million dollars for 

local economies, which is very significant for counties with an average annual median household income of $15,000. Birders come here to see birds reaching their 

northern limits here in the Valley; that are found nowhere else in the U.S. They 

come to see ‘‘million dollar birds’’ like the brown jay, the green kingfisher, the great 

kiskadee and the green jay. They come to get rare glimpses of the red-billed pigeon 

and gray hawk, two birds that need the large trees that grow along the river to 

roost and nest in. In Starr County these trees, some of them hundreds of years old, 

will be bulldozed right next to the river. 

How will these tourists access the best birding areas? Will refuge managers let 

staff or work and fire crews go between the walls and the river? Probably not; it 

61 

won’t be safe. How will the 300 fires that start in the wildlife corridor every year 

be brought under control? Will Sabal Palm Grove and Southmost Preserve have to 

be closed because they are on the river side of the levees? Probably; it won’t be safe. 

No Border Wall is asking Congress for a moratorium on the border wall. I quote 

from our moratorium letter: ‘‘We are deeply troubled by the headlong rush to build 

walls along the United States’ southern border without meaningful consideration of 

the walls’ negative impacts on border communities and the environment, and without evidence that such walls will enhance national security or curtail illegal immigration and smuggling. The border wall is a monumental project that will severely 

impact the entire 1,954-mile southern border and the 11 million U.S. citizens who 

live along it. A moratorium will allow time to assess the value of border walls in 

the overall national security strategy, and ensure that we do not needlessly sacrifice 

the social, economic and environmental health of our border region.’’ I am including 

our moratorium letter at the end of this written testimony. 

We in No Border Wall have been concerned enough about the building of this wall 

to try and do something about it, to exercise our democratic rights, to call and write 

letters to our representatives, organize rallies against it, and try to get the word 

out to the rest of the nation that something awful is happening down on the Rio 

Grande. Thank you again for this opportunity to hear our voices. 

Call for a Moratorium 

Dear Representative, 

We urge you to enact an immediate moratorium on border wall construction. We 

are deeply troubled by the headlong rush to build walls along the United States’ 

southern border without meaningful consideration of the walls’ negative impacts on 

border communities and the environment, and without evidence that such walls will 

enhance national security or curtail illegal immigration and smuggling. The border 

wall is a monumental project that will severely impact the entire 1,954-mile southern border and the 11 million U.S. citizens who live along it. A moratorium will 

allow time to assess the value of border walls in the overall national security strategy, and ensure that we do not needlessly sacrifice the social, economic and environmental health of our border region. 

There are numerous problems with the border wall project and the way it has 

been implemented thus far: 

The Department of Homeland Security has yet to develop a coherent border strategy: Rather than evaluating the relative effectiveness of a border wall versus other 

security measures such as more boots on the ground, DHS begins with the conclusion that border walls must be built. Even though construction is due to begin immediately, DHS still claims that they have not yet determined the border walls’ 

final route. The Draft Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments written for the border wall lack key information that is required by federal law, including final maps and design specifications. In addition, alternatives 

that were rejected outright in the draft environmental studies, such as building the 

walls into the flood control levee system, are being hastily revived and pursued. 

Critical questions regarding the levee-walls’ impacts on public safety, on private and 

public property, and on wildlife remain unanswered. 

The border wall does not appear to be based on operational needs: According to 

the Border Patrol’s own statistics, illegal crossing of the southern border decreased 

significantly between 2006 and 2007, including a 34% decrease in the Rio Grande 

Valley Sector and a 46% decrease in the Del Rio Sector. Both Texas sectors are slated to get walls despite this reduction and in spite of intense local opposition. By 

contrast, the heavily fortified San Diego Sector, where a triple-layer wall divides the 

border, saw a 7% increase in illegal crossing, suggesting that walls are not a meaningful deterrent for undocumented crossers. Indeed, a June 2007 Congressional Research Service report concluded that the walls in San Diego had ‘‘no discernible impact’’ on the number of people entering the U.S. illegally. The Border Patrol has also 

stated repeatedly that a wall only slows crossers down by a few minutes, rather 

than stopping them. 

According to Secretary Chertoff, there is no imminent threat along the southern 

border: While DHS has frequently referred to the threat of ‘‘terrorists and terrorist 

weapons’’ crossing the southern border in order to justify the breakneck speed of 

border wall construction, Secretary Chertoff has admitted that no potential terrorists have ever been apprehended on the southern border. In February he told the 

New York Daily News, ‘‘I don’t see any imminent threat’’ of terrorists infiltrating 

from Mexico. Yet DHS has fast-tracked the border wall project and expects to complete 370 miles by December of this year. In the absence of an imminent threat this 

deadline appears to be an arbitrary and politically-motivated date timed to coincide 

with the end of the Bush Administration’s period in office. 

62 

Border residents are not protected by the rule of law: Section 102 of the Real ID 

Act of 2005 gives Secretary Chertoff the power to waive all laws in order to build 

border walls. Such power concentrated in the hands of a single unelected official undermines democratic processes and places border residents under an undue burden, 

denying them the same legal protections guaranteed to all other United States citizens. Secretary Chertoff has issued 5 Real ID Act waivers to date, the most recent 

one setting aside 36 federal laws along the entire southern border. Secretary 

Chertoff can, and has, used waivers as trump cards in the face of legal challenges, 

waiving the very laws that were the basis of successful lawsuits. This has had a 

chilling effect on those individuals and entities that have legitimate cases against 

DHS and has permitted the agency to disregard public safety, environmental protection, and humanitarian concerns. The only conceivable reason for DHS to waive 

laws is because they know that their actions will break them. 

The wall could have permanent adverse impacts on border communities: When 

the border wall project is complete, walls will slice through municipal and private 

property, federally protected natural areas, state parks, and even a university campus. Homes will be bulldozed, and farmers and ranchers may be unable to access 

portions of their property. Along the Rio Grande, access to the river for municipal, 

agricultural, and recreational uses will be disrupted. In the hurricane-prone Lower 

Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, the border wall is planned to be constructed on 

or near the flood control levees that parallel the river. A similar levee-wall is also 

planned for Presidio, Texas near Big Bend National Park. No studies have yet been 

published that describe what impact the wall would have on flooding or on the integrity of these levee systems, and DHS has announced that in order to speed construction no further studies will be done. 

The negative impacts of the border wall will fall disproportionately on poor and 

minority citizens: Although there are many vibrant local economies along the border, approximately one-quarter of the population in the counties along the border 

live at or below the poverty line. This is more than double the national poverty rate. 

In addition, most of the counties in the border region have majority-minority populations. Given these demographics, the potential social, economic, and environmental damage caused by border walls could be magnified and will certainly affect 

poor and minority communities disproportionately. Nevertheless, DHS has failed to 

adequately examine environmental justice issues. 

Existing walls have created a humanitarian crisis in the Southwestern desert: 

DHS has continued to operate under the false assumption that the harsh conditions 

of the desert are a deterrent for people seeking entry into the U.S. The reality is 

that as DHS builds walls in populated areas, desperation drives more people into 

remote desert areas where hundreds die from dehydration and exposure. The General Accounting Office found that as walls went up between 1995 and 2005, the 

number of people who died attempting to enter the U.S. doubled. 

Border walls threaten protected natural lands and already endangered species: 

Nearly one-third of the 1,954 mile U.S.-Mexico border lies within public and tribal 

lands, including hundreds of miles within the National Park system. Spectacular 

wildlife, including both terrestrial species and resident and migratory birds, rely 

upon protected public lands along the border. Many endangered species including 

the jaguar, ocelot and the jaguarundi are dependent on border habitats for survival. 

Border walls will fragment habitat and isolate species currently at risk, undermining decades of conservation efforts. Walls between Mexico and Arizona will end 

the hope that the jaguar, which has only recently returned to the U.S., will reestablish itself. 

Constructing border walls damages our relationship with Mexico: Mexico is our 

neighbor and our largest trading partner, but Mexicans, from the president on 

down, see the border wall as an unprovoked insult. Building walls on the Mexican 

border, while leaving the Canadian border wide open, is interpreted by many as racist. In addition, the wall may also be in violation of a number of treaties with Mexico, including a 1970 treaty which stipulates that neither the U.S. nor Mexico can 

erect any structure that would result in a shift in the Rio Grande and therefore 

change the international boundary between the two countries. 

It is irresponsible to erect more walls without a complete understanding of what 

the long-term consequences will be. A moratorium will allow time for a non-partisan 

organization such as the General Accounting Office to review both the impacts of 

the walls that have already been built and the foreseeable impacts of proposed 

walls. The information gleaned from such a careful examination will allow our nation to better evaluate whether building walls is in fact the best way to address the 

complex issues of immigration and national security. DHS’s blind rush to break 

ground and build fences, without regard for impacts or likelihood of success makes 

a Congressional moratorium on border wall construction imperative. 

63 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I would now like to call on our next witness, Ms. 

Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations, NumbersUSA. 

Welcome. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY JENKS, DIRECTOR, 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NUMBERSUSA 

Ms. JENKS. Thank you very much. Good morning. Chairwoman 

Bordallo, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Tancredo, Congressman Hunter, members of the various Subcommittees and 

Committees, thanks for the opportunity to come here today and 

discuss the environmental impact of illegal immigration and the 

border fence. 

My organization, NumbersUSA, represents more than 600,000 

Americans and legal residents from every congressional district in 

America. They have joined NumbersUSA because they agree on one 

thing, we need to set immigration laws in our national interest and 

they need to be fairly and effectively enforced. 

As this map shows, much of the border land in Arizona is administered by the Federal government. I have traveled extensively 

through this area and spoken with refuge managers, park service, 

forest service and field rangers and members of the Tohono 

O’odham Nation. Most of the slides in my presentation are from 

photos I took during those travels in Arizona. 

The Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness is 

one of the most beautiful and one of the most embattled lands in 

our country. This map of Cabeza Prieta from 1998 shows the historical condition of the refuge. There is one major road, Camino del 

Diablo, running through it and then a handful of administrative 

roads. Over the next five years, this is the impact of illegal immigration on the refuge. There, the dark blue is abandoned cars, the 

turquoise is abandoned bicycles, the red is new roads, illegal roads 

and trails created through this pristine wilderness. The green is 

where fences have been cut and cattle have been allowed onto the 

refuge. There is a yellow line along the border on this very southern tip where the entire fence was stolen. And, of course, it was 

a three-strand barbed wire fence. It was not the kind of fence we’re 

talking about today. 

Essentially over a period of only five years, illegal immigration 

has turned a unique and pristine refuge into a trash-strewn war 

zone. Deaths are reported there every year. During the summer 

there are weekly search and rescue operations that the refuge has 

to pay for. Their Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement has to 

go out and find and save lives, mostly due to exposure. 

These are examples of some of the vehicles that are abandoned 

by—usually by smugglers in the refuge, have to be towed out, often 

are full of drugs. And this is just a sampling of the weapons, ammunition, night-vision equipment, communications equipment that 

is confiscated from smugglers on the refuge on a regular basis now. 

Between 1999 and 2006 the typical group of illegal aliens moving 

across the refuge grew from small groups of five to 10 to large 

groups of 50 or more. The roads they have carved through the land 

are essentially permanent. Because of the soil composition, the 

larger ones like this will still be visible 200 years from now even 

if you manage to stop new illegal immigration flows along them. 

64 

And the thousands of tons of trash will continue to threaten wildlife and water sources for generations. 

There is good news on the refuge. The lesser long-nosed bat, 

which was listed as endangered in 1988, is found only in Arizona, 

New Mexico and Mexico. There are only four known maternity 

roosts in the United States where these bats reproduce. One is an 

old mine shaft on the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge. The bats 

abandoned the maternity roost in 2002 and 2003 after drug smugglers began to use the cave to hole up during the day. Luckily, a 

common-sense solution has sent the smugglers packing. A fence 

was all it look. The bats are back. 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is also on the front lines 

of the battle against illegal immigration. This is the Organ Pipe for 

which the monument is named. Saguaro cactus, which can live for 

hundreds of years, are being cut down by illegal aliens desperate 

for water and hoping to find it stored inside these plants. Since the 

water is stored in the plant tissues, they soon realize there is no 

available source of water, but the damage is already done. 

Just as in Cabeza Prieta, trails are being carved across the land 

at Organ Pipe. Judging by this trail, the posted sign acts more as 

a marker than a warning. The southern portion of Organ Pipe is 

closed to the public because it is too dangerous for either visitors 

or park employees due to smuggling activity. And, again, trash is 

everywhere. 

This memorial stands in front of the Kris Eggle Visitors Center 

at Organ Pipe. On August 9th, 2002, Kris, a park ranger, was 

gunned down in cold blood by a drug smuggler who drove into the 

park from Mexico while being pursued by Mexican authorities. 

Having abandoned his vehicle, he ambushed Kris after Kris responded to calls for assistance from the Border Patrol. Kris was 28 

years old. 

This is Kris’s dad, Bob Eggle, at the memorial on the spot where 

Kris was murdered. Bob sacrificed his eye for his country while 

serving in the Army in Vietnam. In 2002 he sacrificed his only son 

in another war. Had the vehicle barrier now in place along the border between Organ Pipe and Mexico been in place in 2002, Kris 

would be alive today. 

East of Organ Pipe is the Tohono O’odham Nation. There, too, illegal immigration is scarring the land with footpaths, evidence of 

smugglers transporting drugs on horseback, and trash. The 

Sonoran Desert National Monument is north of the Tohono 

O’odham Nation and is administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Extending well over 100 miles north of the border, it too 

is littered with evidence of illegal immigration. 

But perhaps the most frightening thing impacting illegal immigration on our public lands is the presence of what the military 

calls LPOPs, or listening posts/observation posts, essentially machine gun nests on U.S. soil. Mexican cartels send aliens illegally 

into the U.S. to take up positions on hilltops overlooking smuggling 

transportation routes. They generally take up positions in pairs. 

Most are police- or military-trained and they’re armed, often with 

AK-47s. Their job is to watch the Border Patrol and other law enforcement and guide smuggling vehicles around them. These 

LPOPs are located on BLM land about 70 miles north of the border 

65 

1 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, U.S. Immigration Policy: Restoring Credibility. 

1994. p. 3. 2 In fact, Congress has passed six additional amnesties since 1986. See http:// 

www.numbersusa.com/interests/amnesty.html 

between Tucson and Phoenix, and these are the views they see 

from the top of the hillside as they’re watching for U.S. law enforcement. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Ms. Jenks, I extended the courtesy as much as I 

did for Ms. Pe ́rez, but—— 

Ms. JENKS. I appreciate that. I will wrap it up right now. The 

point of this is that every single law enforcement from all of our 

public agencies and Federal agencies walk out of their home every 

day, go to work, and know they could be in a gun sight of one of 

these spotters. And that is not something we should ask of them. 

The invitation to this hearing asked what message the border 

fence would send. My answer is exactly the right message, that you 

come legally or you don’t come at all because cheap labor and 

cheap votes come at an unacceptably high price. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenks follows:] 

Statement of Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations, 

NumbersUSA 

Chairwoman Bordallo, Chairman Grijalva, and Members of the Subcommittees, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the environmental impacts of the southern border fence. My organization, NumbersUSA, is a 

nonprofit, nonpartisan immigration-reduction organization representing more than 

600,000 Americans and legal residents from every congressional district across this 

country. They come from every socio-economic background and they span the political spectrum from liberal to conservative. They have joined NumbersUSA because 

there is one thing on which they all agree: U.S. immigration law should be set in 

the national interest and it should be enforced effectively and humanely throughout 

the nation. 

Our mission reflects the conclusions of the bipartisan U.S. Commission chaired by 

the late Barbara Jordan, a dedicated civil rights leader and Democratic Representative from the state of Texas, in which we have gathered for this hearing. After 

studying every aspect of our immigration system, she concluded in 1994 that: 

The credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: 

people who should get in, do get in; people who should not get in are kept 

out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave. 1

This hearing focuses on the middle part of that equation—keeping out those who 

should not get in. As demonstrated by the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens 

currently residing in the United States, and the estimated million or so new illegal 

aliens who enter the country each year, our efforts to date at keeping out those who 

should not get in have failed dramatically. 

Instead of the credible immigration policy Barbara Jordan recommended, we have 

a policy that says, in effect, ‘‘if you can successfully evade the Border Patrol or overstay a lawful visa, we will give you a job and let you stay.’’ The result, not surprisingly, has been continued mass illegal immigration. 

The chart in Appendix A shows the average net annual growth of the illegally 

resident population in the United States. Net annual illegal immigration has more 

than quadrupled since the 1980s, when Congress passed the ‘‘one-time only’’ 2 amnesty in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. 

As the numbers began to skyrocket in the early 1990s, most illegal entries were 

occurring in urban areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly in the San 

Diego area. Increasing incidents of aliens being hit by cars as they ran across major 

highways, high-speed vehicular chases resulting in crashes, and foot chases through 

residential areas, and even into apartment complexes made it clear to all that illegal 

immigration in urban corridors presented an unacceptable threat to human lives— 

the lives of the aliens, of the Border Patrol agents whose job was to chase them 

down, and of the American citizens and legal residents who happened to get in the 

way. Moreover, it was clear to law enforcement that illegal entry in urban corridors 

improved the aliens’ chances of disappearing into the community before they could 

66 

3 Nearly a decade after enactment of IIRIRA, the administration still had not completed the 

original 14 miles of fencing near San Diego because of challenges by the California Coastal Commission that the proposed fencing violated state environmental laws. In 2005, Congress responded by including a provision in the REAL ID Act authorizing the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to waive ‘‘all legal requirements’’ that the Secretary determines are necessary to ensure 

the construction of the San Diego fence and other necessary border barriers. The Secretary is 

required to notify the public of the decision to waive legal requirements by publishing it in the 

Federal Register, and any such decision may be challenged in Federal court on constitutional 

grounds. So, while the breadth of this waiver authority is unprecedented, Congress appropriately ensured that it could not be used without public notice, and that it could not be used 

in a way that violates the Constitution. 

be apprehended, and resulted in increases in criminal activity, including vandalism, 

theft, and the violent crimes associated with human and narcotics trafficking. 

Beginning in 1993 with the incredibly successful Operation Hold the Line, created 

and implemented by Congressman Silvestre Reyes, when he was Border Patrol 

Chief in the El Paso Sector, the Border Patrol began focusing on closing off the 

urban corridors and thus reducing the associated risks. It was hoped that forcing 

illegal aliens and smugglers into more remote areas would deter some of them from 

even attempting illegal entry, but it was also believed that it would be easier to 

catch those who did make the crossing because the Border Patrol would have more 

time to apprehend them before they could make it to an urban area and disappear. 

This effort to close off illegal immigration in urban corridors was undertaken with 

the explicit support of Congress. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)—the original version of which 

was designed specifically to implement the immigration policy recommended by the 

Jordan Commission. Thanks largely to the efforts of Congressman Duncan Hunter, 

this law included a provision that requires the administration to ‘‘take such actions 

as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity 

of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry 

[most of which were in urban corridors at that time] into the United States,’’ including the construction of 14 miles of triple fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border south 

of San Diego. To accomplish this, it authorized the administration to waive the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 3

Apprehension statistics show that the effort to control illegal immigration through 

urban corridors has been relatively successful. As the table in Appendix B indicates, 

apprehensions of illegal aliens in the San Diego, El Centro, and Laredo sectors, for 

example, dropped by 50 percent or more between 1997 and 2006. At the same time, 

however, apprehensions in the Yuma sector quadrupled and apprehensions in the 

Tucson sector rose by almost 50 percent. 

The result is hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens walking, bicycling, and driving across some of the most fragile, protected ecosystems in the United States. The 

impact has been particularly devastating in southern Arizona, where a significant 

share of the land is administered by the Federal Government. The most heavily impacted lands include the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness, 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and 

the Coronado National Memorial. 

Among a long list of the devastating environmental impacts of illegal immigration 

through these protected areas are the following: 

• Trash 

Æ The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that illegal aliens 

dumped more than 25 million pounds of trash in the Arizona desert between 

1999 and 2005—that is almost 2,100 tons of trash each year. 

Æ The accumulation of disintegrating toilet paper, human feces, and rotting 

food has become a health and safety issue for residents of and visitors to 

some of these areas, and is threatening water supplies in some areas. 

Æ Birds and mammals, some endangered, die when they eat or become entangled in the trash. 

• Illegal Roads and Abandoned Vehicles 

Æ By early 2004, the Chief Ranger at Organ Pipe estimated that illegal aliens 

and smugglers had created 300 miles of illegal roads and ‘‘thousands of miles 

of illegal trails.’’ 

Æ More than 30 abandoned vehicles are removed from Organ Pipe alone each 

year. 

Æ Since its creation in 2000, more than 50 illegal roads have been created in 

the Ironwood Forest National Monument, and more than 600 vehicles are 

abandoned there each year. 

67 

Æ There are an estimated 20-25 abandoned vehicles in the Cabeza Prieta NWR 

at any given time. 

Æ An estimated 180 miles of illegal roads were created in Cabeza Prieta between 2002 and 2006. 

• Fires 

Æ In 2002 in southern Arizona, illegal aliens were suspected of having caused 

at least eight major wildfires that burned 68,413 acres. 

Æ In May of 2007, illegal aliens set at least five fires in the Coronado National 

Forest over a 10-day period in an effort to burn out Border Patrol agents conducting a law enforcement operation in the area. 

• Declining Wildlife Populations 

Æ According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, mass illegal immigration ‘‘is a 

likely contributing factor in the dramatic 79 percent decline in the U.S. 

Sonoran pronghorn population between 2000 and 2002. 

These are just a few examples of the massive environmental destruction being 

caused by rampant illegal immigration in southern Arizona. Similar damage is 

being done to remote, fragile lands in California, New Mexico, and Texas. 

There is only one acceptable solution to this environmental crisis: stop the illegal 

traffic at the border. That means we must build a combination of physical barriers 

and technological barriers that will effectively ensure that, in the words of the late 

Barbara Jordan, ‘‘people who should not get in are kept out.’’ 


41959.001.eps 41959.002.eps
68 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Let me now turn to Joan 

Neuhaus Schaan, Executive Director, Houston-Harris County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council. Your testimony, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN NEUHAUS SCHAAN, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, HOUSTON-HARRIS COUNTY REGIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL 

Ms. SCHAAN. Thank you. Good afternoon. As the committee is 

well aware, security is a critical issue on the Texas-Mexican border, 

and increasingly in the metropolitan areas. First let me comment 

on the smuggling organizations themselves. Mexico is struggling to 

maintain civil authority against a potent adversary, and if it’s not 

successful, the consequences could be dire. According to studies 

conducted in Mexico, alien smuggling profits are now approaching 

drug smuggling profits. And according to other studies, of the $16 

billion in cash flow from the United States to Mexico, 10 billion 

cannot be accounted for by legal activity. 

The increased profitability has resulted in more professional and 

ruthless smuggling organizations that now resemble drug smuggling organizations and/or include the drug smuggling organizations. As the more ruthless organizations take over increasing portions of the smuggling trade, anecdotal evidence indicates prices 

are rising and operations are increasingly sophisticated. Currently 

the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States is of such proportions that it overwhelms immigration, law enforcement and the 

criminal justice systems of the border states and their communities. 

There have been estimates that there are 12 million illegal aliens 

in the United States, but given the fact that approximately 1.2 million are apprehended annually, usually coming in from the border, 

and assuming that 10 to 20 percent of those that come in are apprehended, that means we have 6 to 12 million coming in on an 

annual basis. 

From the point of view of civil authorities, the criminal organizations outman and outgun law enforcement and they have extremely 

effective intelligence-gathering, brutal intimidation tactics, including beheadings, torture, burnings and threatened decapitation of 

children, and they also have very deep pockets for bribery. 

Allow me to offer the opportunity to describe for you the cycle of 

violence as experienced in other countries and appears to be experienced at the beginning stages in Mexico. As civil authorities struggle to maintain control and are approaching the tipping point of 

control, law enforcement officials, elected officials and judges are 

assassinated, police stations are attacked, organized crime influences and then controls elected officials, and the press is silenced. 

Once past the tipping point, the organizations control a community, 

and those that do not acquiesce to their activities must leave or 

face the consequences. 

In its most extreme form, civil authorities cede entire geographic 

regions and the lawless organizations develop enclaves of autonomy, as such has been the case in Colombia and Lebanon. In recognizing the severity of the situation, President Calderon is taking 

unprecedented measures to combat organized crime. 

69 

As Mexico is in the throes of this struggle, in no place is it more 

evident than in Nuevo Laredo. The criminal organizations control 

the streets after midnight. Judges, police chiefs and city councilmen have been assassinated. Executions and firefights occur on a 

regular basis and have forced the American Consulate to close for 

as much as weeks at a time. Seventy percent of the businesses in 

Nuevo Laredo have closed in the past few years, though some of 

the shop space has been reoccupied. Mexican businessmen are desperate to live on the Texas side of the border due to the multiple 

kidnappings a week. The local press has stopped reporting on crime 

after multiple attacks on their personnel and their offices, and the 

San Antonio Express-News and the Dallas Morning Herald have 

pulled their Laredo reporters due to concerns for their safety. In 

fact, Reporters Without Borders lists Mexico as the most dangerous 

country in the world, except for Iraq, for journalists. 

In January military elements arrived in Nuevo Laredo to take 

charge of security in the area due to lost confidence in the public 

safety officials. And also in January the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a warning against crossing the Mexican border. 

And then on April 14th the State Department issued a travel alert 

for Mexico. 

The struggles the Mexican authorities are facing are not dissimilar to what our counties and state are confronting as the phenomenon spills across the border. The menace of organized crime’s 

violence and corruption must vigilantly be guarded against all levels of civil authorities as evidenced by multiple arrests in Texas in 

the last year or two. Our law enforcement agencies are outmanned 

and outgunned. As I said before, the criminal organizations are not 

only armed with advanced weaponry, including assault rifles, grenades and grenade launchers, but with rocket launchers capable of 

bringing down aircraft, machine guns and explosives, such as 

Tovex, which is a highly explosive hydrogel. There are even suspicions the cartels assisted a Mexican militant group in the bombing of the energy infrastructure. 

The organized criminal activity involves Texas and Texans. And 

you may have noticed on her slides of the vehicles that were caught 

smuggling back in, most of them appeared to have United States 

license plates. Arrests in Mexico regularly involve U.S. persons and 

U.S. vehicles, and students are being approached as they cross 

from Juarez into El Paso. 

The result of this has been very difficult for the ranch owners. 

They have difficulty leaving their homes unattended. When they 

return, often there is someone in the yard. Speaking with one 

ranch manager, he personally in a period of 12 months had over 

300 illegal aliens in his front yard, called Border Patrol, and had 

to release many of them because Border Patrol was not able to 

come in time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may, the courtesy has been extended as well. 

If you can wrap up. 

Ms. SCHAAN. Well, the other issues have to do with—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The whole testimony will be part of the record. 

Ms. SCHAAN. OK. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schaan follows:] 

70 

Statement of Joan Neuhaus Schaan, Executive Director, 

Houston-Harris County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council 

Please allow me this opportunity to first introduce myself. My name is Joan 

Neuhaus Schaan. I am the as the Fellow for Homeland Security and Terrorism Programs at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and I am also the 

Executive Director of the Houston-Harris County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council. The Advisory Council serves as an independent third party on homeland security matters and advises the Mayor of Houston, the County Judge, City 

Council and Commissioners Court. 

Per the request of the staff of Joint Subcommittee staff, I am offering my comments with regards to Texas Border security. As the committee is well aware, security is a critical issue on the Texas-Mexican border, and increasing in the metropolitan areas. 

On the border there are several levels of crime—the crime associated with drug 

and human smuggling organizations; general crime outside of the smuggling operations in the form of kidnapping, burglary and theft; and national security threats 

posed by elements that choose to exploit the unique characteristics of our border. 

First, let me comment on the smuggling organizations. Mexico is struggling to 

maintain civil authority against a potent adversary, and if not successful, the consequences will be dire. According to studies conducted in Mexico, alien smuggling 

profits are now approaching drug smuggling profits. The increased profitability has 

resulted in more professional and ruthless smuggling organizations that now resemble drug smuggling organizations and/or include drug smuggling organizations. As 

the more ruthless organizations take over increasing portions of the smuggling 

trade, anecdotal evidence indicates the prices are rising and operations are increasingly sophisticated. Currently the flow of illegal immigrants is of such proportions 

that it overwhelms immigration, law enforcement and the criminal justice systems 

of border states and their communities. Houston alone has an estimated 400,000 to 

450,000 illegal immigrants. This is only an estimate, as it is illegal to ask an individual about their immigration status in many instances. 

From the point of view of civil authorities, the criminal organizations outman and 

out gun law enforcement, they have extremely effective intelligence gathering, brutal intimidation tactics (including beheadings, torture, burnings, and threatened decapitation of children) and deep pockets for bribery. Allow me the opportunity to describe to you a phenomenon in the cycle of violence as experienced in other countries. As civil authorities struggle to maintain control and are approaching the tipping point of control, law enforcement officials, elected officials, and judges are assassinated; police stations are attacked; organized crime influences and then controls elected officials; and the press is silenced. Once past the tipping point, the organizations control a community, and those that do not acquiesce to their activities 

must leave or face the consequences. In its most extreme form, civil authorities cede 

entire geographic regions, and the lawless organizations develop enclaves of autonomy, as has been the case in Colombia and Lebanon. In recognizing the severity of 

the situation in Mexico, President Calderon is taking unprecedented measures to 

combat organized crime. 

Mexico is in the throws of this struggle as we speak, and in no place is it more 

evident than in Nuevo Laredo. The criminal organizations control the streets after 

midnight. Judges, police chiefs and city councilmen have been assassinated. Executions and firefights occur on a regular basis and have forced the American Consulate to close for as much as weeks at a time. Seventy percent of the businesses 

in Nuevo Laredo have closed in the last few years, though some of the shop space 

has been reoccupied. Mexican businessmen are desperate to live on the Texas side 

of the border, due to the multiple kidnappings a week. The local press has stopped 

reporting on crime after multiple attacks on their personnel and offices, and the San 

Antonio Express News and the Dallas Morning Herald have pulled their Laredo reporters due to concerns for their safety. In fact, Reporters Without Borders lists 

Mexico as the most dangerous country in the world—except for Iraq—for journalists. 

Last week, military elements arrived in Nuevo Laredo to take charge of security in 

the area, due to lost confidence in the Public Security officials in the area. In January, the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a warning against crossing the 

Mexican border, and on April 14th the State Department issued a Travel Alert for 

Mexico. 

The struggles Mexican authorities are facing are not dissimilar to what our counties and state are confronting as the phenomenon spills across the border. The menace of organized crime’s violence and corruption must be vigilantly guarded against 

at all levels of civil authority, as evidenced by multiple arrests in Texas the last 

year or two. Our law enforcement agencies are out manned and out gunned. The 

71 

criminal organizations are not only armed with advanced weaponry including assault rifles, grenades, and grenade launchers, but with rocket launchers capable of 

bringing down an airplane, machine guns, and explosives, such as Tovex, a highly 

explosive hydro gel. There are even suspicions the cartels assisted a Mexican militant group in the bombing of energy infrastructure. The organized criminal activity 

involves Texas and Texans. Arrests in Mexico regularly involve U.S. persons and 

U.S. vehicles. Students crossing from Juarez to El Paso are being targeted by drug 

traffickers. Recently, Mexican cartel members have order hits on persons in Texas. 

As David V. Aguilar, chief of the U.S. Border Patrol has said ‘‘The American public must understand that this situation is no longer about illegal immigration or 

narcotics trafficking. It is about criminals and smuggling organizations fighting our 

agents with lethal force to take over a part of American territory so they can conduct criminal activity.’’ 

As the volume of smuggling has increased, so have the incidents in the next level 

of crime—kidnapping, burglary and theft. Most kidnappings go unreported, even 

those involving American citizens, for fear of retribution. But the crime is not just 

occurring along the border. The City of Houston has seen an increase in kidnapping 

in the immigrant community, whether legal or illegal. At least one kidnapping ring 

was disrupted last year that preyed upon Hispanic immigrants. This may not be an 

unusual phenomenon along the border, but it is relatively new to Houston. One can 

easily envision the organizations moving beyond the immigrant population to more 

lucrative targets. 

Burglary and theft has increased with the general level of smuggling in border 

communities. I have spoken with many Texans from rural communities that are 

fearful in their own homes and who do not leave their home unattended, because 

when they return there are strangers in their home. This is particularly difficult on 

couples living alone, because they no longer can leave their home together or at the 

same time, even to go to the grocery store, for fear their home will be burglarized 

or occupied when they return. In one specific case, an older rancher, who operated 

a ranch on the Rio Grande that had been in his family for generations, made the 

difficult decision to sell the ranch, but he is having difficulty finding a buyer that 

is not associated with organized crime. The effects of this crime also are felt in 

Houston. For example thousands of trucks in Houston were stolen last year, many 

of which were later found to be involved in smuggling operations along the border. 

Reportedly F-250 and F-350 trucks are preferred, and at least 1250 Ford F-250 and 

F-350 trucks were stolen last year. 

The threat resulting from criminal smuggling increasingly looms over Texas communities, but the violence is not the only threat to landowners. Landowners are 

threatened by the lawsuits brought by those involved, and they need protection from 

lawsuits when they assist law enforcement. Currently, landowners that allow law 

enforcement officers on to their property are being sued by those involved in the 

criminal activity that claim injuries occurred while on the property. This is particularly true when law enforcement was involved/present during a pursuit or arrest. 

While Customs and Border Patrol have statutory authority to enter property within 

predefined distances of the border, the same is not true for other law enforcement 

agencies and greater distances from the border. Lawsuits in the last few years have 

been brought against landowners in rural areas, for injuries to illegal immigrants 

and/or trespassers in the presence of law enforcement, because the landowner allowed the law enforcement agency on to the private property. Although the legal application has been in rural communities, the same legal theory, if left unchecked, 

could apply to law enforcement in metropolitan areas as well. 

Landowners’ livelihood also is threatened by damaged fences and lost livestock. 

As smuggling operations cross private property, the smugglers open and close gates 

and/or cut fences. These activities result in livestock being cut off from water or 

straying onto road ways. If the livestock is hit by a vehicle, the landowner becomes 

liable. In many remote areas, ranch workers cannot leave a vehicle running while 

opening a gate, because persons emerge from the brush and drive off in the vehicle. 

Long time ranchers now feel more imperiled when riding the fences alone. 

Turning to the national security implications of the border environment, extremists are well aware of the United States’ inability to control its borders, and use of 

the border is mentioned not infrequently in extremist chat rooms in the context of 

discussing tactics and logistics. Extremists have had their own smuggling operations 

in Mexico, and unaffiliated smuggling organizations have expressed a willingness to 

assist extremists willing to pay the price. A 2005 DEA report outlines an ongoing 

scheme in which multiple Middle Eastern drug-trafficking and terrorist cells operating in the U.S. fund terror networks overseas, aided by established Mexican cartels with highly sophisticated trafficking routes. 

72 

This is of particular concern to the metropolitan areas, such as Houston. From 

an illegal activity perspective, the nature of the city provides a great operating environment for criminals and terrorists—anonymity, ease of entry and exit, readily 

available resources, robust commercial trade. From a terrorist perspective, Houston 

provides not only a good operating environment, but it is considered one of the top 

five economic targets in the United States. Terrorist associates and sympathizers 

are known to have been active in the Houston area and are believed to have well 

established networks. Their organizations have shown the means, knowledge, capabilities, and motivation to carry out terrorist operations. 

Securing the border is of paramount importance. Only when the border is secure 

can American citizens engage in a thoughtful debate on immigration policy for the 

future, rather than engaging in reactionary measures. The flow of illegal immigrants is of such proportions currently that all available tools should be employed. 

Once the border is secure and proactive policy has been determined, then appropriate changes can be made. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit this testimony to your committee. 

Appendix 

Travel Alert 14 April 2008 

On 14 April 2008 the U.S. Department of State issued the following Travel Alert: 

‘‘This Travel Alert updates information for U.S. citizens on security situations in 

Mexico that may affect their activities while in that country. This supersedes the 

Travel Alert for Mexico dated 24 October 2007, and expires on 15 October 2008. 

‘‘Violence Along The U.S.-Mexico Border—Violent criminal activity fueled by a 

war between criminal organizations struggling for control of the lucrative narcotics 

trade continues along the U.S.-Mexico border. Attacks are aimed primarily at members of drug trafficking organizations, Mexican police forces, criminal justice officials, and journalists. However, foreign visitors and residents, including Americans, 

have been among the victims of homicides and kidnappings in the border region. 

In its effort to combat violence, the government of Mexico has deployed military 

troops in various parts of the country. U.S. citizens are urged to cooperate with official checkpoints when traveling on Mexican highways. 

‘‘Recent Mexican army and police force conflicts with heavily-armed narcotics cartels have escalated to levels equivalent to military small-unit combat and have included use of machine guns and fragmentation grenades. Confrontations have taken 

place in numerous towns and cities in northern Mexico, including Tijuana in the 

Mexican state of Baja California, and Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez in the 

state of Chihuahua. The situation in northern Mexico remains very fluid; the location and timing of future armed engagements there cannot be predicted. 

‘‘Armed robberies and carjackings, apparently unconnected to the narcotics-related 

violence, have increased in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez. Dozens of U.S. citizens were 

kidnapped and/or murdered in Tijuana in 2007. Public shootouts have occurred during daylight hours near shopping areas. 

‘‘Criminals are armed with a wide array of sophisticated weapons. In some cases, 

assailants have worn full or partial police or military uniforms and have used vehicles that resemble police vehicles. 

‘‘U.S. citizens are urged to be especially alert to safety and security concerns when 

visiting the border region. While Mexican citizens overwhelmingly are the victims 

of these crimes, this uncertain security situation poses risks for U.S. citizens as 

well. Thousands of U.S. citizens cross the border safely each day, exercising common-sense precautions such as visiting only legitimate business and tourist areas 

of border towns during daylight hours. It is strongly recommended that travelers 

avoid areas where prostitution and drug dealing occur. 

‘‘Criminals have followed and harassed U.S. citizens traveling in their vehicles, 

particularly in border areas including Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and Tijuana. 

There is no evidence, however, that U.S. citizens are targeted because of their nationality. 

‘‘U.S. citizen victims of crime in Mexico are urged to contact the consular section 

of the nearest U.S. consulate or Embassy for advice and assistance. 

‘‘Crime and Violence in Mexico—U.S. citizens residing and traveling in Mexico 

should exercise caution when in unfamiliar areas and be aware of their surroundings at all times. Violence by criminal elements affects many parts of the 

country, urban and rural, including border areas. Though there is no evidence that 

U.S. citizens are specifically targeted, Mexican and foreign bystanders have been injured or killed in some violent attacks, demonstrating the heightened risk in public 

73 

places. In recent years, dozens of U.S. citizens have been kidnapped in Mexico and 

many cases remain unresolved. Moreover, new cases of disappearances and kidnapfor-ransom continue to be reported. No one can be considered immune from kidnapping on the basis of occupation, nationality, or other factors. U.S. citizens who believe they are being followed should notify Mexican officials as soon as possible. U.S. 

citizens should make every attempt to travel on main roads during daylight hours, 

particularly the toll (’cuota’) roads, which are generally more secure. It is preferable 

for U.S. citizens to stay in well-known tourist destinations and tourist areas of the 

cities with more adequate security, and provide an itinerary to a friend or family 

member not traveling with them. U.S. citizens should avoid traveling alone as a 

means to better ensure their safety. Refrain from displaying expensive-looking jewelry, large amounts of money, or other valuable items. 

‘‘Demonstrations occur frequently throughout Mexico and usually are peaceful. 

However, even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and 

escalate into violence unexpectedly. Some deaths occurred during violent demonstrations, including an American citizen who died in the 2006 violence in Oaxaca. During demonstrations or law enforcement operations, U.S. citizens are advised to remain in their homes or hotels, avoid large crowds, and avoid the downtown and surrounding areas. Since the timing and routes of scheduled marches and demonstrations are always subject to change, U.S. citizens should monitor local media sources 

for new developments and exercise extreme caution while within the vicinity of protests. The Mexican Constitution prohibits political activities by foreigners, and such 

actions may result in detention and/or deportation. Therefore, U.S. citizens are advised to avoid participating in demonstrations or other activities that might be 

deemed political by Mexican authorities.’’ 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me just very quickly—Ms. Jenks, 

the questions I prepared for was really your testimony, but that’s 

not the testimony you gave. So it’s kind of—— 

Ms. JENKS. I wrote it. So I know what’s in it. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No, no. I mean, the testimony you submitted is 

different from the testimony you gave. 

Ms. JENKS. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So I went off the one you submitted. 

Ms. JENKS. OK. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I couldn’t—I couldn’t read your mind. The—but— 

so I’ll forward those in writing. 

OK. Bishop, if I may—and I really appreciate the comments that 

you made about as difficult as it is with this issue to maintain the 

level of civility and dialogue in the discussion of the issue of the 

border wall and everything attendant to the issue of immigration. 

I think your comments are very important, to keep those in mind. 

And one of the things I—you know, having grown up on the border in Arizona, let me—just to get your perspective on that, do you 

think people who don’t live along the border with Mexico perhaps 

have some stereotype wrong impression about what these border 

communities are? 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. Well, I think—I guess you get a picture of what the 

border communities are. I’ve lived on the border all my life as well, 

and all my ministry has been on the border. I think that the sister 

cities that exist along the border in many respects are one city. 

People go back and forth, most of them legally, some illegally, to 

visit grandparents, to visit family. And I think barriers like that 

would be very much—very similar to doing what the Nation in Arizona is talking about, dividing families, dividing relationships, 

friendships and even businesses. And I think to create a new barrier besides the river that would now divide American citizens from 

one side or the other would be very disruptive to our families and 

to our businesses. 

74 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Pe ́rez, would you like to comment 

on the same question about the impression that people have on this 

region? 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. Well, His Excellency answered it wonderfully. There 

really isn’t a border for most of us that live down here. You know, 

we just—we go back and forth, you know, relatives. I was on somebody’s land last week who, you know, pointed across the river, he 

had land on the river, and said, ‘‘That’s my cousin over there that 

farms that.’’ 

So, you know, the ranch is only 14 miles from the river. You 

know, we see illegal visitors all—immigrants all the time, and 

we’ve never had a problem. We did have a bottle of wine stolen 

from the refrigerator once. But I don’t think largely the Valley people are frightened of these people. I do understand the people that 

are right on the river. I know that they’re having problems and 

that they’re afraid, some of them are afraid. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I really don’t have any questions. I did—I did go 

on the NumbersUSA website, Ms. Jenks, and maybe you can help 

me define this. There was a reference to the organization’s support 

for preserving America for real Americans, and—— 

Ms. JENKS. I don’t think that’s—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And it listed on the website that that definition 

dealing with the issue of population and immigration had to do 

with pre-1970 stock Americans. Is that correct? 

Ms. JENKS. No, we don’t talk about real Americans meaning— 

every American citizen is a real American in our view. So I don’t 

know quite what you’re referring to. What we do talk about is that 

if U.S. immigration numbers had been brought to zero net in 1970, 

the U.S. population would be stabilized. And that is not a judgment 

call on whether we needed to stick with the stock population of 

1970. That is simply a fact that the Census Bureau published. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That’s the date that’s picked? 

Ms. JENKS. It’s based on Census Bureau statistics. So, yeah, 

that’s what that is all about. But, no, we don’t judge—make any 

judgments on any Americans. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without sounding totally facetious, which I’m 

about to do, I wonder why you didn’t choose an earlier date, like, 

let’s say, pre-1492 stock. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. That’s when the real war in America started, 1492. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. You need to chill a little bit. 

Ms. JENKS. You know, this is a serious policy issue in our view. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I know. I know. Excuse my facetiousness, but it’s 

like setting arbitrary lines of 1970 stock, 1980 stock, that is—you 

know, if the issue of population growth is the end-all be-all for the 

reasons that we have the environmental issues that we have in 

this country, I would suspect and I would hope that NumbersUSA 

would also be equally controlled—concerned with climate change, 

the effect that’s having on our ecosystems across the world and 

across this nation. Population growth is part of it, the human—the 

human print on our environment, but part of that human print is 

the kind of damage that we’ve done with regard to climate change 

and regarding other issues. But I didn’t find those on the website, 

and if I missed them, I’ll go back and look again. 

75 

Ms. JENKS. You should go back and look again. Essentially, we 

are an immigration organization, which is why we’re not focused 

entirely on all of the environmental issues. What we are focused on 

is the impact that immigration policy has on the United States of 

America. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, thank you. 

Ms. JENKS. That is our job and that is our organization. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It was 

mentioned that millions of dollars have been invested by the Federal, state and local governments and by nongovernmental organizations to protect the environment and conserve wildlife habitat. 

This is one portion of my Subcommittee that I deal with in the 

lower Rio Grande Valley. Now, it has been noted that the border 

wall will have serious negative impacts to the environment. This 

circumstance again raises the situation where the Federal government will end up having to go back in and spend more funds to 

correct or address the impacts caused by the wall construction. 

This just seems to be setting up another instance of the Federal 

government throwing good money after bad. 

So to you, Ms. Jenks, do you have any idea what the cost estimates will be for the Federal government to mitigate the environmental impacts caused by the construction of the southern border 

security infrastructure? 

Ms. JENKS. I don’t know the dollar figure. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Don’t you agree with me that there will be an impact? 

Ms. JENKS. There will be an—certainly there will be an impact 

for building the fence. It will be dramatically less than the impact 

of allowing hundreds of thousands of people and vehicles and 

smugglers and guns and, you know, all the attendant effects of illegal immigration through pristine areas. I mean, yes, we will be 

tearing up, you know, a certain width of land along the border, presumably along the border. 

And, by the way, I’m not here to justify DHS’s specific plans to, 

you know, move the fence to this side and cut off parts of the U.S. 

But, I mean, yes, we would tear up a portion of land to create the 

fence and have a road along it, but that is going to save hundreds 

and hundreds of acres from the damage that is being done every 

day. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, this is why we’re here, and I certainly 

would like to see what the cost will be to the taxpayers’ pocketbook 

on both sides of the fence. And, you know, we were elated when 

the wall was torn down in Berlin, and here we are in our own 

country building walls. When you travel around in Washington, 

D.C., it’s sad to see all the barricades in front of all of our public 

buildings. I hope that we’re not going to continue to go in this direction. 

The other question I have very quickly, Mr. Chairman, is His Excellence, the Bishop, noted that the Diocese of Brownsville opposes 

the border wall in part because it is a simplified, one-dimensional 

solution to a complex problem. Now, in fact, to illustrate this point, 

Bishop Pen ̃ a noted that a collateral consequence of Congress not 

passing comprehensive immigration reform legislation is that it has 

76 

created a flood of state and local proposals in Texas to address inadequate border security by the Federal government. 

So this raises a dilemma. In our rush to implement a solution, 

we may, in fact, be encouraging just the opposite. We may be creating circumstances on the state and local level where there is no 

coordinated response to illegal immigration. Is this outcome a real 

possibility? I’d like to ask Ms. Pe ́rez. 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. I’m sorry. Would you please run the last part of that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. Well, in other words, in our race, in our rush 

to implement a solution, we may be encouraging just the opposite. 

We may be creating circumstances on the state and the local level 

where there is no coordinated response to illegal immigration. So 

do you feel that that outcome is a real possibility? 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. I can’t answer that. I’m not understanding the question, I don’t think. I—what comes to mind is the levee wall fence 

and how expensive that thing is going to be. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, maybe His Excellency can—you were the 

one that brought it up in the testimony. 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. Yes. I think there is real possibility. If you see 

what happened in the state legislature during the last session, they 

introduced legislation that would empower the local sheriff to act 

as a Border Patrol agent, they introduced legislation that would 

deny health care and education to any illegal immigrant, they introduced legislation that would deny citizenship to infants born to 

undocumented citizens or residents, and I think worse things could 

be proposed in the next legislature. And actually, then, who is responsible for the border? Is the government responsible or is the 

state responsible? And what we need to do is pass Federal legislation that will truly control our borders in a humane and Christian 

way. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much, Your Excellency. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Tancredo, your questions. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may—I’m sorry, Mr. Tancredo. Let me acknowledge, Bishop, that you’ll be submitting for the record 10,000 

signatures of registered voters that have—here in the general 

Brownsville area and the region as a whole in opposition—— 

Audience member. Yes, we have 10,000 signatures. 

Mr. GRIJALVA [continuing]. In opposition to the wall. Thank you 

very much. Sorry, Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your Excellency and 

also Ms. Pe ́rez—well, Ms. Pe ́rez, in particular, you stated something that I think was quite interesting. You said that for you and 

many other people here the border really does not exist. That’s an 

interesting observation, and I just wondered if, Your Excellency, if 

you believe in your heart of hearts that a border should exist, if 

there is such a thing as a meaningful border and should it exist 

between Mexico and the United States. 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. It exists and should exist. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Should we have a border? 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. Well, let me answer. It exists and it should exist. 

However, we cannot prevent families that are divided by the border, because they happen to be citizens of different countries, to 

77 

have the freedom of access to one another, to have barriers that 

separate them. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Then, Your Excellency, what is the purpose of 

the border if it is not to actually distinguish one country from another? And should the United States be able, as Mexico is and 

every other country, should we be able to determine who comes 

across those borders, for what purpose, and for how long? Do you 

think that’s a legitimate policy goal of our government, essentially 

anybody? 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. Yes, certainly that should be the goal of any government. Every government has a right to protect its borders, but 

we oppose protecting our borders by means of a wall that would not 

realistically protect the border. 

Mr. TANCREDO. The question about realistically protecting the 

border, may I suggest that there is a possibility that there is such 

strong opposition to some sort of barrier—I know that the use of 

the word wall is used mostly to denote something like the Berlin 

wall that’s been referred to here before, certainly inaccurately, as 

that particular wall was built to keep people in; this particular 

structure, whether it is a fence, a double fence, or even a vehicle 

barrier, is meant to keep people out who should not be coming in 

without our permission. 

It is a significant difference in connotation, by the way, of the 

use of the word wall and/or barrier. But I do suggest to you that 

that is, in fact, a logical and effective approach, as has been determined by its use in other places; that it is perhaps the most humane way to address this issue, as it does discourage—as it does 

discourage the kind of activity that we have seen up there that 

ends up with people being murdered, being raped, having the drugs 

that are brought into this country through those particular avenues. It does, in a way—and it’s only a small way—I again state, 

this is no way a complete solution to the problem. Nobody suggests 

that. No one I have ever heard of thinks that a fence is the only 

solution. It’s just part so that we can use other assets to actually 

plug the gaps that occur. That’s all there is to it. 

And in terms of the environmental degradation, the birds that 

won’t fly, the butterflies that won’t be able to traverse this area 

and the like, if you weigh that against the environmental degradation that is going on every single day on this border, I cannot understand, Ms. Pe ́rez, that your concern wouldn’t be as great for us 

in order to try and stop that degradation, which we have seen plenty of evidence of. And yet our attempts to do so are seen as antienvironmental. 

On the other hand, I suggest to you that they are exactly that, 

that they are meant exactly to do—at least a portion of what the 

solution is for that is some sort of structure, some sort of physical 

barrier that would ease the flow across those areas that now does, 

indeed, do great damage to the environment. So I would hope that 

your organizations would at least take into consideration the two 

sides of this, how much is being done as opposed to what environmental damage may be done by the construction of the fence. 

And, finally, the question I have for Ms. Neuhaus, that you did 

not get a chance to get to in your own testimony, is the impact— 

78 

the impact of illegal immigration is having on ranchers here in 

Texas, and if you would explain the legal problems they’re facing. 

Ms. SCHAAN. One of the significant legal issues that the ranchers 

are facing, particularly if they’re removed from the border itself 

and its approximately 40 miles in part inland, is that Customs and 

Border Patrol have the authority to go onto private property in 

pursuit of smugglers, whatever it is that they’re smuggling, in their 

law enforcement pursuit. Farther inland than that, they do not 

have that statutory authority. 

One of the issues that they are dealing with up closer to 

Kingsville and Falfurrias is that if they authorize law enforcement 

to come onto their premises to pursue illegal activity and someone 

involved in the activity is harmed, the ranch owner, the landowner 

is being sued because they gave permission to the law enforcement 

agency to come onto their property. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Before I recognize our next member, the 10,000 signed petitions of U.S. citizens will be entered into the record by the committee. Hearing no 

objection, so ordered. 

[The information has been retained in the Committee’s 

official files.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. And now I’d like to recognize the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just—Bishop, 

thank you so very much for all your testimony and for getting sure 

that people have a voice through those petitions. Why is it that we 

call these undocumented aliens? They’re human beings that come 

for a better life, and yet we continue to label them, not knowing— 

not realizing that they are part of our economy that, yes, they are 

here illegally. What we should be doing is going after the smugglers and rapists and the real lawbreakers. 

Do you have a comment on that, Bishop? 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. I agree with you totally. What I said was undocumented residents. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I know that you did, yes, sir. 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. Now, why they choose illegal aliens, I couldn’t answer, but I think it is important that we go against all the criminals, regardless of what the nature of their crime may be. And, by 

the same token, we need to respect all those who contribute to our 

economy, who help us harvest our crops, who clean our houses. An 

interesting thing when I was in El Paso and that operation went 

into effect, people were joking that now the Border Patrol agents 

were coming with their shirts not neatly pressed. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Bishop, and I agree. Now, unfortunately, we seem to forget that they are not the undocumented in 

this country, because this country used to be Mexico. Now, that 

aside, I know the treaties, I know everything else. But we supposedly are treading on those treaties of the Native Americans and 

others. So we apparently honor only those treaties we like. One of 

the things that you mentioned in your testimony is the government 

trampling on the constitutional rights of the farmers of being able 

to have that ability to have redress if they are sued; am I correct, 

Ms. Neuhaus? 

79 

Ms. SCHAAN. Can you hear me? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Ms. SCHAAN. The landowners, it has to do with the liability laws, 

but, yes, they—it’s a fact that in the State of Texas, law enforcement is not allowed on private premises without authorization. So 

if the—if whoever—and this could apply to the cities as well. Say 

you have—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I’m sorry. I don’t mean to—but wouldn’t you 

think there would be some provision in having those waivers by 

Mr. Chertoff be able to have a waiver so that those ranchers then 

have the ability not to get sued? 

Ms. SCHAAN. Oh, that’s one of the things they would just really 

appreciate having. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, why would that not be part of sitting 

down with you, the farmers and others, to figure out a way how 

to protect our U.S. properties and our owners? 

Ms. SCHAAN. I think that that is a wonderful idea and it’s not 

just in the pursuit, but there are other issues that have to do with 

the aliens cutting the fences and livestock being on the roads and 

then the rancher being sued because the car hit the cow and—you 

know, it’s a whole host of issues, and also very high—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Which was my point in asking the individual 

from the agency is did they sit with the folks and hammer out 

small details they cannot think because they don’t live there? They 

don’t see the impact. Am I correct? 

Ms. SCHAAN. Yes, you are, but I’m not with the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, I know that. But that’s what I was saying, 

that they needed to have people at the table to discuss the unintended consequences that there may be. 

Ms. SCHAAN. Yes, in my case the consequences that I’m talking 

about are what is happening to the degradation of the life in the 

rural communities where people are not allowed to leave their 

homes unattended. I know one grandmother, her grandson came 

walking back to the house from a pasture and there were 20 men 

dressed all in black with advanced weaponry under the trees in the 

front yard, and they’re somewhere between 5 to 10 miles from the 

nearest highway. And that’s the sort of life that they’re having to 

endure. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But, to any of you, real quickly, because I’m 

out of time, don’t you think that a good immigration reform would 

help? 

Ms. SCHAAN. Clearly, and I think it needs to—if you’re asking me 

from a policy perspective, I tend to focus on the security element. 

I think that everything needs to be tried in order for us to get control of the situation so that thoughtful immigration policy can be 

pursued. Because part of this security element is that there are so 

many people who are frightened that it’s causing a lot of reactionary measures being taken rather than thoughtful proactive 

measures. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. But that was my point, is that we 

do need good immigration reform. We agree safety has to be paramount, of our country, of our land, and of our people. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

80 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentlelady from California, and I now 

recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and, 

again, thanks—I want to thank our host for holding this hearing. 

Bishop Pen ̃ a, I would hope that you would talk with some of the 

bishops in the San Diego area, because you said very clearly we 

need to go against criminals. And let me tell you, when we built 

the double border fence in San Diego, by FBI statistics—because 

we had the border gangs and we had people moving narcotics on 

a large scale going back and forth, people coming over on a nightly 

basis hurting Americans and going back to the refuge at the end 

of the day, and we had a no man’s land, which was the subject of 

novels, best-selling novels, because it was so desperate and so violent, with hundreds of rapes every night, with dozens of murders 

on the borders, with beatings, with great brutality. And when we 

built the double fence, the crime rate by FBI statistics in the County of San Diego, California dropped 56 percent. So if you truly believe that we need to do something that is going to keep people 

safe, that double border fence worked in San Diego. 

And, let me tell you, you’ve got a bigger problem, simply the idea 

of people moving back and forth in a community. Because people 

that come through that border are moving massive tonnages of cocaine that’s going into the veins of American children throughout 

this country, some 24 metric tons last year, some 386 metric tons 

of marijuana, most of it coming through Texas. So when we allow 

a situation to exist—and it continues to exist despite the added resources—where massive tonnages of cocaine and marijuana are 

smuggled in that end up in the veins of America’s children, then 

we aren’t serving this nation well. 

And to the gentlelady who is the rancher and landowner, let me 

just say that I’ve read some of the accounts of other ranchers. I’ve 

read the accounts of John Wooders, who wrote a very poignant article entitled Good-bye to My Ranch. And he told about going out to 

his ranch that he and his wife loved and had for years and being 

faced with people with Members Only jackets and automatic weapons coming through their land stealing everything that wasn’t 

nailed down and providing so much—such a threat to them that 

they felt compelled to sell the ranch and leave the area. That is a 

story that is not uncommon. So I know you said you had one bottle 

of wine stolen and that was the extent of your damage. I think that 

there is lots of other Texas ranchers who would have a very different concern. 

And, last, to all of you, this has a humanitarian aspect. Over 400 

people came through last year who died in the desert heat, mainly 

in Arizona. And, Bishop Pen ̃ a, you know, my brother puts out 

water. In fact, he’s the only guy that’s done it year after year of 

all the people in the United States to save people in the desert. He 

puts out water stations to save their lives and he’s saved hundreds 

of lives. Let me tell you, those coyotes take the people to the border, they tell them that the road is a mile to the north after they 

get their money. In some cases they’re 20 miles to the north. And 

about 11:00 o’clock the next day, they’re out there in 110-degree 

heat and they’re dying of sun stroke and heat stroke. 

81 

Now, if you had 400 high school students drowning in a canal 

every year, what’s the first thing that you would direct them to do 

as a leader in this community? You’d say ‘‘fence the canal.’’ So if 

we have 400 people dying in the border region, mainly in this 110- 

, 115-degree heat that we see in the low desert, places like Arizona 

and some in Texas and some in California, the first thing you 

would do is fence that border. That would have a humanitarian aspect. 

And, last, the confrontation between the Border Patrol and the 

smugglers, like Compian and Ramos, who were sent to prison for 

wounding a drug dealer who was bringing across 700 pounds of 

drugs, that was an area where a fence built on that road would 

have covered the border, and that van load of 700 pounds of marijuana would have never made it across, there never would have 

been the confrontation, there never would have been the shooting. 

What we found in San Diego is the double fence separating the 

smugglers and the Border Patrol has a salutary effect on the safebeing and the well-being of the Border Patrol. They can’t be rocked, 

they can’t be shot through that fence, they can’t be beaten, and it’s 

a margin of separation which gives a lot of safety for the Border 

Patrol. 

So I know that your 10,000 signatures are well-meaning, but I 

wish those people would look at those considerations, the vast 

amount of drugs coming through, the fact that we have 250,000 

criminal aliens in Federal, state and local penitentiaries and jails. 

And those people didn’t come across for a job or to see their relatives. They came across to hurt Americans. They did hurt Americans. And they cost this country about 3 billion a year to incarcerate. That $3 billion would pay for 1,000 miles of border fence. 

And, last, my friend the mayor stated that this sector has had 

fewer apprehensions than the San Diego sector. The San Diego sector went from 202,000 apprehensions, the fenced sector, to 9,000. 

That’s more than a 90 percent decrease. The Yuma sector, which 

was just fenced, went from an astounding 138,437 to 3,869. That’s 

a 95 percent decrease. That’s one third—those two sectors combined that are fenced is one third the number of illegal aliens who 

were apprehended this year in this sector. So the fence works. 

And, you know, I’ve come to the conclusion after 28 years—we’ve 

all talked about other solutions. None of the other solutions have 

worked. The virtual fence hasn’t worked. You can’t get enough Border Patrolmen to hold hands across this border. The fence has 

worked, and in the end they will save lives on both sides of the border. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, let me turn to the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. Sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want 

to thank members of the panel for their testimony this afternoon. 

I just wanted to ask Bishop Pen ̃ a a question that these 10,000 signatures, in contrast to the alleged claim by Mr. Schultz earlier in 

the hearing that there was consultation by the Department of 

Homeland Security, was this ever brought to your attention, the 

way the DHS had proceeded in supposedly holding a public hearing 

about this same issue? The fact that you’ve got 10,000 signatures 

in opposition to building a fence, I’m curious if you’re aware or has 

82 

the Department of Homeland Security ever contacted your office, 

and did you participate in the hearings that they have taken here 

sometime back? 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. The Department of Homeland Security has never 

contacted our office for anything. We own land along the river. We 

have not been consulted, we have not been asked, we have not been 

told. We called to ask ‘‘Is our land covered?’’ and they said, ‘‘Well, 

if it is, we will let you know.’’ We haven’t been advised anything. 

So, no, there is no communication. Any communication that has 

taken place has been on our side and we have not received answers. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So to this day the community here in 

Brownsville has never heard since at the time what was the sentiment and what was the consensus among the community people at 

the time that DHS conducted that so-called hearing. 

Bishop PEN ̃ A. No, we have heard nothing. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. Ms. Jenks, I’ve listened to your testimony very closely and it seems—and the point is well-taken— 

you’re talking about security, security, security, especially to the 

many families and people living along the border. And I suspect 

there is a lack of effort on the part of the Federal government, 

other than lately they’re beginning to do something about it. I remember meeting with families living along the Arizona border and 

the same complaints, the slowness of the Federal government to respond to the problems about destruction of private property. I 

thought, Ms. Schaan, that the law here in Texas is shoot first and 

ask questions later. Is that still in place? 

Ms. SCHAAN. If you are protecting your property, you are, under 

certain circumstances—particularly if it’s a home invasion, if you 

shoot a trespasser, then, generally speaking, the grand jury will 

not bring an indictment against you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is this also true in Arizona? 

Ms. JENKS. Yes, it is. If it’s self-defense in your home, you can 

shoot. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Inside? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But in a yard, you cannot shoot. 

Ms. JENKS. You can’t defend—in most states you can’t defend 

your property with lethal force, but you can defend yourself and 

your family with lethal force. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just wanted to express a sense of concern 

that for years the issue of immigration has really torn our country 

apart to the extent that with all good intention of what we’re trying 

to do to protect our borders. The so-called 20 million illegal aliens 

that supposedly come from the Mexican border are not all Mexicans. I believe only about 5 million are Mexicans. The rest come 

from Central and South American and other foreign countries. You 

might also note as a matter of statistics that illegal aliens provide 

some $52 billion they send back home by Western Union to help 

their families, especially most of these families from poor areas in 

not only Mexico but other areas in Central and South America. 

So I don’t want to say that it’s OK to come here illegally so that 

way you can provide the needs of the family, but, as you mentioned 

earlier, Bishop Pen ̃ a, there are positive aspects of many of our 

aliens who do work, who do provide a very valuable service to the 

83 

American community. Without them—and maybe my good friend 

from California, Mr. Hunter, can help me with this—without illegal 

immigrants conducting the work in farms and throughout the State 

of California, the farm produce industry would go to pot. And I 

don’t know if I’m accurate on that description, Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. No, I think, my good friend—and indeed you are a 

very good friend—I think the idea that we—that the economy 

would collapse without the help or the work of people who are here 

illegally is wrong. And what I’m reminded when they had the packing plant closed and the Swift packing plants closed down, and 

they took 800 people that were there illegally from those jobs. The 

next day American citizens were lined up, from what was reported, 

to get their old jobs back at 18 bucks an hour. So I don’t agree with 

the theme that we’re desperate to have folks come in illegally. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to say—— 

Mr. HUNTER. But thanks for letting me have a word in here. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to say to my good friend from California that his points are well-taken about the serious drug trafficking and issues of the coyotes and the cartels. I recall a leader 

from Latin America once making a comment that if there wasn’t 

so much demand for illegal drugs here in America, maybe they 

wouldn’t supply so much of it. 

But here is the question, and, philosophically, you can take it 

any way you want. We are really under a somewhat of a double 

standard. We always point the finger that Mexico is the culprit, 

we’ve got all these problems, but it’s OK to have a free borderline 

between Canada and the U.S. And I just want to see if there is equity and fairness in the process, and I’m sure that is the intent and 

exchange of Ms. Schaan, that some form of protection, the Federal 

government has that responsibility but it has failed. 

And so I do appreciate Mr. Tancredo’s comments that the fence 

is only part of the solution. And, unfortunately, this has not exactly 

been agreed upon by communities who live along the border, which 

includes the citizens of Brownsville and I suspect the people living 

in Matamoros, which is almost a million people, and many companies, American companies doing business and American workers 

also working in Matamoros. I notice my time is over, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. As I understand it, Mr. Reyes, you have no questions from this panel. 

Mr. REYES. No. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Ortiz. 

Mr. ORTIZ. I just wanted to welcome my bishop. We come from 

the same hometown, the biggest little town in Texas, which is 

Robstown, and our families grew up together. And I think the testimony has been very eloquently spoken today and I just want to say 

thank you for joining us today. Thank you so much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me thank this panel, and if there are followup questions on the part of my colleagues, they will be forwarded 

to you for comment in writing. Thank you very much for your time 

and your courtesy and your testimony. 

[Brief recess.] 

84 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me welcome the next panel pursuant to Clause 2 of House Rule 11. I ask that the witnesses please 

stand and raise their right hand to be sworn in. Thank you. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let the record indicate the witnesses have answered in the affirmative and we will begin with the opening statements. Let me welcome Mr. John McClung, president and CEO, 

Texas Produce Association. And he already has ingratiated himself 

with this Congressman by being a graduate of the University of Arizona and a Tucsonian. So, welcome, sir. Good to see you. And look 

forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN McCLUNG, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

TEXAS PRODUCE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman, 

Members of Congress. My name is John McClung. I’m the president of the Texas Produce Association headquartered in Mission, 

which is 50 or 60 miles west of here. The association represents the 

interests of farmers, growers, shippers, importers, processors and 

marketers of fresh produce in Texas. I want to thank you for giving 

me the opportunity to testify today on a matter that’s of enormous 

concern to the area farmers and agricultural interests. And, frankly, that’s a component that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention up to 

this point. 

It may be most useful I think to begin where we, obviously— 

where almost all of the segments have—seem to be in agreement, 

and that is we all want border security, we all want to return rule 

of law to the border, we all want to make certain that people who 

are intending to come here illegally are not able to do so, that those 

who do come are coming for—mean us no harm. That’s really not 

the issue here at all, never has been. The issue is doing it intelligently, doing it cost-effectively, and doing it in a humane fashion. 

The—and, by the way, that whole—that whole formula may, in 

fact, involve some fencing or some walls in certain very limited, 

very precise places. 

That said, the individuals that I’ve talked to that are involved in 

agriculture in South Texas, by and large—not exclusively, but for 

the most part—are strenuously opposed to a fence or a wall as it 

has been detailed to us. There are several reasons for that. And let 

me say here that we have not been much consulted by the Department of Homeland Security about any kind of a—any kind of construction. There has been a lot made today of the issue of consultation. I think you all I hope recognize that in no small part this 

business of consultation has to do with the definition of consultation. When you are talking across the hood of a pickup truck to a 

member of the Border Patrol, that’s not a consultation in any 

meaningful way. 

The Department of Homeland Security has had no problem saying that the Border Patrol is consulting for them with many people 

in the Rio Grande Valley. The Border Patrol has no authority to 

consult. The Border Patrol only has authority to tell us what Washington is intending for us subchapter and verse, but that’s not a 

consultation in any constructive fashion. 

85 

And so many, many landowners along the river, along the three 

south counties of the Rio Grande Valley, have never been approached by anybody from the Federal government on this issue. 

And many times when we go to talk to them, when we initiate that 

conversation, we’re told, ‘‘Look, your land is not where we are planning to survey or where we’re planning to build a wall. We don’t 

have any need to talk to you. Relax. Don’t worry about it.’’ 

The problem with that is there—there are several problems with 

farmers in the Valley. The first is that we have to have access to 

our land. We’re not really talking about a border wall here, you 

know. We’re talking about north of the border wall. In some cases 

you’re within a very short distance of the river where the levee 

runs. In some cases you’re a couple of miles from the river. There 

are thousands of acres south of the levee up north of the river. 

We’ve just simply not been told how we are going to have access 

to the land south of that levee. There have been some maps and 

proposals, but nothing has been definitive, nor have we been told 

how we’re going to access river water. 

We irrigate entirely out of the Rio Grande River. Without that 

river, we can’t successfully farm for the most part down here. So 

we have to have access and we have to have access 24/7 because 

the pumps, the water pumps get clogged up, vegetation grows in 

them. It’s a very—a very practical kind of a problem. 

The other issue, and the one that I particularly want to emphasize, is that nothing much has been said about the value of land 

south of the levee if there is a wall constructed. At the risk of some 

melodrama, there is a lot of talk about turning that land into a no 

man’s land. I’m not sure that is altogether accurate. We’re not 

ceding anything to Mexico that I’m aware of in a legal sense, but 

we are creating a boundary here between that levee and the river. 

And land values in that boundary area cannot help but go down 

if farmers cannot get access to it, yet people don’t want to get access to it. And that is something that has been virtually 

unaddressed to my knowledge. 

The—I want to make sure that I cover this thoroughly here. 

Many farmers in Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr Counties have been 

approached by—have never been approached by the DHS, as I said 

before. And others have been told that DHS has no interest in— 

in their—in building along those sections where these people operate. 

You know, many of the landowners that you’ve heard about along 

the Rio Grande are small landowners, a few acres, and they’re in 

the vicinity of Brownsville or Hidalgo or other little towns along 

the border. The big commercial agricultural operations are not in 

those areas, for the most part. They’re in areas very often where 

there is no intention of building a wall at this point, and so they 

weren’t—they aren’t factored in. But their land values are going to 

deteriorate. 

Well, I have a written testimony. Obviously, I would appreciate 

having it go into the record. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. It’s part of the record, sir. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClung follows:] 

86 

Statement of John McClung, President and CEO, 

Texas Produce Association 

Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee. My name is John McClung. I am 

President of the Texas Produce Association, headquartered in Mission, some 60 

miles west of here. The association represents the interests of growers, shippers, importers, processors and marketers of fresh produce from Texas. 

I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify today on a matter 

that is of real and immediate concern to the fruit and vegetable industry of Texas. 

It may be most useful to begin where there appears to be agreement among all parties that have taken an interest in the construction of a wall along the southern 

levy in the three southmost counties of the Rio Grande Valley. Nobody I have talked 

to opposes reestablishment of the rule of law at our southern—and northern—borders. Thoughtful observers all recognize the need to secure the borders, prevent the 

entry of undocumented aliens, and ensure that those who enter mean us no harm 

and are here for legitimate purposes, including labor in our farm fields. 

However, most of the individuals I have talked to want this goal achieved in as 

intelligent and cost effective a fashion as possible. And with few exceptions, they 

oppose the wall as an inefficient tool in curtailing or even significantly slowing illegal immigration. 

The farmers, packers, processors, importers and marketers of fruits and vegetables take particular exception with their virtual exclusion from the Department of 

Homeland Security’s planning process, and vigorously deny claims by that agency 

that they, as impacted landowners, have been consulted in any meaningful way. I 

want to emphasize that some of them have talked with Border Patrol agents about 

the construction of a fence or wall, but in most of those instances, the field level 

agents they conversed with knew little more, if as much, as they did. 

Farmers in the Valley have several practical concerns about the wall, even in 

areas where no construction is contemplated. 

—First, we must have access without artificial impediments to our fields. Every 

day, farmers and their employees work the land, including the thousands of acres 

of highly productive delta south of the levy. In places, the levy is a few yards north 

of the River, but in others it is a mile or two. Under the federal government’s plan, 

as we understand it, that land could be accessed only through gates or other points 

of entry widely spaced along the wall. Such a scheme is wholly inadequate. 

—Second, we must have access to the river for irrigation water. In the three lower 

counties of the Valley, we irrigate virtually exclusively from the River, using pumps 

along the edge of the river. Those pumps are subject to breakdown frequently, and 

to clogging from river vegetation. We must be able to approach and repair them day 

or night. 

—Third, should DHS’s ill-conceived wall plan come to pass, farmland south of the 

levy would become what many refer to as a ‘‘no man’s land.’’ Obviously, this land 

would not be officially ceded to Mexico, but land values below the wall would certainly plummet, even in those long stretches where there would be no physical barrier along the levy. Farm families that have owned and worked that land for generations would see its worth implode. This is a point that seemingly has escaped many 

analysts, and I want to make certain I cover it thoroughly here. Many farmers in 

Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr Counties have never been approached by DHS at any 

time, while others have been told DHS has no interest in meeting with them because there are no plans in the agency to survey for or build a wall on their property. But if the levy becomes the second southern border, their land will likely not 

retain its value, and the hard work and pride of generations will be squandered. 

—Finally, farmers are practical people of necessity, depending on a good deal of 

seat-of-the-pants engineering to do their jobs successfully. They look at the tentative 

wall plans—all tentative wall plans—and conclude the obvious: It won’t work. In 

terms of prohibiting illegal immigration, it isn’t even a good joke. What it will do— 

all it will do—is allow a small number of misguided ideologues in the U.S. Congress 

to tell their extremists supporters that they ‘‘did something.’’ And that is an absurd 

reason to spend give-or-take $5 million a mile in South Texas. 

Of late, there has been a good deal of discussion about a ‘‘two-for-one’’ deal in 

which a wall would be constructed in Hidalgo and possibly Cameron Counties with 

the paired objectives of preventing illegal immigration and rehabilitating our ailing 

levies. I want to make the point here that the levy problem is very real, and must 

be addressed. Further, the levy is owned and operated by the federal government, 

and should be maintained with federal dollars. But to try to pay for levy rehabilitation with border security dollars is, in my opinion, a deeply troubling way to try 

to solve unrelated problems. Ironically, this hybrid approach might meet the levy 

repair requirement, albeit at a ghastly price, but it would no more solve the security 

87 

problem than any other wall or fence scheme. I asked one of the key engineers 

working on the design for the combined levy/wall plan how access to land and water 

would be afforded to farmers, and his response was that they were most likely to 

build in gates where there are dirt roads crossing the levy. These would have to be 

extremely large and heavy gates—and therefore very expensive—to accommodate 

large farm equipment. The farmers would be issued electronic remote controls to 

open and close the gates. 

What a hopeless mess that would be. In the first place, each farmer would require 

multiple ‘‘clickers’’ to enable his crews to get through the gates. How long does anyone think it would be before a few of them disappeared? Or before the coyotes figured out the frequencies? While it is not my intention to discuss implications for 

wildlife, I want to add that this same engineer told me the likely plan would include 

‘‘ports’’ to allow small animals to pass through. Swell idea. Doggie doors in the security gates. Interesting to see how many skinny illegal immigrants we would catch 

in the first year. 

In my opinion, these are the kinds of unworkable solutions tortured engineers 

dream up when they have their backs against the wall, literally in this case, and 

there are no good solutions. 

The real fix, as Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said most recently, and 

many others have pointed out in the past two years, is comprehensive immigration 

reform. It is in my belief shameful that the U.S. Congress, when presented with legislation last year that would have intelligently and effectively dealt with the key 

needs of genuine reform, was incapable of acting and so fell back on the most foolish, least efficacious arrow in the quiver—a border fence. It is beyond shameful that 

the Department of Homeland Security and its boss, Secretary Michael Chertoff, 

have mindlessly waived the environmental and related laws of the land and pushed 

ahead with a wall when the Hutchison-Rodriguez amendment to the omnibus funding bill for FY 08 gave them every opportunity to act constructively by setting aside 

the prescriptive language of the Secure Fence Act of 2006. 

At this point in time, the battle lines are dug so deep, perhaps the best we can 

hope for is that no substantive construction take place in Texas until we have a new 

Administration and a new Congress, hopefully with new courage to confront the immigration issue. The farmers and other agricultural interests I represent are a conservative, profoundly patriotic lot by-and-large. They want what is best for this 

country. Most of them believe a border wall isn’t it. 

Thank you very much for permitting me to testify here today. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Merritt, sir, your comments. 

STATEMENT OF KEN MERRITT, PRIVATE CITIZEN 

Mr. MERRITT. Thank you, Chairman and Chairwoman, as well as 

Members of Congress. I appreciate this opportunity. Up until January of this year I was employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as refuge manager for the three national wildlife refuges we 

have down here in South Texas, the Santa Ana, Lower Rio Grande 

Valley, and Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuges. And I was 

pleased to have this invitation and also feel somewhat liberated in 

terms of my comments, I suppose, now that I’m not an agency staff 

person, but I’m not too liberated probably. 

I would like to start basically with giving a little background of 

myself without going—I’ll stay within my time limit, I’m sure. I 

have 30 years in with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a wildlife biologist and a refuge manager, and the last 11 years I was in 

charge of the refuges here in the Valley. And when you’re talking 

about the border fence, you really are talking about all the Rio 

Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. That’s one of the points 

I’m going to try to make here. 

And I think it’s useful to go back and look at what the Fish and 

Wildlife Service went through most recently here. I was in charge 

of basically leading the effort in terms of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service for Texas refuges. And, you know, April of 2007 we saw a 

88 

news article in one of the Roma papers that said Border Patrol 

agents were contacting private landowners to determine whether 

they would be able to get access to their lands for the border fence. 

And that was a surprise to the Fish and Wildlife Service, at least 

locally. I would imagine upper levels as well. And subsequent to 

that we made concerted efforts to contact the Border Patrol and finally got a meeting with the Border Patrol and it was confirmed 

that, yes, indeed, Texas’ border was going to be part of the picture 

and also that a lot of the fence was going to occur on U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service property. 

The interesting thing about that was that the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service property was thought of somewhat like low-hanging fruit. Because it was already Federal land, it was thought it 

would be much easier to access those lands and build a fence on 

those properties. So months go by and very little contact between 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and refuges and Border Patrol. 

And you get to October and I go to a meeting in Harlingen with 

my staff and find out that, indeed, we’re going through with this. 

And, of course, we were provided with maps at the first meeting 

about where these fences were going to be, which was really nice. 

Those were maps that we could not share with anyone, and yet 

what we heard was that no decisions had been made on locations 

on where these fences were going to be. But we were looking at it 

but held it as asked. 

So in October we go to a meeting and we’re basically asked about 

access to the refuge, which we dutifully tried to make happen. And 

here we are in December and we grant the consultants who work 

for DHS an opportunity to do that. And at about the same time 

we’re having public hearings. 

So you can imagine—my point is really that you could imagine 

that the level of surveys needed for a DEIS were really not given 

the sufficient time to figure out exactly what we have on the refuges and what the impacts of the border fence would be. I really 

think it’s an unrealistic schedule that DHS has and I would believe 

a lack of concern about national wildlife refuges, which are special 

places to the American public. There is a long history of the Lower 

Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge as a wildlife corridor which 

couldn’t be interchanged very easily. 

In fact, before 1980 many people got together and looked at this 

and decided this was indeed a place for a national wildlife refuge. 

The Valley needed a place for a national wildlife refuge since 95 

percent of the native habitat in the Valley, in the U.S. Valley has 

been cleared off, and so we have a very narrow strip where habitat 

remains and 18 species of threatened or endangered species, a wonderful place for migratory birds. But yet a narrow place. 

When you look at the border fence impasse, I think you have to 

look at, yes, there is going to be a small area that would be cleared. 

That area being cleared, how important is that? Well, I think you 

can do an analogy basically when you look at the river and the little strip that’s remaining of native habitat. And then you consider 

taking more habitat away, it is devastating to our national wildlife 

along the border and it’s a national and international resource. 

An analogy in Canada is that if you took a strip out there, there 

are millions of miles of uninterrupted habitat. Here we have fragVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
89 

mented habitat that might be a quarter mile or less from the river 

at any particular point. Very little habitat remaining. So the impact will be barriers to wildlife, ability of wildlife to get the water. 

You also have jaguarundi, which needs to be able to travel, an endangered species—there is only about 70 to 100 left in the U.S.— 

very much impacted by border walls as prescribed currently. 

I think the operational part of this for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is that how do we operate in what we’ll call no man’s land? 

The Border Patrol has indicated they’ll continue to go south of 

those fences where there is distance between the river and the levees, for example, but what happens when we have fires? We have 

over 300 fires on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service property every year 

and those properties are endangered, yet where are those escape 

areas? 

I’ll summarize. The waiver invoked by Secretary Chertoff on 

April 1st basically included well over 30 Acts, but in particular the 

National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species 

Act were of great concern to a lot of folks in this area, including 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think really the point I want to 

make is that thoughtfulness, logic and really listening to the public 

really hasn’t been served in this case. The schedule just wouldn’t 

allow it in my estimation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merritt follows:] 

Statement of Kenneth L. Merritt, Occupation: 

Retired from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (30 years) 

My testimony is based on my knowledge and experience as a wildlife biologist and 

refuge manager with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the last 30 years 

as well as my B.S. degree in wildlife management from Humboldt State University. 

Specifically, I held positions of Deputy Project Leader (4 years) and Project Leader 

(7 years) for the South Texas Refuge Complex. As Project Leader I oversaw the operations and management of Santa Ana, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and Laguna 

Atascosa National Wildlife Refuges. My duties during my 11 years in the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley included close coordination with Border Patrol and the Department 

of Homeland Security and more recently I took the lead for National Wildlife Refuges in Texas in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in negotiations with DHS on the 

construction of the Border Fence. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was first made aware of permanent border 

fencing in the Valley in April of 2007 when newspaper articles appeared chronicling 

the contacts local border patrol agents were making in and around Roma, Texas. 

This was followed by contacts made by FWS to the Rio Grande Headquarters for 

information on this potential fence. As a result of this inquiry carried out by FWS, 

a meeting was held at Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge with Border Patrol and 

Army Corps of Engineers representatives. During this meeting the plans for a border fence were confirmed and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

was put on notice that DHS intended to build miles of fence on the Refuge. Further, 

DHS indicated that the refuge was targeted because it was thought that it would 

be easier to build the fence on property already owned by the Federal Government. 

During this meeting, preliminary maps were provided to the FWS which could not 

be shared with outsiders. Though at the time, and continuing for many months, it 

was DHS’s official position that no decisions had been made regarding fence locations. 

Many months passed with few (largely unproductive and uninformative) meetings 

between FWS and DHS and ACOE until September when the FWS was invited to 

a meeting at the Harlingen Border Patrol Headquarters to meet with DHS and their 

consultants (E2M) who were tasked with conducting biological, cultural, and engineering surveys on private land and refuge lands to gather information for the DEIS 

for the border fence. This marked the first time that FWS Refuges were informed 

that surveys would be requested on refuge lands. Surveys were conducted on private 

lands beginning in October 2007 and Refuge lands in December 2007. Public meetVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
90 

ings aimed at gathering public comments on the DEIS were conducted at various 

locations in the Valley in December 2007. 

The narrative and chronology of events described above aptly illustrates the 

DHS’s unrealistic schedule and concern for carrying out a proper evaluation of the 

environmental effects of the proposed border wall. Without proactive efforts on the 

part of FWS it is unclear whether the FWS would have been notified of this pending 

action until well into the summer months. This is ironic since DHS apparently put 

many of its ‘‘eggs’’ in the refuge basket counting on the ease of accessing and constructing a border fence on a National Wildlife Refuge. The content and tone of DHS 

throughout this process could only be described as having no special consideration 

for the fact that a major action (permanent fence) was proposed to be place on one 

of this nation’s most ‘‘special places’’. Further, the DEIS prepared for DHS is founded on very superficial biological surveys of private and Refuge lands which constitute a totally inadequate ‘‘gathering of the facts’’ to evaluate such a major construction project. 

The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1980 

after extensive investigations and research and was promoted by a large and very 

diverse public who recognized the importance of the Refuge, both nationally and 

internationally. Also known as the ‘‘wildlife corridor’’, the Refuge was established 

and designed to perform in concert with hundreds of private landowners, conservation organizations, and municipalities as well as Mexico to create a viable migration 

corridor for south Texas wildlife. So far, over 70 million dollars of Land and Water 

Conservation Funds (Federal) has been expended to acquire lands within the Refuge. Millions have also been spent to restore native habitat along the river. A major 

reason for the establishment of the refuge and corridor was to serve as habitat and 

a migration corridor for the endangered ocelot and jaguarondi (cats). Within the 

south Texas Refuges and adjacent private lands are a total of 18 endangered or 

threatened plant and animal species. Largely confined to the wildlife corridor in 

south Texas, this area is home to over 500 species of birds, 300 species of butterflies, 

and 1,200 species of plants. It is one of the most biologically diverse regions of the 

U.S. 

A driving force for scientists and the public alike in the establishment of the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge was the historical loss of native 

habitat. Over 95 percent of the native brush in the Valley has been cleared and over 

98 percent of the river edge forest has been cleared. This leaves a very narrow ribbon of wildlife habitat that is critical to thousands of wildlife species. Though the 

footprint of a border fence is somewhat unclear at this time, it is clear that significant wildlife habitat will be cleared to construct and maintain the fence. Further 

clearing of wildlife habitat further jeopardizes the existence of south Texas wildlife 

populations that are already ‘‘on the brink’’ due to historical land clearing. Clearing 

of additional wildlife habitat on the refuge and private lands adjacent to the Rio 

Grande is not analogous to clearing habitat on the border with Canada. Thousands 

of square miles of uninterrupted wildlife habitat remain on our northern border. 

The narrow wildlife corridor that currently exists along the river serves as a critical stopover for millions of migrating birds traveling from North America to South 

America. Situated between the Gulf of Mexico in the east and the deserts of the 

west, this narrow strip of habitat serves migrating birds from two flyways which 

funnel through the Rio Grande Valley. A real life example of this is the spring migration of broad-winged hawks. In April of each year, tens of thousands of hawks 

and falcons settle in on the nearby Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge for nightly 

rests before rising on thermals to travel thousands of non-stop miles to northern 

breeding areas. Satellite maps confirm that vast areas north of the wildlife corridor 

in the U.S. and south into Mexico have been cleared for agriculture, business and 

municipalities. There is no visible alternative for millions of migrating birds seeking 

rest and food. Additional habitat losses through the construction of a border fence 

will likely result in further losses of a declining migratory bird population. 

The proposed fence will also impact endangered species like the ocelot and 

jaguarondi by serving as a barrier to travel for these endangered cats. Current estimates range from 70-100 ocelots remaining in the U.S. Barriers to travel will impact 

the ocelot’s ability to travel from Mexico into the U.S. and within the U.S. An important factor in the health of the ocelot population is its genetic viability. Due to low 

numbers and current restrictions to movement, the ocelot population is showing 

signs of genetic inbreeding. Inbreeding often affects the health of individual cats by 

increasing their susceptibility to disease. Border fencing constructed as part of the 

International Boundary and Water Commission Levees would not allow any passage 

for terrestrial wildlife like the ocelot and jaguarondi. Northern movement from the 

wildlife corridor to areas such as Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge and 

91 

southern movement from Laguna Atascosa through the wildlife corridor into Mexico 

are critical to the continued existence of these cats. 

Proposed fences placed adjacent to the Rio Grande on private lands and federal 

lands will impact a wide variety of terrestrial wildlife in Starr County. Starr County 

is located on the west side of the wildlife corridor/refuge and is characterized by almost desert conditions. Many of these species including white-tailed deer and 

javelina are dependent on the river for water and would be effectively blocked or 

would have to expend additional energy to reach the river or alternative water 

sources. The Lower Rio Grande Valley is unique in many ways and a major geographic 

feature is the Rio Grande. From the Falcon Reservoir in the west to the Gulf of 

Mexico the river and adjacent Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge/ 

wildlife corridor is a convoluted river course cover 275 river miles. Due to the nature 

of the river, it is possible to enter the U.S. from Mexico from the north. Flood control treaties with Mexico require that much of the proposed border fence be place 

on or north of the IBWC levees. This creates an area of ‘‘no man’s land’’ between 

the fence and the international border. Thus, the areas south of the fence will still 

have to be patrolled as usual by Border Patrol since leaving these areas unattended 

will result in a virtual ‘‘take’’ by criminals from Mexico. Subsequently, the fence provides little or no relief in manpower requirements for security purposes. 

Because of the fence placement along IBWC levees which leave vast areas of the 

U.S. behind the fence, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge is 

faced with new concerns related to safety and security. Significant questions remain 

for refuge managers under this scenario. It is unlikely that the refuge can continue 

to operate safely south of the fence to carry-out its responsibilities for protection, 

operations and management. The Refuge’s fire division will not be able to safely respond to wildfires south of the fence on refuge and private lands to extinguish hundreds of wildfires each year due to limited escape routes. Without additional refuge 

law enforcement capacity, it is likely that these areas will turn into ‘‘no management’’ zones and significant damage will occur to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

The waiver invoked by Secretary Chertoff on April 1, 2008 waiving 28 Federal 

Acts including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species 

Act is additional evidence of an agency in crisis. Thoughtfulness, logic, and (really) 

listening to the public it serves have given way to the overpowering mandate of 

building hundreds of miles of fence by a legislative deadline. The National Environmental Policy Act was intended used to fully evaluate the impacts of a project to 

the environment and provide the best course of action for all (including national security). Instead, unneeded and unwarranted impacts will be borne by communities 

and the environment at a heavy cost (fiscal). Eleven years of managing thousands 

of acres of land within the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and 

coordinating Border Patrol activities on those lands lead me to believe that there 

are viable alternatives to the border fence as proposed by DHS that would eliminate 

or lessen the impacts to special places like the Lower Rio Grande Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge, wildlife corridor and communities in the Valley. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Let me now turn to Ms. Laura Peterson, Taxpayers for Common Sense, senior policy advisor. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF LAURA PETERSON, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, 

TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE 

Ms. PETERSON. Good morning, Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman 

Bordallo, distinguished Members of Congress, and thank you for inviting me to testify today about the border wall. As you said, I’m 

a senior policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit, nonpartisan budget watchdog that serves as an independent 

voice for American taxpayers. Our mission is to expose and end 

wasteful and harmful spending and subsidies in order to achieve 

a more responsible and efficient government that operates within 

its means. 

TCS supports the Federal government working with local landowners and border communities to achieve sound, cost-effective 

border control solutions that protect our nation. Unfortunately, preVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
92 

vious evidence shows that building a wall across hundreds of miles 

of diverse borderland is not a good investment for taxpayers. 

The border wall as currently envisioned will cost billions of dollars in construction and maintenance alone while failing to adequately block the illegal entry of people and contraband into the 

United States and exposing taxpayers to future liabilities in the 

bargain. 

We simply cannot afford to waste money on feel-good, ineffective 

measures, in Homeland Security or anywhere else. Our nation is 

in the midst of a financial crises, facing economic recession, a $400 

billion budget deficit, and $9 trillion in national debt, to name just 

a few of the challenges. Yet the procedural shortcuts the border 

wall is taking in the name of expediency virtually guarantees poor 

spending decisions. High national security priorities do not make 

less truth of the adage that ‘‘haste makes waste.’’ 

U.S. border control initiatives do not have a history of cost effectiveness. For example, while the cost of arrests by Border Patrol 

officers reportedly jumped from $300 in 1992 to $1,700 in 2002, Department of Homeland Security statistics show that the number of 

apprehensions during that time across the border remained largely 

flat. Spending on border infrastructure has jumped up dramatically 

in the past six years, from $6 million in 2002 to $647 million in 

2007. Yet apprehensions continue to hover around 100,000 per 

year. 

Border Patrol officers have told Congress that while fencing is 

most effective in urban areas, fencing in open areas obstructs vision and consumes valuable manpower for maintenance and repair. 

They also say these urban fences are only effective when part of 

the mix that includes manpower, technology and other resources. 

The first fence built south of San Diego did little to stop the flow 

of illegal border crossings until Operation Gatekeeper increased the 

number of Border Patrol officers and other resources, according to 

the Congressional Research Service. Even so, that decrease is accompanied by the corresponding increase in apprehensions in Arizona as migrants moved east. 

The cost of building the fence rose from $12 million at its inception to more than $127 million, or $10 million per mile, at its projected completion. These costs cover construction only, not acquisitions or maintenance. Maintenance is a significant and frequently 

underestimated cost because these fences are under constant attack. A four-man maintenance crew is reportedly required to work 

full-time repairing the 15 to 20 holes ripped through the El Paso 

fence each day. 

Attempts to create a high-tech virtual fence have also consumed 

billions of taxpayer dollars in failed investment. The U.S. Government spent nearly 3 billion on two failed virtual fences between 

1997 and 2006 before awarding a six-year contract to Boeing to develop a national program called SBInet. SBInet immediately became the focus of Congressional scrutiny because of its reliance on 

contracting practices that have led to severe cost and schedule 

overruns in previous contracts. 

SBInet lived up to expectations. Shortly after the contract was 

awarded, the DHS inspector general raised its project cost estimate 

from 2 billion to nearly 30 billion. After several missed deadlines 

93 

DHS in February accepted completion of the program’s initial deployment along 28 miles of Arizona border, paying over $20 million 

for this work, only to announce earlier this month that it would 

scrap the effort and start over. 

If these are the kinds of problems that arise in projects planned 

and implemented over several years, think of the waste that could 

result from rushing a project as costly and complicated as the border wall. Yet that’s exactly what waiving these numerous laws 

under the REAL ID Act will do. Many of the laws, especially the 

National Environmental Policy Act, require an environmental review process which can protect taxpayers from potentially serious 

and costly future liabilities. The procedure is inherent and vital to 

the review process, providing an important set of checks and balances on Federal agencies and private actions without which the 

risk of waste, fraud and abuse increases. 

Waiving hazardous and waste laws such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act does nothing to prevent environmental 

contamination that may result from wall construction, but simply 

guarantees that the cost of cleanup will be left to taxpayers. 

Similarly, waiving wildlife protection laws does not minimize potential harm to protected species, it just transfers the cost to other 

private and public landowners. Landowners and other residents 

along the border are violently opposed to the current set of strategy. In the 2008 appropriations bill passed earlier this year, Congress told DHS to submit an analysis for each 15-mile segment of 

the border that compares approaches based on factors such as cost 

and possible unintended effects on communities. Though DHS has 

reportedly submitted the analysis, the document has not been 

made public, nor has any other document of what type of fence 

DHS plans to install at specific locations. Support and intelligence 

from others is valuable input and support crucial to any effective 

border strategy. 

We agree with lawmakers and the American public that securing 

our border is a top national security priority. However, the current 

border wall plan is more likely to siphon precious resources away 

from that goal and pump money into an expedient but ineffective, 

expensive and potentially damaging project. This decision will affect every taxpayer from the border of Minnesota to the border of 

Texas for years in the future. Thank you again for allowing me to 

testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Peterson follows:] 

Statement of Laura Peterson, Senior Policy Analyst, 

Taxpayers for Common Sense 

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify today on the proposed 

southern border wall. I am a senior policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, 

a non-partisan budget watchdog that serves as an independent voice for American 

taxpayers. Our mission is to expose and end wasteful and harmful spending and 

subsidies in order to achieve a more responsible and efficient government that operates within its means. 

TCS supports the federal government working with local landowners and border 

communities to achieve sound, cost-effective border control solutions that protect our 

nation. Unfortunately, evidence indicates that building a wall across hundreds of 

miles of diverse borderland is not a good investment for taxpayers. The border wall 

as currently envisioned by the Department of Homeland Security will cost billions 

of dollars in construction and maintenance alone while failing to adequately block 

94 

1 ‘‘Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,’’ Congressional Research 

Service, January 8, 2008 2Douglas Massey, ‘‘Backfire at the Border: Why Enforcement Without Legalization Cannot 

Stop Migration,’’ CATO Institute Center for Trade Policy Studies, June 13, 2005 3Department of Homeland Security 2006 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 

4 ‘‘Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,’’ Congressional Research 

Service, January 8, 2008; Department of Homeland Security 2006 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 5 ‘‘Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,’’ Congressional Research 

Service, January 8, 2008 6 ‘‘Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,’’ Congressional Research 

Service, January 8, 2008 7DHS FY2006 and 2007 budget justifications, as cited by CRS 

8http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm 

9 Alicia A. Caldwell, ‘‘Fixing Holes in the Border Fence is a Never Ending Task for U.S. 

Agents,’’ Associated Press, August 8, 2007 

the illegal entry of people and contraband into the United States and exposing taxpayers to future liabilities in the bargain. 

We simply cannot afford to waste money on feel-good, ineffective measures—in 

homeland security or anywhere else. Our overall budgetary challenges are immense. 

Our nation is in the midst of fiscal crisis: the economy is in a tailspin, we have a 

budget deficit of more than $400 billion and our national debt tops $9 trillion. We 

spend hundreds of billions each year just on interest payments to service that debt. 

And that doesn’t even consider the looming financial challenges of Social Security 

and Medicare. We cannot afford to waste a dime, much less billions of dollars. Yet 

the procedural shortcuts the border wall strategy is taking in the name of speedy 

deployment virtually guarantees poor spending decisions. 

Border security is unquestionably a high national priority, but that doesn’t make 

Mother’s adage that ‘‘haste makes waste’’ any less true. 

Big Bucks, Little Bang 

U.S. border control initiatives have historically been exercises in high expense and low effectiveness. The federal government has appropriated $3.7 billion for border 

patrol construction since 1996 and more than $1 billion on fence construction alone, 

according to the Congressional Research Service. 1 The cost of making an illegal- entry arrest jumped from $300 in 1992 to $1,700 in 2002, according to one economist. 2 While the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States is notoriously difficult to quantify, border patrol statistics show that the number of apprehensions remained relatively flat during the same period. 3 Investment in border infrastructure has increased by a factor of 100 in the past six years from $6 million 

in 2002 to $647 million in 2007: Apprehensions, however, hovered around 100,000 

per year. 4

The fence constructed along 14 miles of the San Diego border over the past twenty 

years is often portrayed as proof of wall effectiveness, but evidence for that claim 

is inconclusive at best. The initial fence, constructed of 10-foot steel landing mats 

welded together, did little to stanch the illegal flow of people across the border: It 

was only the increase of border patrol manpower and resources under Operation 

Gatekeeper in 1994 that made an impact, as the Congressional Research Service 

notes. 5 And though apprehensions in San Diego continued to decline over the next 

decade, the decline was mirrored by a dramatic increase in illegal crossings in Arizona as migrants moved further east. 6

Moreover, the San Diego project exposes the potentially budget-busting pitfalls of 

fencing solutions. To increase its effectiveness, the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform 

and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) authorized another two layers of fence 

construction in San Diego at a total cost of $12 million. However, DHS now says 

the fence will cost $127 million by the time it is completed—more than 10 times 

the initial estimate. 7 In the final analysis, the San Diego fence will cost more than $10 million per mile when maintenance costs are included. Yet the fence was 

breached almost immediately: CBP officers have found numerous tunnels—some fortified with concrete flooring and electricity—running underneath the fence to San 

Diego county that have consumed significant financial and labor resources to seal. 8

Maintenance costs have also far exceeded estimates for the San Diego fence as well 

as installations in Nogales, Arizona and El Paso, Texas. In El Paso, a four-main 

maintenance crew is required to weld and fill the 15-20 holes ripped through the 

fence each day. 9

The 2006 Secure Fence Act directed DHS to construct 850 miles of fencing along 

the 2,000 miles of the southwestern U.S. border, which Congress reduced to 700 by 

language in the 2008 consolidated appropriations bill. The 2008 bill also gave the 

Secretary of Homeland Security wide latitude in determining the type of fencing to 

95 

10PL 110-161, sec. 564, Div E, Title II 11PL 110-161, sec. 564, Div E, Title V 12 ‘‘Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,’’ Congressional Research 

Service, January 8, 2008 13 ‘‘Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,’’ Congressional Research 

Service, January 8, 2008 14 ‘‘Border Security: Key Unresolved Issues Justify Reevaluation of Border Surveillance Technology Program,’’ GAO report 06-295, February 22, 2006 pg 29 15 ‘‘Border Security: Key Unresolved Issues Justify Reevaluation of Border Surveillance Technology Program,’’ GAO report 06-295, February 22, 2006 16 ‘‘Border Security: Key Unresolved Issues Justify Reevaluation of Border Surveillance Technology Program,’’ GAO report 06-295, February 22, 2006 pg 18 

install along various portions of the border, stating that he does not have to use 

any particular deterrent if he decides it isn’t optimal for gaining ‘‘operational control.’’ 10 Further, Congress withheld border security funding until DHS submitted an 

expenditure plan and an analysis of each 15-mile border segment that compares approaches based on factors such as cost and ‘‘possible unintended effects on communities.’’ 11 Though DHS has reportedly submitted the analysis, the document has not 

been made public. 

In fact, DHS has not presented taxpayers with any cost estimates to date. Some 

baseline costs can be estimated using the price of fencing materials. Three types of 

fencing are currently under consideration: landing mat fencing, which utilizes steel 

airplane landing mats welded together; bollard fencing, consisting of concrete-filled 

metal tubes; and Sandia fencing, a 10-foot steel mesh fence topped with an angled 

panel. Landing mat fencing costs around $400,000 per mile to install and $15,000 

per mile to maintain; Sandia fencing, $800,000 per mile to install and $7,000 to 

maintain; and bollard fencing, $2 to $4 million per mile to install and $1,000 to 

$15,000 to maintain (depending on style). Sandia fencing has so far only been used 

to backstop primary fencing on 10 miles of the San Diego border, so would likely 

be an additional rather than primary fencing cost. 

Other costs include funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, which provides engineering expertise, construction management and machinery under a memorandum 

of understanding with DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The Corps of Engineers received roughly $40 million from the Department of Defense for this purpose over the past decade. 12 Though some fence installation labor has been provided 

by state National Guard troops at no expense to CBP, labor has also been provided 

by the military, the U.S. Border Patrol, and private contractors, as was the case 

with the San Diego border fence. 

Using the cost of the San Diego fence as a baseline, simple multiplication pro- duces the oft-cited price of $7 billion for the 700 miles required under the Secure 

Fence Act. The Corps of Engineers has estimated that maintaining the fence over 

25 years would range from $16.4 million to $70 million per mile, though that figure 

would be increased by breaches such as tunneling. The Corps estimate also does not 

include the costs of acquiring land or labor, which could be substantial if private 

contractors are retained. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated border 

fencing at $3 million per mile for construction and an additional 15 percent, or 

$450,000, for maintenance per year. 13

These figures only address the costs of physical fencing, however, not the fiscal 

sinkhole that is the ‘‘virtual fence.’’ Previous DHS attempts to establish high-tech 

virtual fences have been fraught with problems. In 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service deployed more than 10,000 sensors and 200 camera towers along 

the northern and southern borders under a program called the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS). Unfortunately, the databases installed to analyze 

information from the cameras and sensors were never integrated, meaning they 

couldn’t share information. Further, the cameras broke down in bad weather and 

were difficult and expensive to maintain. 14 These problems were not helped by the 

fact that the General Services Administration, tasked with managing the camera 

component, conducted ‘‘inadequate contractor oversight, insufficient competition, 

and incorrect contracting actions.’’ 15 ISIS moved to DHS after its creation in 2002 

and was incorporated two years later into America’s Shield Program (ASI) after an 

investment of more than $340 million. 16 ASI also suffered from poor management 

and integration with DHS, costing taxpayers $2.5 billion before it was absorbed by 

the Secure Border Initiative in 2006. 

That year, the Secure Border Initiative launched the operational successor to ISIS 

and ASI, another networked system of cameras, sensors and unmanned vehicles 

called SBInet. SBInet became the subject of Congressional scrutiny from the moment the six-year contract was awarded to Boeing in September 2006 because of its 

reliance on contracting practices that have led to severe cost and schedule overruns 

96 

17 ‘‘Fencing the Border’’ hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee, July 20 2006 18 ‘‘Fencing the Border’’ hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee, July 20 2006 19 ‘‘Fencing the Border’’ hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee, July 20 2006 20http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2688&print=true 

in other DHS and DoD contracts. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) held a 

hearing on SBInet in February of this year at which he revealed that two-thirds of 

the individuals that designed the SBInet acquisition plan were contractors, and that 

the parties evaluating the bids were outsourced as well. DHS blamed chronic shortfalls in procurement personnel as justification for contracting out acquisition and 

oversight capacities. 

SBInet lived up to expectations: Shortly after the contract was awarded, the DHS 

inspector general raised its estimate for the project’s cost from $2 billion to as high 

as $30 billion. Boeing missed its June 2007 deadline to deliver the contract’s first 

task order to secure 28 miles of the Arizona border, saying coordination of the numerous technologies was proving more difficult than anticipated. Though DHS accepted the ‘‘Project 28’’ task order in February, paying Boeing its $20 million fee, 

it announced just last week that it will scrap the SBInet installation there and start 

over. 

Cut Corners Now, Increase Costs Later 

The REAL-ID Act in 2005 authorized the DHS Secretary to waive any federal law 

in order to expedite border fence construction. Since then, DHS has waived more 

than 30 laws to proceed with construction in San Diego, Arizona and southern 

Texas. Laws waived include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, along with several laws protecting historic 

monuments, antiquities and Native American lands. 

Many of these laws—specifically NEPA—require an environmental review process 

which, in both intent and practice, can protect taxpayers from potentially serious 

and costly future liabilities. By identifying environmental impacts and assessing 

reasonable alternatives, NEPA’s process brings potential project costs to light and 

explores potential solutions. Waiving hazardous waste management and cleanup 

laws like RCRA and CERCLA does nothing to prevent possible environmental contamination that may take place (or be discovered) in the course of construction. 

Rather, waiving hazardous waste laws simply guarantees that the costs of any 

clean-up would be left to the taxpayers, letting the responsible private parties off 

the hook. 

Similarly, waiving wildlife management laws does not minimize potential harms 

to habitat or protected species. There may be a short-term savings in the form of 

deferred mitigation costs, but those burdens would simply be transferred to other 

public and private land owners. And in the absence of a NEPA environmental assessment, those costs will be hidden. Waivers also devalue the millions of dollars 

the federal government has invested in wildlife refuges. Finally, with their inherent 

review procedures, environmental laws provide an important set of checks and balances to federal agency and private action. Doing away with those review processes 

in their entirety increases the chances of waste, fraud and abuse. 

Smart Solutions 

CBP officers have told Congress that fences are only effective as part of a ‘‘mix’’ 

that includes manpower, technology and other resources. 17 In fact, patrolmen have 

testified that while fencing is most effective in urban areas, it is actually counterproductive in open borderlands because it obstructs vision and requires significant 

maintenance and repair. 18 They also noted that a cogent immigration policy should 

be part of this mix: A border patrol chief told the House Homeland Security Committee in 2006 that he was ‘‘frustrated by the fact that we look to border security 

(for solutions) when there is, in fact, a deeper issue at hand.’’ 19

Support and intelligence from local residents is another valuable resource, one 

that the current wall proposal does not adequately develop. Here in Texas, owners 

of land gained through Spanish land grants and handed down over generations reportedly face the possibility of walls in their backyard, while golf courses and luxury 

housing developments just miles away remain untouched. 20 It’s hard to know just 

what the DHS approach to fencing options is since the agency has not made its 

analysis for each segment of the border public, which would allow residents to see 

plans for their neighborhoods and contribute potentially valuable input. 

American voters and lawmakers clearly agree that preventing potentially harmful 

people and contraband from entering America’s borders is a top national security 

priority. However, the current border fence plan is more likely to siphon precious 

97 

resources away from that goal and pump money into an expedient but ineffective, 

expensive and potentially damaging project. The stakes are too high to line our border with expensive sugar pills. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. And let me now ask Mr. 

Zack Taylor, supervisory Border Patrol agent, retired, for his testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ZACK TAYLOR, SUPERVISORY BORDER 

PATROL AGENT (RETIRED) 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Chairmen Grijalva, Bordallo, Ranking 

Member Tancredo, Members of Congress. My name is George 

Zachary Taylor and I graduated from the University of Florida 

with a degree in wildlife ecology. I consider myself to be a natural 

resources conservationist. I’m a charter member of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. My association speaks 

for laws, rules and regulations that will benefit America, and we 

speak against any law, rule or legislation that is contrary to the 

interest of all Americans. In this case, specifically House of Representatives 2593. 

I was a Border Patrol agent for 26 years in the United States 

Border Patrol from 1976 to 2003, the first 12 years as a field agent 

along the Rio Grande River at Brownsville and McAllen, Texas. I 

worked at the Santa Ana refuges, the Bentsen State Park in South 

Texas. My principal duties were the detection and apprehension of 

drug and alien smugglers and training new agents to do that. I 

spent 14 years as a field supervisor and Border Patrol agent at the 

Nogales Border Patrol station. The Tucson sector Nogales Border 

Patrol station was and still is the most active drug and alien smuggling corridor into the United States. 

My principal duties were the detection and apprehension of drug 

and alien smugglers. Almost all of my patrol time there was on 

public land along the U.S. and Mexican border. 

From my present home in Rio Rico, Arizona, I look south into Sonora, Mexico; southwest into the Pajarita Wilderness and the proposed Pajarita Wilderness Extension; west and northwest to the 

proposed Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness; and north into the 

Santa Rita Mountains Wilderness. I am bound on all sides by public land or Mexico. I worked all of these places in the United States 

for 14 years until I retired in 2003. 

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers 

strongly urge all Americans to come together as a country, a nation 

and as one people to fully understand and effectively deal with the 

serious threat to our public safety and national security from our 

southern border. We must protect America first. 

In Arizona we have seen wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas turned into killing grounds as well as major drug and 

alien smuggling routes. Public land adjacent to these wilderness 

are trashed by illegal aliens to the extent they resemble landfills. 

The evidence of multiple robberies and rapes are commonplace. 

Local law enforcement is virtually powerless against the gangs that 

freely roam these public lands. 

Aliens infected with highly contagious diseases enter the United 

States across our southern border daily and are not screened for 

98 

those diseases even if they are apprehended. Organized gangs such 

as MS-13 are now common in the United States. The violence of 

such gangs and their drug—their drug trade bring with them is 

causing gang-related violence and suffering in every corner of 

America. It threatens the very fabric of our society. At present 

drug-related violence is destroying Mexico as we speak. 

It is along our southern border that terrorists have entered the 

United States and have been apprehended. We do not know who, 

how many, or where they are from because we only apprehend a 

relatively small fraction of all persons that cross our borders illegally. A large percentage of the wildfires along the Arizona-Mexican border are human caused. Some are intentionally set as diversions for other illegal activities. Firefighters have been shot at 

while responding to fighting fires along these trafficking corridors. 

Arizona has experienced the positive effects of fencing parts of 

the Arizona border. Law enforcement officers have been shot and 

killed by smugglers and narcotraffickers in national monuments 

and proposed wilderness areas. Agents that I had trained and supervised have been shot at, shot and killed in the Nogales area. 

No, one type of fence does not fit all terrains and situations. 

However, we have seen dramatic reductions in crime and violence 

on the United States side where the appropriate fence has been 

erected, maintained and patrolled. I’m here to warn the wonderful 

people of Texas that there are some among us that want to make 

it easier for the terrorists, narcotraffickers, gang members, and the 

disease-ridden to come into the United States illegally. Please see 

this wolf in sheep’s clothing for what it is, a horrendous threat to 

our public safety and national security. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:] 

Statement of George Zachary Taylor, 

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers 

Public and private lands along the United States-Mexico Border, between the 

ports of entry, have been a point of entry and exit for criminals since the Official 

Border was laid out over one hundred years ago. If everyone in the world did not 

engage in criminal activity and respected our laws, a secure border would not be 

absolutely necessary. Such is not the case and we live in an increasingly dangerous 

world. 

We are a nation of free people. We are daily engaged in our own pursuit of happiness and therefore we do not keep up with the constant changes that are taking 

place along our land borders or the legislation that affects them. The urgent need 

to secure our borders as soon as possible has never been so clear. Proof that many 

among us do not respect and understand this present need is as close as your local 

newspaper or news outlet. 

I must point out that all of the information in this report is available to anyone 

that reads the newspapers, listens to the current news and pays attention to current 

events. The failure of the media to accurately report these facts appears to be an 

intentional failure to report the truth. 

Congress authorized the Department of Homeland Security to build a border fence 

along America’s southern border. Intermittent sections of this fence have been erected in various places on the border. Where this fencing is designed to conform to the 

terrain and natural land features for the purpose of stopping or severely deterring 

people and vehicles to enter the United States illegally, it has been very successful. 

If the fence is carelessly constructed or a purpose other than maximum effectiveness 

is followed, the fencing will be less effective. We do not represent that any fence 

will completely stop all illegal traffic. No fence will make the United States totally 

secure. However, without a maximum efficiency fence erected and maintained where 

practical we are at greater risk. 

Congress is considering several Legislative Bills affecting the U.S. Mexico border 

that will certainly make America less safe. These two Bills are H.R. 3287, The 

99 

Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act, and H.R. 2593, The Border Conservation 

and Security Act of 2007. A third action is the current movement to nullify the previously authorized waivers for Homeland Security to build the border fence. Congressmen that claim to protect America and then turn around and knowingly support official action and legislation that will make America less safe should not be 

in office. We must have elected officials that place American security first. 

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers is calling upon all 

Americans in every state, territory and outlying possession to come together and demand that Congress secure our land borders and make our country a safer place 

for us to live and raise our families. In the following pages we will lay out the facts 

as they presently are and ask you to consider the facts in making your future decisions concerning the fence and legislation that would make America less safe. 

The primary duty of today’s Border Patrol is to detect and apprehend terrorists. 

The ideal is to stop them at the border, before they come into the United States. 

We know that terrorists enter the United States across the Mexican border. Located 

at Sierra Vista, Arizona, is a Top Secret U.S. Army Intelligence School called Fort 

Huachuca. On February 12, 2008, two persons living in Sierra Vista, were stopped 

at Patagonia, Arizona, by the local Constable. Both were determined to be of middle 

eastern descent and both were on the National Terrorist Watch List. They were 

driving to Nogales, Arizona, to bond out their associate that had crossed illegally 

into the United States the night before and was apprehended by the Border Patrol. 

(http://nogalesinternational.com/articles/2008/02/26/news/news8.prt) 

I personally interviewed three Syrian Citizens that had entered the United States 

illegally and one subsequently claimed to me that he was a terrorist who was coming to the United States to engage in terrorism. These persons entered the United 

States illegally from Mexico near Nogales, Arizona, and were apprehended by 

Nogales Border Patrol Agents. 

In 2006 approximately 10% of the illegal aliens apprehended by the U.S. Border 

Patrol had criminal records. In 2007 the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 876,700 

illegal aliens, 144,000, or 16.4% had criminal records. Of the 144,000 that had criminal histories, 11,706 were for Dangerous Drugs. Ninety-nine percent of the meth 

produced in Mexico crosses the Mexican border into the United States. Ninety percent of the cocaine consumed in the United States crosses the Mexican border. Mexico is the largest supplier of marijuana to the United States and the bulk of this 

marijuana crosses the Mexican border into the United States. No one knows for certain how many illegal aliens or terrorists successfully enter the United States that 

are not detected or apprehended. We must conclude that we do not come any where 

near catching them all under the conditions that presently exist at the border. During my tenure as a Field Supervisory Border Patrol Agent at Nogales, Arizona, 

1988-2003, I studied this aspect of the Immigration problem. My evaluation of the 

situation indicated that we were indeed fortunate to apprehend as much as 10% of 

the total traffic on any given day. On some days we would apprehend over 3,000 

at Nogales. I continue to live in the Nogales area and I am certain that a very significant percentage is still making it into the interior of the United States, undetected. Arizona in particular needs all of the tools available to stem this flow. An 

effective Border Fence is one of those tools. 

Organized illegal alien Gangs trafficking in illegal drugs are a significant percentage of the violent crime associated with the selling of dangerous drugs in the United 

States. The exact extent of the problem is unknown. In March 2008, Mexico estimates that the MS-13 Gang in Central America number 100,000 members, 63% of 

whom are Mexican citizens. The United States estimates for the MS-13 Gang, mostly in Los Angeles County, California, at 30,000 members, 56% of them are Mexican 

Citizens. These MS-13 gang members, and members of several other gangs, likely 

cross the Mexican border illegally without interruption to their enterprise. These 

combined numbers are roughly the number of U.S. troops currently deployed to 

Iraq. This is according to an Associated Press Article in the Arizona Daily Star 

April 3, 2008. I have recently received yet unconfirmed information that MS13 is 

setting up shop on Mount Vernon Avenue in Pentagon City and that they have 

taken over the gang turf in Santa Barbara, California. We will have to wait and 

see what develops because no one seems to be working to effectively prevent the expansion and replication of their influence in the United States. 

The Arizona Daily Star reports that for the first three months of 2008, homicides 

are up approximately 100% in the City of Tucson, which does not include greater 

Pima County. 

Organized Gangs, believed to be predominately illegal aliens, operate out of the 

Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona, areas. These gangs stage kidnappings of illegal alien 

smuggling loads from alien smugglers. They have engaged in running gun battles 

on back roads and on the Interstate Highways. They also wait for drug mules and 

100 

alien smuggling loads on the mountain trails of the proposed Tumacacori Wilderness Area and in the Santa Rita Mountains Wilderness areas. Their method of operation is extremely violent. Tiny Santa Cruz County Arizona alone has had 30 such 

shooting incidents in the past two years. Numerous illegal aliens have been shot 

and killed and many illegal aliens have been shot and wounded by these heavily 

armed gangs operating up to 60 or more miles inside the United States. 

(http://nogalesinternational.com/articles/2008/01/22/news/news12.prt) 

(http://www.gvnews.com/articles/2007/04/19/news/news02.prt) 

Congressmen that seek to pass legislation to confer Wilderness status on the 

Tumacacori Highlands and on other public lands on or near the Mexican border are 

not acting in America’s best interest. Only the terrorist and smuggler will significantly benefit from the passage of H.R. 2593 and H.R. 3287. This legislation is an 

impediment to Law Enforcement efforts at the border. 

Illegal aliens shot by bandits and illegal aliens injured in vehicle accidents incur 

significant unrecoverable expense to local Arizona hospitals and overload the capacity of the hospitals to treat patients. The return from the United States government 

on this Federally mandated care is reported to be fifteen cents on the dollar. Therefore, the costs must be passed on to U.S. Citizens in increased costs when they visit 

these hospitals. This practice has caused hospitals to close their doors completely. 

(http://azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/230998) 

(http://.kold.com/global/story.asp?s=8131193&ClientType=Printable) 

(http://azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/233584) 

There is also the increasing incidence of contagious diseases brought into the 

United States by illegal aliens that sneak across the Mexican border daily. To name 

a few, hepatitis, measles, cholera, tuberculosis, drug resistant tuberculosis, and various STD’s. What is disturbing is that a significant number of infected illegal aliens 

work in food processing centers in the U.S. (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/another-illegal-immigrant-spreads-tuberculosis) 

Numerous reported Rape Trees have been identified in and near the current 

Pajarita Wilderness and the proposed Pajarita Wilderness Extension near the U.S. 

Mexico border. Rape Trees mark the location where drug and alien smugglers habitually sexually assault and rape illegal alien females that are being brought into the 

United States across the Mexican border. These locations are marked by the perpetrators who prominently display and hang the brassiers and underwear of their 

victims on a particular tree. I visited one such reported tree on March 27, 2008, and 

noticed 30 sets of women’s panties and 11 brassiers near the location of the suspect 

tree. A local rancher near Arivaca, Arizona, reports 14 rape trees on his ranch and 

he estimates that 7 are currently active. These Rape Tree trails begin at the Mexican border and many travel through the Pajarita Wilderness and the proposed 

Pajarita Wilderness Expansion (H.R. 2593) before entering the proposed 

Tumacacori Wilderness area, outlined in H.R. 3287. 

Law Enforcement Officers are killed by illegal aliens who are engaging in criminal 

activities after they have crossed the Mexican border illegally. Border Patrol Agent 

Alexander Kirpnick was shot and killed by a drug smuggler in Potrero Canyon west 

of the Meadow Hills Golf Course in June 1998. Two Border Patrol Agents were shot 

and wounded by smugglers east of Nogales, Arizona, in June 2005. Last year Phoenix Police Officer Nick Erfle was shot and killed by an illegal alien gang member. 

In August 2002 at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona, Park Ranger 

Kris Eggle was shot and killed by narco traffickers. (http://www.nps.gov/orpi/ 

historyculture/kris.htm) This was after environmental groups insisted that Border 

Patrol Agents stay out of the area because of damage they were doing to the environment. The illegal alien traffic habitat damage that followed the Border Patrol’s 

departure was far more severe than that caused by Law Enforcement Patrols. 

I worked the Rio Grande River area near McAllen, Texas, from 1979-1988. I saw 

first hand in the Santa Ana Refuges and in Bentsen State Park the way illegal 

aliens and smugglers defile Parks and Refuges. I heard testimony by Mark South 

on November 17, 2007, at a Congressional Hearing in Washington, D.C., concerning 

H.R. 2593 and H.R. 3287, where he described having worked for the Forest Service 

to establish hiking trails in the Santa Rita Mountains and those Wilderness designated areas, only to return as a Wildland firefighter later to view the trashing and 

destruction wrought by illegal aliens and smugglers on those trails, and to fight the 

fires they had caused. Such has been my experience. When a Wilderness or Refuge 

area is established near the border, the criminal element moves in and trashes it 

because the restrictive Wilderness or Refuge status accorded to these lands effectively prevents all law enforcement from effectively working the area. In other 

words, the Refuge or Wilderness designation actually serves to put the environment 

at greater risk of being seriously damaged and defaced. Law Enforcement must 

have common, unrestricted, free access to all lands near the U.S. Border. By near 

101 

I mean at least 50 miles because that is ordinary walking distance for illegal aliens 

and drug smugglers traveling on foot. I have seen and heard evidence or aliens who 

walked from the Mexican border north bound to pick up locations that are north 

of Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 in Southern Arizona. 

Organized Mexican Drug Traffickers from Mexico are sent throughout the world 

to engage in the illegal drug trade. Major cartels operating in Mexico are presently 

challenging the government of Mexico and the Mexican Army for control of Mexico. 

There have been over 4,000 drug related assassinations reported in Mexico for 2006- 

2007. This number is under reported, by how much we do not know. Estimates run 

at least 25% of these crimes are never reported. Why? The mortality rate for Mexican Journalists is extremely high. Therefore they are loathe to report anything they 

are ‘‘advised’’ not to report. 

In fact the Gulf Drug Cartel recently recruited their Narco Terrorists, called 

Zetas, by placing a banner near a Mexican Army post in Tamaulipas, Mexico. The 

accompanying Newspaper Article said they were particularly interested in Merida 

trained soldiers and policemen. The Merida Initiative is a 1.4 billion dollar program 

financed by the United States Government to train Mexican Soldiers and Police by 

U.S. Special Forces and other U.S. Agencies in our latest border security and protection techniques. The Drug Cartels then seek to hire these U.S. trained personnel 

to ply the drug trade would wide. These Zetas then become American Law Enforcements adversaries at the border and in the interior of the United States. Take a 

look at the job benefits offered to these trained soldiers and policemen. The Gulf 

Cartel is right up there with General Motors in benefits provided. (http:// 

www.tamaulipasenlinea.com/) 

It is no wonder that in April 2008, the United Nations found that Mexico ranked 

number one in the category of ‘‘violent crime’’ in the use of firearms and excessive 

violence. Mexico was so designated this over less developed countries such as Brazil, 

Colombia and Venezuela. (El Imparcial, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, 04/23/08.) This 

finding by the United Nations may explain the belated response by the United 

States Department of State which issued a Travelers Warning Mexico, on April 14, 

2008. Belated because this current level of violence has been ongoing for several 

years, apparently unnoticed by the Department of State until the United Nations 

called their attention to the problem. 

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cislpaltw/pa/pal3028.html 

In southern Arizona we are experiencing increased incidences of wildfire from two 

primary sources. The first source is illegal aliens that cross into the United States 

illegally and start fires through carelessness. The second source is from illegal 

aliens engaged in other criminal enterprises that start wildfires to create a diversion 

so they can smuggle things into or out of the United States. Wildland Firefighters 

have encountered gun fire on several occasions when going out on a wildfire along 

the Mexican border. The fire approach rule now includes a mandatory armed escort 

before going out on a wildfire along the Mexican border and in the proposed 

Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness area. As a matter of fact, on 04/20/08 as I sit here 

typing this report I can see and smell the smoke from a wildfire that is presently 

burning in the Pajarita Wilderness area, southwest of and in sight of my home. 

(http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/mailstory-clickthru/235272.php) This fire is human 

caused and began in a very remote canyon near the Mexican border and quite distant from any road. The fire is in the Pajarita Wilderness Area. The firefighters on 

the fire line report extensive illegal alien and drug smuggling trails throughout the 

area. Today, 04/23/08, I see another Wildfire burning on the highest reaches of the 

Tumacacori Mountains, north of Hells Gate, which is in the proposed Tumacacori 

Highlands Wilderness Area proposed by H.R. 3287. This is near the location that 

the armed bandits operate out of when preying on illegal aliens and drug smugglers, 

especially in the Aliso Springs Area near Tubac, Arizona. 

As I travel around the United States I talk to Americans about the Mexican Border situation. The subject simply comes up when they find out I am retired from 

the Border Patrol. In particular I talk with people that visit the Mexican Border 

here near Nogales and friends that live away from the border keep me up to speed 

on their thinking on border issues. This information really became clarified and focused during the debate about the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration 

Reform Bill proposed by Congress last year. From nearly every state in the Union 

I have heard about the negative personal experiences that American Citizens have 

had with illegal aliens. If the citizen has not personally had a negative experience, 

then they know someone that has and they do not want to become victims themselves. A somewhat humorous example that comes to mind was related by a family 

from Maine that owns blueberry ground. They said that they hired illegal aliens to 

harvest the blueberries on their land. After a few days they noticed that in the surrounding towns illegal aliens were selling blueberries door to door and set up blueVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
102 

berry stands at prominent road intersections. Quite by accident they discovered that 

the illegal aliens that they had hired to harvest their blueberries were skimming 

and hiding blueberries on their ground, then coming back at night and retrieving 

those blueberries for their families to sell during the day while they were harvesting 

their blueberries for pay. They fired the illegal aliens and hired high school students 

to finish picking their blueberries. 

Even tiny Rhode Island, thousands of miles from the Mexican Border is taking 

steps to curtain their illegal Immigration problems. 

http://www.projo.com/news/pdf/2008/0327limmigrationorder.pdf 

Most illegal alien stories usually are much more serious. I read about a serial rapist in Phoenix, Arizona, that specialized in young school girls on their way to morning school bus stops. I am sure we all read about the Railroad Rapist that terrorized 

the Southwest for months. Stories of illegal aliens involved in home invasion robberies and in fatal vehicle accidents that frequently involve other illegal activity including drugs and alcohol are common. No person or family in the United States 

is safe from the potential harm caused by illegal aliens. 

http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp 

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222lillegalslreport.shtml 

Americans know this, particularly Americans that live away from the immediate 

border area. They are angry and they are focusing their anger on the politicians 

both local and national that have sat by and not demanded that our Immigration 

laws be enforced. They view these politicians as to source of the problem, not the 

illegal alien. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me begin—and hopefully some 

quick responses so that all the members have an opportunity. Mr. 

McClung, you know, I guess some people would argue that because 

your organization opposes the wall, that somehow you’re one of 

these open border kind of organizations that doesn’t care about enforcing those laws and don’t care about—that all you care about is 

a secure work force for the people that you represent. And that’s— 

some people might categorize that that way. And your opposition 

to the wall is based on. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Well, if we’re categorized that way, it’s by people 

who don’t understand either agriculture or farmers. For the most 

part, farmers are a conservative political bloc. They are very patriotic but they also are intent on having things done well and done 

economically when possible. So let me make it very clear, no farmer that I know of or have talked to is opposed to border security. 

We all want border security, it’s just doing it is—in as smart a 

fashion as possible. 

And then let me—I’m glad you asked about the desire for cheap 

labor because that always comes up in this sort of thing. There is 

no question that if you’re an unskilled farm laborer from Mexico or 

anyplace else, you’re probably not going to get rich in this country 

harvesting lettuce or whatever it is, but you are going to be paid 

the minimum wage or well better. 

The national average for farm labor that I saw the other day is 

about 9.50 an hour. It’s different from place to place, but that’s the 

national average. That’s not a great deal of money. We all know 

that. But it is a lot more than a lot of people are able to make elsewhere in the world. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Merritt, we’ve got this either/or 

proposition, and maybe you can help answer that. The either/or 

proposition is, you know, destroying the habitat is—impacting negatively a habitat or wildlife corridor, et cetera, that’s a bad thing. 

But stopping illegal entrants is just a much more important issue. 

103 

So that must have the priority. And how do you see this either/or 

proposition? Do you have to give up one to get the other or—— 

Mr. MERRITT. You know, this is based on 11 years in the Valley 

working with Border Patrol agents and supervising on a daily basis 

that I believe and I think a lot of my colleagues believe that there 

are alternatives. And I think, you know, the major point that we 

have as Fish and Wildlife Service employees or land managers is 

that some of the fencing placement just made no sense to us in 

terms of its effectiveness. 

Now, I’m not a border security expert, but I’ve been there 11 

years and worked with these people and talked to the field agents, 

and some of the fence placements were—disallows movement of 

wildlife—and I’m not talking about urban areas, urban—wildlife 

moving past urban areas, rural areas is just nonsensical to us and 

probably not a good expenditure of money either, as was alluded 

to by my colleague here. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Peterson, explain a little bit more 

how you’ve—how the compliance with laws such as NEPA that you 

mentioned can actually result in cost savings, you mentioned that, 

in the long-term. 

Ms. PETERSON. Well, NEPA and several of the other laws that 

I mentioned have an environmental impact process and that process involves examination of alternatives and—which often include 

cost estimates and can also bring up potential impacts that the 

costs can then be mapped out too. And it also helps give sort of an 

indication of—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Taylor—let me extend my time 

just a little bit. Mr. Taylor, from your experience as a Border Patrol agent—and I think you kind of mentioned bits of this in your 

testimony—do all people who come across illegally do so because 

they either have a contagious disease or have a criminal record, 

therefore, they can’t obtain a visa legally? And can anybody with 

a clean record who pays 100 bucks get a visa to enter the U.S. 

within three years? 

Mr. TAYLOR. They can apply for a nonimmigrant visa, and most 

of the people that do apply get a hearing with a consulate officer, 

which is actually outside of what Immigration does. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And I assume by your answer that it is contagious-disease carrying people and criminals that are the primary 

focus that are coming across, right? 

Mr. TAYLOR. That is what is the current concern, Congressman. 

In Tucson, there have been outbreaks, two recently, as you know, 

in Tucson with measles, one with an alien from Switzerland. And 

there has been another outbreak or rather a reported incident of 

tuberculosis. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. You mention, sir, your extensive experience. You 

were here in the Rio Grande Valley, part of this sector, then you 

went to the Tucson sector. Can you explain the circumstances on 

how and why you moved? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Promotion. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Straight promotion? OK. Let me now turn to the 

Chairwoman Bordallo for any questions she may have. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a question here for Mr. Merritt. There is wide conVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
104 

sensus within the scientific community that preserving the functions of key wildlife migration corridors across the U.S.-Mexico border is critical to the future ecological health of the borderlands, especially in light of the need to ensure that species can adapt to climate change. Now, in your opinion, has the Department of Homeland Security done an adequate job of identifying these key wildlife 

corridors? And, second, can you describe how, if at all, DHS has 

worked with you and other Fish and Wildlife Service biologists to 

redesign project segments crossing refuge system lands to protect 

functioning migratory corridors? 

Mr. MERRITT. I’ll try to answer the first one. This particular area 

wildlife corridor which includes the refuge and private lands and 

nongovernment agency owned lands is of particular value because 

so much of the property—as I said, 95 percent of the habitat has 

been lost on the north side, and if you look at satellite maps in 

Mexico, it’s probably up to 98 percent. There is very little habitat 

left. It’s a natural funnel for migratory birds to come from North 

America and South America and all sorts—and this area is a major 

stopover for millions of migratory birds. 

An example would be probably hawks that come in during the 

summertime. In Santa Ana it’s not uncommon to have 80,000 

broad-winged hawks lighting within the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge as a rest stop. There are no other habitat areas around. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And in your professional opinion, are there ways 

to ensure border security without compromising those lands set 

aside for wildlife? 

Mr. MERRITT. I believe that there are ways to do this if we went 

through the NEPA process like we ought to do in a thoughtful way 

and looked at the alternatives, that a good decision would be made. 

Unfortunately, the schedule did not permit a good decision in my 

opinion. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, thank all three 

panels. This is our final panel and some of us are leaving here to 

go back to Washington, but I just want to thank all the participants on the panel and also to let you know that it is a very, very 

important issue to members of the U.S. Congress. Otherwise, you 

wouldn’t see eight Members of Congress here at a field hearing. So, 

again, thank you very much and to the University here also for 

their hospitality. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me turn to our 

Ranking Member, Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Taylor, has it been your experience that the preservation of 

wildlife habitat is endangered by the actions taken by people coming across the border at areas where they, of course, have less to 

worry about in terms of border protection, border security? Would 

that not be—I’ll put it this way. Would wildlife areas, national 

wildlife areas, be more or less alluring to the person who’s coming 

across the border who does not want to get caught? If you’re looking at that border, where would that path be for you? 

Mr. TAYLOR. It’s been my experience—and, Mr. Tancredo, thank 

you for the question—that they’re going to go where they’re going 

to be most successful, and where they’ll be most successful is where 

105 

the terrain permits them to evade detection and where the border 

patrol presence would be diminished. 

Mr. TANCREDO. And would that Border Patrol presence be diminished in a wildlife—in a wilderness area, in particular, wildlife? 

Mr. TAYLOR. By definition of the ’64 Act, it would greatly diminish access. 

Mr. TANCREDO. So if we are truly concerned about the protection 

of the wildlife and the wilderness areas, would we not—is it not 

logical for us to then try to do something to prevent entrance into 

that area by people who are going to spoil it? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, both from the destruction—actual destruction 

of habitat and the spoiling of the area visually both. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I recall it was part of the report I remember 

sometime ago about the difficulty that the Border Patrol was having getting into the wildlife or wilderness areas because, of course, 

they were protected, and the fact is that illegal aliens do not care 

about that protection. Therefore, they seek those places out. But we 

were—it’s very difficult for the Border Patrol to actually patrol the 

area. They have to either use—go in by horseback—by that time, 

of course, people are gone—or they are sometimes parachuted in, 

if I’m not mistaken. But the other problem with using horses is 

that the horses have to be quarantined for two weeks so that they 

make sure that nothing they ate would eventually go through them 

and end up hurting the grass or something of that nature. 

Mr. TAYLOR. There are all types of restrictions on wilderness 

areas. And depending on the sensitivity of the habitat in a particular area, it has things that people are specifically interested in 

preventing. And if it is a plant that is transmitted by a seed— 

which certain grasses in the cactus monuments, they actually pay 

people to go out and take these plants out before they bloom each 

year. And a horse, of course, eating grass will transmit that particular seed. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. Ms. Peterson, has your organization 

done any work at all trying to estimate the cost to the American 

taxpayer of maintaining the illegal alien community in this country? Has it looked at that at all? 

Ms. PETERSON. No, it has not. 

Mr. TANCREDO. A number of organizations have, a number of reports are out there which specifically indicate that it runs into the 

hundreds of billions. One I saw was a trillion dollars over 10 years 

that are potential costs that we incur—taxpayers of this country 

incur—as a result of the infrastructural cost for the illegal immigrant population in this country, both certainly health care, educational expenses, and the like. So it’s everything has to be gauged 

in on that basis as to exactly what it is that—I mean, the amount 

of money that it would cost us to try and prevent the action in the 

first place as opposed to what it costs if we do nothing at all. 

Now, everybody has said today, you know—I think almost everyone on the panel, with rare exceptions, has agreed that borders are 

important. There are a couple of people who suggested—or at least 

one—who said that to her and many of her friends they were not, 

that it didn’t matter, borders didn’t really exist for them. I would 

suggest that that’s not a unique impression for a lot of people in 

and around this area, that borders don’t matter. 

106 

But let me just suggest to us all that this is not a problem that 

is faced only by the people in this particular area. They are impacted dramatically by it, undeniably, but so is the rest of the 

United States of America, and as Members of Congress we have a 

responsibility and we have a duty to do what we can to protect and 

defend the Nation as a whole. 

And so it extends to looking at the borders and seeing what we 

can do, even though, you know, there are people in the area that 

may disagree with the implementation, you have to—as I say, our 

responsibility is something else. It’s broader than that. And we 

have to come to the realization, the understanding, that there are 

people here who really don’t believe borders are important, especially the border between Mexico and the United States. They wish 

it didn’t exist, and in their minds it really doesn’t. But for the rest 

of us and for the security of the Nation as a whole, we have to take 

into consideration the fact that there are much bigger issues at 

play here than someone’s multicultural attitude toward borders. 

And that’s all that I suggest that we all do when we look at this. 

This is a very serious issue, and if you don’t like a fence between 

Mexico—if you don’t want a fence between the city and Mexico, I 

suggest that you build this fence around the northern part of your 

city. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman, and now I’d like to recognize the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your 

allowing us to participate and thank the witnesses, and I agree 

with my colleagues in thanking the university and everybody for 

their time. There are certain things that kind of stand out in my 

mind and I may ask some of these answers to be given to us in 

writing for the record because of time constraints, because I have 

several of them. But to Mr. Merritt, in your testimony you alluded 

to the fact that the general public was being advised that no decisions were being made yet about the areas—I’m sorry, the areas 

where the fence was going to be established, yet the consultants 

were already hired, there were maps already drawn, locales identified, and if I’m correct on my assumption, you found out about it 

through the newspaper? 

Mr. MERRITT. What we did find out about was that there was 

fencing planned for Texas through the newspaper, and we tried to 

follow up on that on our own in terms of contacting DHS locally 

to confirm. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But was the public advised after the fact? 

Mr. MERRITT. It’s really hard for me to say in terms of the public. 

You know, it first came out in the Roma newspaper, which doesn’t 

have a lot of distribution, and I think that from then on the papers 

really jumped on that and there was a lot of discussion in terms 

of what is really happening. And really the Border Patrol answer 

that I recall is that ‘‘We haven’t made any decisions yet,’’ and that’s 

what we went through for months as Fish and Wildlife Service employees. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But was it evident that the plans had already 

been drawn, consultants hired and things were on the way? 

107 

Mr. MERRITT. I’m not absolutely sure when consultants were 

hired, but we were provided maps right away after we had the first 

meeting. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. To Mr. McClung, how severe do 

you think the economic impact might be to the—might be of the decision to cut local farmers off from their water source? 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Well, if, in fact, we’re cut off from water and land, 

it’s going to be extremely severe. It’s difficult to tell because we’re 

not sure where they’re going to build those structures and we 

don’t—more importantly, we don’t know exactly what kind of access will be provided in those structures. And so it’s hard to give 

you an accurate answer. I will say this. Increasingly the produce 

industry in Texas is moving to Mexico and part of it is labor. And 

if we are impacted in terms of labor, then that trend will continue 

and will amplify. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Taylor, you were stating about being able 

to apply for a visa to be able to cross the border legally. I can assure you that—and I don’t speak for the rest of my colleagues, but 

my biggest case load is immigration, caseload on people whose 

visas are not—that they applied for years are still waiting for them 

or that they have problems trying to be able to effectively be able 

to cross the border. 

FBI’s known priority has been terrorism, not immigration assistance. So that to me is unfortunate that you do say that because 

that has not been the case, at least from the vantage point of my 

case workers. 

Ms. Peterson, were you asked to be part of the dialogue on being 

able to have input as to the fence, or any of you, Mr. McClung, and 

you, Ms. Peterson? 

Ms. PETERSON. No, although we don’t have—our organization has 

membership down here in this region, but we’re Washington-based, 

but, no, we were not asked. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Not only were we not asked for the most part, but 

when we tried to contact the Border Patrol, go in and talk to the 

Border Patrol, they turned us down. They didn’t know what to say 

and were afraid to say much of anything. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And, Mr. Merritt, in case of fire—and you did 

allude to the fact that it would be hard to get through to be able 

to fight fires—were a majority of those fires caused by illegal immigrants, or were they naturally occurring fires. 

Mr. MERRITT. Generally those fires are not naturally occurring in 

the area. We don’t have much lightning strikes here. It’s really 

hard to say. We have had a variety of reasons for the 300 or so 

fires that we have on the refuge every year. Some of them are mancaused, some of them are embers from across Mexico blowing over, 

sometimes it’s people burning garbage. It just seems a variety of 

reasons, no real primary reason for those fires. 

As far as the Fish and Wildlife Service goes, it has the biggest 

firefighting capability in the Valley and helps out all the communities. And being behind a fence in terms of trying to fight a fire 

is a safety matter that we are concerned about. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then we shouldn’t be blaming it all on undocumented immigrants. 

Mr. MERRITT. I would not say so, in my experience. 

108 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, PANEL. THANK

YOU AGAIN AND THAT’S IT FOR ME. Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thanks for this 

hearing, and I want to thank our guests. We’ve had three panels, 

and I think we’ve had—one thing about it, for you folks that think 

you didn’t get your day in court, you certainly had it today with 

lots of coverage and you’ve had a chance to talk about your issues. 

Let me go over a couple of things that I think are important. 

First, Ms. Peterson, I was—I wrote the law that mandated the double border fence—actually, triple border fence for that smugglers’ 

corridor in San Diego. And I—you know, facts are stubborn things. 

I’ve got to keep bringing them back to you. 

We had 202,000 arrests before we built that fence. We had 300 

drug drive-throughs a month on average. We had an average of 12 

murders on the border a year, hundreds of rapes, hundreds of assaults. It was so bad that we had a plainclothes police unit from 

San Diego City who would go down dressed as illegal aliens and 

wait to be attacked by the border gangs, many of whom were 

armed with automatic weapons. 

Fact for you: When we built it, we went down from 202,000 arrests to 9,000, more than a 90 percent decrease. We eliminated all 

300 drug drive-throughs per month. We took the average murder 

rate from 12 a year, all by border gangs, down to zero. And by FBI 

statistics, the crime rate in the county of San Diego after we built 

the border fence went down by 56 percent. And the cost of building 

the border fence, the hard cost of actually putting in the cement 

and the fence posts and the panels and building the fence—in fact, 

the double fence, because we only needed to build two. I met with 

the Clinton administration and said, ‘‘We don’t want to build all 

three. We don’t think we need it.’’ I said, ‘‘I’ll tell you what, we’ll 

leave it on the books, and if we don’t need the third layer, we won’t 

build it.’’ We never needed it because it worked very effectively. 

The price we got—and it’s still a cost that’s quoted by contractors 

because we had the Association of General Contractors meet and 

testify in Congress as to what they would charge—was about $3 

million a mile for those 9 miles of border fence that we built. Now, 

you said it’s actually been 100 million. It hasn’t been $100 million 

to build the border fence. Now, we delayed building the fence—and 

in a way you’ve made my case. We delayed building the fence 

across the Smugglers Gulch for 12 years because of lawsuits, because of a concern that the gnatcatcher would not fly over a 10- 

foot high fence. And if you take that and extrapolate that across 

the Southwest, it’s easy to understand why the Department of 

Homeland Security said, ‘‘We’ll never build this fence if we don’t 

have a waiver process that’s available to us.’’ And that’s why Congress overwhelmingly approved the waiver. 

And the second fact that you’ve got—that you’ve erred on here 

is this. You said that Operation Gatekeeper is what brought down 

the smuggling. The border fence was a part and parcel of Operation 

Gatekeeper. That was the fence that we attached the gate to. And 

we actually were able to reduce the number of Border Patrolmen— 

and if you’ll go back and check your numbers, you’ll see that we 

have fewer Border Patrolmen attached to the fence sector today 

109 

than we had before we built the fence because the fence leverages 

your personnel. Because when you put in a high-speed road where 

a Border Patrolman can be there in 60 seconds from a mile away 

upon notice, then you don’t need as many people on that border. 

So in terms of human suffering, in terms of bringing down the 

crime rate, in terms of having an environment where the average 

person can go down sometime just before dark and not be afraid 

for their safety, we’ve made—we’ve made great advances. 

And I want to give you the statistics for Yuma, because we may 

have another hearing and you may want to bring up these numbers 

again: 138,000 arrests in the sector that we fenced before we fenced 

it; 3,800 after we fenced it. That’s a decline of more than 95 percent. So, you know what, Mr. Chairman, this has been a good hearing because the theme has been we all agree we need to have a 

controlled border. The problem is that nobody has brought up a 

better alternative than the fence and the fence has been proven to 

work very well, we’ve established, in San Diego and the Yuma sector. 

And there is a very strong humanitarian segment to this. Because as I mentioned, my brother puts out water for the folks that 

would otherwise die of thirst in the desert. And 400 people a year 

die of dehydration and thirst who are allowed to go across that 

open border, pushed across by the coyotes and by the guides who 

tell them that the road is a mile to the north and in many cases 

it’s 20 miles to the north. And those people expire in the desert 

sands of Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas. Their lives 

are worth something more than the statistics that the so-called 

Taxpayers for Common Sense have leaked out. 

Along with another cost, the cost of the 250,000 criminal aliens 

who are presently incarcerated in Federal, state and local penitentiaries and jails is $3 billion a year. According to the costs submitted by the contractors, that would pay for a thousand miles of 

border fence if you eliminated that incarceration cost for one year. 

That’s another cost that has to be balanced against the cost of not 

having any border fence. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we’ve had an excellent discussion, but I 

think it’s clear that we all agree as Americans that we have to control our border, we have to know who is coming in. And I think one 

of the points we haven’t brought in is that we have the biggest 

front door in the world where people knock on that door and come 

in by the millions every year. And what the border fence will do 

is require people who want to come into this country to knock on 

the front door. 

And the last point that I need to make to our friends concerned 

about wildlife, there is not a single water fowl species that can’t negotiate that border fence. There is no acclaimed biologist who says 

that somehow you’re going to interrupt migration patterns by 

building the border fence. 

The major game species in Texas is white-tail deer, and all biologists say that most white-tail deer live in an area for their entire 

life of about 1 or 2 square miles. They’re not migratory and they’re 

not crossing that river on a rapid basis. And, you know, Texas 

ranchers have thousands of miles of high-fenced areas to keep their 

110 

game in. That has not kept Texas from being a great state for wildlife. 

So I think there is a compelling reason to build this border fence, 

for humanitarian reasons, for natural security reasons, and criminal justice reasons. And, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s time to get on 

with it. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Ms. Peterson, I’ll give you a chance to respond. 

Ms. PETERSON. Yes, it’s very quick. I just wanted to address Congressman Hunter. Clearly there are many different ways to measure effectiveness. Immigration statistics are notoriously hard to 

quantify. I just wanted to point out that the numbers we used were 

DHS annual immigration statistics that showed apprehensions 

across the entire border, not one particular sector such as San 

Diego, et cetera. 

Obviously, often there are locations where the numbers do decrease when infrastructure is put in place, but then they can increase in other areas, which is the point I made. That said, we do 

not dispute the fact that certain types of fencing may be effective 

in certain contexts, as with the presence of Border Patrol, as other 

people have pointed out here today. But that is all the more reason 

to ensure that the location and the deployment of tactical infrastructure follows a conscientious, fair and transparent process that 

allows the most cost-effective choices to be made in the best ways. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Reyes. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, with all due 

respect to my colleague from California, I did say that there is a 

better alternative to the fence. Let’s invest that money in hiring 

Border Patrol agents, Border Patrol agents that can be professional, be well-trained, be responsive and work within the community that they live in. Now, I think that’s a much better alternative 

than to just blindly put up 1,000 miles or 2,000 miles of fence or 

wall, whichever way you describe it. I was interested—I think it 

was Mr. Tancredo that talked about—talked to Mr. Taylor about 

the issue of a fence in the wildlife area. He did—am I to interpret 

that wildlife thrives—would thrive if we put that fence in the wildlife area of the border? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Excuse me, Congressman Reyes. I think his question was about in the wilderness areas. 

Mr. REYES. Yeah, in the wilderness area. 

Mr. TAYLOR. OK. What we’ve seen is that in particular in the 

Pajarita Wilderness that now exists in Arizona, is that when we excluded—closed the roads and excluded people from going in and 

having common access, we also kept the Border Patrol from going 

in. And as the absence of the Border Patrol became more known, 

then the criminal element moved in and started focusing their operations out of that area. 

Mr. REYES. But, then again, for the record, the fence does not 

necessarily preserve the wildlife area any better than no fence. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, there literally is very little or no fence there 

now. What exists is a three-strand barbed wire. 

Mr. REYES. And, Ms. Peterson, just, again, for the record, there 

are a number of studies, some of which prove that aliens do benefit 

our economy, that aliens that are here in an undocumented status 

111 

do pay taxes, and they certainly pay sales taxes and things like 

that. So it’s not all a one-sided issue. 

And certainly we know that—it’s been documented that in the 

construction industry where undocumented aliens build these— 

what they call McMansions that some people live in, that they benefit the—that particular industry. And in Arizona where they 

passed some laws last year that were very anti-immigrant, now 

they’re screaming to allow—for the Federal government to allow 

the state to be able to administer a guest worker program. So some 

people want cheap labor, but they want fencing and all these other 

things. 

I wanted to—Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk a little bit about— 

because I’m assuming that the written statements are inserted in 

the record? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, they are. 

Mr. REYES. I wanted to talk to Mr. Taylor, and in the interest 

of full disclosure, Mr. Taylor worked for me when I was chief here 

in this sector and he filed a number of complaints against me. But 

I was interested—I was interested in knowing—— 

Mr. HUNTER. That shows good judgment. 

Mr. REYES. Pardon me. 

Mr. HUNTER. I said that shows good judgment. 

Mr. REYES. Well, we’ll see. You say, Mr. Taylor, that we know 

that terrorists came to the United States across the Mexican border. How do we know that? 

Mr. TAYLOR. In my testimony that I submitted, there is a newspaper article from the Nogales International. I believe it’s dated 

this year. And the situation in that case was there were two Middle 

Eastern aliens living in Sierra Vista. Sierra Vista is—— 

Mr. REYES. They were undocumented. 

Mr. TAYLOR. We don’t know. I’ll get to the point. 

Mr. REYES. If you’re of Middle Eastern descent, you’re a terrorist. 

Mr. TAYLOR. And these people were traveling from Sierra Vista 

to Nogales. And what the newspaper article said was that they 

were coming to pick up one of their associates who had crossed the 

border illegally. 

Mr. REYES. Well, let me—because my time is almost up here. 

You said—you also say in your written statement that you personally interviewed three Syrian citizens that had entered the United 

States illegally and one subsequently claimed to you that he was 

a terrorist and was coming to the United States to engage in terrorism. When did that happen. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I don’t remember the exact date. It was around 

2000, 2001. 

Mr. REYES. 2000? And what happened to those three individuals. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The two were I think given hearings as a female 

and a minor female child, and the male who made the terrorists 

declarations turned over to the FBI in Tucson. 

Mr. REYES. And I find that interesting, Mr. Chairman, because 

in talking to the head of the DHS intelligence, there is no such case 

that’s been recorded on the southern border. And, by the way, all 

of the documented cases of terrorists have come through the Canadian border. I know this because I sit as the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. 

112 

So I think particularly in Mr. Taylor’s written testimony, there 

are a lot of areas that we need to do some more work in and do 

some follow-up in lieu of the fact that this is all testimony under 

oath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. The gentleman from American Samoa. 

Sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I gather that you must have 

extended an invitation for an official from DHS to testify at this 

hearing. But, apparently, either they’re unwilling or they never got 

the invitation or whatever. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. We did. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But I would respectfully request that we 

continue this line, the two Subcommittees doing this, and I would 

respectfully request that we do continue this hearing with officials 

from the Department of Homeland Security when we get back to 

Washington. Second, I just wanted a couple of questions of Mr. 

McClung. 

As the CEO of the Texas Produce Association for the record, how 

many farmers and ranchers do you have as members of this association. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Well, we’re all—we’re all farmers and shippers 

because its no ranchers. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is it just in Brownsville or the whole State 

of Texas. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. The State of Texas, and it is primarily the shippers that I represent and there are about 350 of them. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You’re talking about—what is the approximate dollar value of the members of the Texas Produce Association 

economically? What does this bring into the treasury of the State 

of Texas in terms of your participation. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Well, not—I can try and find you more comprehensive numbers, but it’s not an easy question to answer. The 

citrus industry alone is generally considered about 150 million a 

year in the Rio Grande Valley. The vegetable industry is something 

larger than that, but it is very difficult—if you want any more—— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the cattle industry, is that also part of 

the—— 

Mr. MCCLUNG. The cattle industry, no, sir. That’s the cattlemen. 

But we do cover—over half the imports are from Mexico these days, 

and those numbers aren’t included. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One of the sore points of the whole thing 

about immigration reform, Mr. McClung, is the whole question of 

employers taking up undocumented workers. And another line of 

questioning to you, sir, about how many documented workers are 

involved in the State of Texas that help farmers in this produce industry here. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. We know—have been very public that on a national level, about 70 percent of our field labor is undocumented. 

That’s not just Texas, but I think Texas is pretty representative in 

those numbers. I do want to emphasize, however, that under U.S. 

law, if a potential employee comes to you as an employer and has 

papers—he may have bought them down the street—but you can’t 

question those papers without violating his civil rights. So I won’t 

113 

pretend that there are not times when that’s a convenient access 

to labor. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My point I wanted to share with you, Mr. 

McClung, is here is a major organization of—a composite of all the 

produce farmers that are involved in this industry and yet the Department of Homeland Security has never saw fit to even conduct 

any consultation with an important organization such as yours. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Deny us access, in fact. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So not even discuss any questions of water 

rights, questions of ownership of private property. None of these 

issues were ever discussed by way of consultation with your office. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. I can’t tell you that DHS may or may not have 

talked to individual landowners that I’m not aware of, but beyond 

that, no. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I wanted to ask Mr. Merritt just one question. In terms of the 37—I keep going back to these 37 Federal 

statutes, some 50 years old, a couple 100 years old, and yet we just 

turn around and give Mr. Chertoff, a nonelected official, the absolute right to waive these laws so that these fences can be built. Do 

you consider that, in your capacity as a former senior employee of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service—there are at least four or five Federal statutes involved here that deal with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and you’re saying that you were never given any consultations in terms of what Mr. Schultz has shared with us earlier. It 

took nine months for the Department of Interior just to give agreement to some 30 Federal statutes the Department of Interior has 

jurisdiction over and just waive it and just say that it was OK. 

Mr. MERRITT. Well, I think I would like to answer that in a—— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Positive way. 

Mr. MERRITT. Well, I’d like to reduce it down to a situation that 

I dealt with and that had to do with the Refuge Administration 

Act, which is a problem, the problem being that we had a law that 

said—I mean, as a refuge manager of 30 years, I knew the border 

fence wasn’t going to be appropriate nor compatible on a national 

wildlife refuge. And it took that long for the agency finally to send 

a letter—decide to send a letter to DHS saying we would like to 

have a waiver. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My time is up. I’m sorry, Ms. Peterson and 

Mr. Taylor. But, Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank members of the 

panel for their excellent presentations, and, again, to thank our 

good colleague Mr. Ortiz and Dr. Garcia for allowing us to come 

and visit this beautiful town of Brownsville. Thank you again. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Let me now turn to the gentleman 

from the district we’re in, Mr. Ortiz. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like for us to— 

my question is for Mr. McClung. Now, for years, you know that 

when we go through a drought we’re very dependent on the treaty 

that we’ve had with Mexico, the Treaty of Guadalupe. And sometimes it causes problems because they don’t pay their water bill. 

Now, what’s going to happen when we build that wall and we give 

the river and the water to the Mexicans? Has the Department of 

Homeland Security told you that you will continue to be able to get 

some water from the river, or are we going to have to go back and 

consult to see where we stand on the Guadalupe Treaty? Have they 

114 

talked to you about this, or maybe you, Mr. Merritt? Where do we 

stand. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Sir, they have never talked—come to us or directly talked to us about it. There have been some things said by 

Mr. Chertoff and others about the fact that they don’t intend to 

make it difficult for us to get the water or the land access, but, 

frankly, we can’t see how you can have both. It just isn’t possible 

in our minds. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And that’s of deep concern to me because, you know, 

it will have a tremendous impact on our economy. Now, we’ve 

heard that if they do build the wall, that they’re going to provide 

a gate so that those people who have many amounts of acre land 

can use the gate to go and farm on the other side of the gate which 

would happen to be now on the Mexican side. Have they told you 

if they do that who is going to have the key to open that gate? 

Mr. MCCLUNG. Well, actually, the most recent version is—and 

these gates, by the way, will have to be very large because some 

farm equipment is big. The—what they are saying they’re going to 

do is put these gates in and then they’re going to issue remote controls, garage door openers essentially. And one can imagine how 

long it will be before some of those remote controls go missing or 

the guys on the other side figure out the frequencies. 

Then they also, because of wildlife, are going to put ports in the 

gates, doggy doors in the gates, and—ocelot doors. 

It is frankly, Mr. Ortiz, it is some poor engineer’s solution whose 

back is against the wall literally in this case when there is no good 

solution. 

Mr. ORTIZ. You know, and I have received information from landowners that the Department of Homeland Security is offering wellbelow-market-price value for their land. And I even had a farmer 

who’s got a small plot, who has a waterfront river, who was offered 

something like 36 cents per square foot. And I think they finally 

settled for a dollar a square foot. Now, these are some of the people 

that have talked to us. Are you familiar with this talk going on? 

Mr. MCCLUNG. I am familiar with farmers selling their land 

along the river to the Federal government for various purposes, 

and there is always a dispute about fair market value. The government’s version and the private landowner’s version are not necessarily the same, and, to be honest about it, probably the answer 

is in between. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And when they do that, there’s farmers who have 

hundreds of acres of lands, there’s others who have 3 or 4 acres of 

land, and when you put a gate or you put a wall, you know, that 

diminishes the market value of that 3- or 4-acre farm. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. That is the primary concern that I have, is what 

happens to the value of the thousands of acres that lie between the 

river and the—and where they plan to put the gate. 

Mr. ORTIZ. You know, and my good friend Mr. Hunter was describing a few moments ago that we need to know who is coming 

into this country. And this is why we have been pushing for a comprehensive immigration bill, because we have been told that we 

have 12 million undocumented workers or undocumented or illegal, 

whatever you want to call them, in the United States. We already 

115 

know that under the Other Than Mexican policy that we had, thousands and thousands of them came into our country. 

One thing that the comprehensive immigration bill does is that 

there is some steps before you can qualify to become a American 

citizen or to be here legally. You have to follow those steps and you 

cannot be a criminal, you have to pay your taxes, and you have to 

be a citizen and so on and so forth. But this will allow these people 

to come out from the shadows and say ‘‘I’ve been here 10, 15 years 

and I want to become a citizen.’’ Those that mean to harm our 

country would not come out. 

Mr. MCCLUNG. The national agricultural community—not just 

fruits and vegetables but across the board in this country—has said 

repeatedly and for a long while that there is a much better answer 

than a wall. It is comprehensive immigration reform. That is it. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much. Not only are we—we won’t be 

able to get water, but even the little animals won’t be able to get 

water if we build that fence, so we’re in a hell of a shape, my 

friends. But I think what we’re trying to do here is to put a bandage tape on a serious wound, and I don’t think that talking about 

building this wall is going to answer the problems. It’s going to be 

very costly. We are involved in two wars right now. We’re spending 

$13 billion a month and, you know, when we spend taxpayers’ 

money, this is very, very sacred money that we spend. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Chairman Bordallo and 

all my good friends and my colleagues here. I think this has been 

a very, very good hearing. I think that we understand at least better the problem that we have and we know that the wall is not 

going to answer this problem. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the 

time. Thank you so much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And let me before we adjourn this 

meeting thank all the witnesses—very much appreciate it—and all 

our panels, and in following the admonishment of the good bishop, 

that this discussion that we’re having has to be a dialogue about 

solutions, not a diatribe about political grandstanding. It has to 

be—it’s difficult work, it’s complex work, and we’re not going to accomplish it by demonizing or dehumanizing people. We’re not going 

to accomplish it by marginalizing these communities. 

And the waiver impacts that we talked about today are serious 

issues. We have environmental impact, social impact, security impact, economic impact, cultural and historic impact. And the reality 

is that these waivers above that are a very, very dangerous precedent for the American people. 

We’re talking about the rule of law; we’re talking about 36 laws 

being waived; we’re talking about—37—thank you—civil liberties, 

private property protection; and we’re talking about promoting— 

profiling was part of this discussion; we’re talking about secondclass communities that we are having to deal with. 

What community—when you waive the Clean Water Act, is there 

a community out there that—whose residents deserve less than 

clean water for their consumption? Of course not. So as we go forward on this issue—and we will—it is not about how we are going 

to allow a free flow of unauthorized people into this country. We 

all on this panel understand that we are a sovereign nation and 

we need to protect that nation. But we also have to understand 

116 

that we’re on the border. We are part of a unique, different and entirely—an entire community that is very much part of this country. 

And being part of this country, it deserves to be treated with respect, with consultation, and with process. In going forward with 

the legislation in repealing that waiver, we hope that we will follow 

the gentleman’s advice, bring DHS to the table, have them explain 

many of the questions that couldn’t be answered today. Let me 

thank all of you and let me adjourn the meeting. Thank you very 

much. 

[Whereupon, the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A statement submitted for the record by John S.C. Herron, 

Director of Conservation Programs, The Nature Conservancy of 

Texas, follows:] 

Statement of John S. C. Herron, Director of Conservation Programs, 

The Nature Conservancy of Texas 

I am writing on behalf of the Texas Chapter of the Nature Conservancy to comment on the proposal by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Border Patrol to construct fence and wall segments along the Texas—Mexico border. Our organization is opposed to the proposed 

border wall as outlined for the Lower Rio Grande Valley. We are opposed to the wall 

both as a conservation organization that has worked in creating the wildlife corridor 

and as a private landowner of over 1,300 acres of native habitat in the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley (LRGV) that will be directly impacted by the proposed border wall. 

We believe there are alternatives to a border fence that are not receiving adequate 

consideration; alternatives that will provide increased border security while also 

protecting the critical remaining native habitat in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. 

The Nature Conservancy shares the public concerns about border security, illegal 

immigration, and contraband smuggling, but the installation of the wall segments 

in the Lower Rio Grande Valley will begin the unraveling of a unique wildlife corridor found nowhere else in North America. We feel the National Environmental 

Protection Act (NEPA) process was an opportunity to have fully explored alternatives to the fence as proposed, and would have considered minimizing the associated impacts to the environment and endangered species. Building fences and walls 

through preserves and wildlife refuges in rural areas seems inconsistent to the stated needs for a fence or wall and therefore appears to be an unnecessary expense 

as well as an avoidable destruction of habitat. 

We also want to express our concern that the border fence initiative has put local 

Border Patrol agents in a very difficult position that has undermined the excellent 

relations they’ve had with local residents. For many months, agents were sent out 

to talk with landowners, but were not given or allowed to convey the proper information or to answer many questions. Meanwhile, these same agents are trying to 

do their job and keep up their relationships with local landowners. The ‘‘consultation’’ process was frustrating and was not a two-way exchange. There was no indication that our input or questions from the ground had any bearing as to what type 

or the placement of the wall to be constructed. And it is clear that the proposed 

levee walls and fences will have significant adverse impact on wildlife, rare species, 

and the environment in the region, with no guarantees that these impacts will be 

minimized or mitigated. 

Details of The Nature Conservancy’s contact and communication with Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security follows. 

The Conservancy first learned about the proposed construction of a border fence 

along the U.S. Mexico border in the LRGV through a small article in a local newspaper in April 2007. Our staff in South Texas called the Fort Brown Station in 

Brownsville, TX to inquire about the fence and if it would affect our two preserves 

in the LRGV. No one at the station could give us any information in regards to the 

fence. In subsequent months, we kept hearing more and more about the proposed 

border fence and again our staff contacted the Fort Brown Station. 

In June 2007, local Border Patrol agents visited staff living at Southmost Preserve in Cameron County and came to the office to hear any concerns we may have 

about the proposed wall. Our questions spanned from will the wall affect our propVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
117 

erty; will we have access to our property and the river; will the wall cut off our 

water supply from the canal draining south; what mitigation will be allowed for 

wildlife to pass through the fence, how will the wall affect our property value, etc. 

We also asked what alternatives to the wall had been discussed or reviewed. Border 

Patrol agents did not answer our questions but wrote down our concerns and told 

us they would be compiled and sent up to DHS in Washington, DC. We were told 

that they would let us know as they were told from headquarters. Border Patrol 

agents indicated they were in the dark as much as we were, as this was an initiative from headquarters in D.C. 

By late summer 2007 the rumors of the border wall had been in various articles 

in the newspapers and a map showing the wall segment locations was published. 

Border Patrol agents called us to tell us not to believe what was printed in the 

paper that there were no official maps as to where the border wall was to be constructed. In August we received an official request for right-of-entry survey to our 

Chihuahua Woods Preserve in Hidalgo County. The request asked for unfettered access to the preserve to conduct installation of border security infrastructure. This 

was the first notification we had that the border wall may affect Chihuahua Woods 

Preserve. We respectfully declined the request under the terms proposed by CBP. 

A Border Patrol Agent told me that they figured we would not allow access to do 

surveys for the wall, and therefore had not sent us an official letter requesting access. In September 2007, a Border Patrol Agent called to request access to our 

Southmost Preserve to show their engineers the ‘‘lay of the land.’’ When we requested a seat on the tour we were told that there was no room and that the tour 

was only for DHS, their contractors and USACOE. We granted access to the levee 

road, but not the rest of the preserve. 

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the border wall was released in 

October 2007. The EIS showed the layout of the all the segments of the border wall 

and this was the first official notification that our property would be directly impacted by the wall and that the wall would be located north of the levee and not 

along the Rio Grande. In December 2007, CBP officially sent the Conservancy a letter requesting right-of-entry or face condemnation to survey the property. 

During fall and winter, we had been requesting a meeting with the agents or engineers who could actually discuss with the Conservancy the plans for the border 

wall, its location, if any alternatives had been discussed, where wildlife portals could 

be developed, and discuss how irrigation or drainage canals would be affected. We 

were requesting this locally and through our Government Relations staff in Arlington, VA at DHS level. 

In January 2008, we were finally granted a meeting at Southmost Preserve where 

several local high ranking Border Patrol agents attended. However, they were unable to provide any details that addressed our questions. They told us they had 

noted our concerns before and that the engineers were looking into suggestions we 

made. 

In late April 2008, high ranking DHS personnel visited the property and informed 

us that USCAOE will be contacting us to request to conduct an appraisal and an 

offer will be forthcoming. We asked if they could answer questions in regards to access, irrigation and drainage issues, safety concerns and habitat protection. They 

mentioned they were still being reviewed. This past week, we have received some 

indication that the engineers and DHS are considering our suggestions concerning 

gates and access openings in the fence, but we remain uncertain what the final completed project will look like. We remain uncertain what impacts construction and 

potential condemnation will have on our ability to manage and conserve our lands 

and preserve. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Sandra Purohit, 

Government Relations, Defenders of Wildlife, follows:] 

Comments submitted for the record by Sandra Purohit, 

Government Relations, Defenders of Wildlife 

Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record on this important issue. Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife is a national not-for-profit conservation organization that has over 1 million members and supporters across the 

nation and is dedicated to the protection and restoration of native animals and 

plants in their natural communities. With offices throughout the United States as 

well as in Canada and Mexico, we work to protect and restore North America’s naVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:18 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\41959.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
118 

tive wildlife, safeguard habitat, resolve conflicts, work across international borders 

and educate and mobilize the public. 

We are gravely concerned about the impacts that border walls are having and will 

continue to have on wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, and on 

protected habitats and public lands along the border. We are also dismayed and 

deeply concerned at how construction has moved forward. 

Defenders has a long history of proactive work on public lands and wildlife conservation in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands region, and has led the conservation community’s efforts to promote alternatives to border wall construction that will better 

ensure border security while also protecting our irreplaceable natural and cultural 

resources. For example, Defenders’ 2005 report On the Line: The Impacts of Immigration Policy on Wildlife and Habitat in the Arizona Borderlands, was the first to 

comprehensively address the environmental consequences of our nation’s failed border security and immigration policies. Several of that report’s recommendations, including a call for increased funding for borderland environmental programs and 

mitigation and early coordination with affected communities, have been included in 

recent federal legislation. In addition, Defenders has co-sponsored two major symposiums to bring together a broad range of stakeholders, including agency wildlife experts and managers, academic experts, policymakers, scientists, and Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) officials in an attempt to identify and address the most 

critical ecological issues arising from the intensive effects of undocumented immigration and associated enforcement efforts. Throughout our history of advocacy on 

this complex and important issue, our bottom-line message has been clear: border 

security and environmental protection are complementary goals that can and must 

be much better integrated than they are today. 

To achieve these goals, however, requires the leadership of Congress. Unfortunately, as exemplified by laws such as the Secure Fence Act and the unprecedented 

waiver provisions of section 102 of the REAL ID Act, Congress has pursued a politically-motivated and ineffectual ‘‘border security only’’ legislative strategy rather 

than comprehensively addressing the underlying forces driving undocumented immigration. Indeed, levels of undocumented immigration have consistently risen during 

the past 15 years, despite a massive expenditure of public funds, the addition of 

thousands of Border Patrol agents and deployment of associated off-road vehicles, 

helicopters, and other vehicles, and the construction of border walls, roads, and barriers. Despite this failure, many Members of Congress continue to resist attempts 

to meaningfully address the issues of border security and immigration, or to rethink 

the proposed massive construction of border walls across much of the southern border. Ultimately, it is the residents and businesses of borderlands communities, the 

irreplaceable tapestry of protected federal, state, and private lands, and the unique 

and magnificent wildlife of the borderlands region that will pay the price for this 

collective failure of leadership and vision. 

But Congress is not solely to blame. The Bush administration and DHS Secretary 

Michael Chertoff have a tremendous amount of discretion and have chosen of their 

own volition to dismiss both direct and indirect impacts of ‘‘walls and waivers’’ at 

a regional scale. And, by and large, the agency has chosen not to consult with and 

heed the advice of those who know the area the best and will be impacted the most. 

The agency has chosen not to consider and analyze viable alternatives to walls (e.g. 

increased Border Patrol agents, remote surveillance, removal of concealing invasive 

vegetation, etc.). Instead, on five occasions in less than three years, Secretary 

Chertoff has needlessly invoked the REAL ID to waive numerous laws intended to 

protect wildlife and protected lands, clean air and water, historic and cultural sites, 

Native American sacred sites and burial grounds, and public health and safety, in 

order to ‘‘expedite’’ border wall construction. The result has been poor public process, unanticipated problems, disgruntled communities, lawsuits, escalating financial 

and ecological costs and unnecessary impacts to vital habitat. 

We appreciate that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public 

Lands of the House Natural Resources Committee has held a field hearing on this 

important topic and hope that our testimony will detail the specific impacts from 

border wall construction under DHS as well as the basis for our concerns regarding 

the REAL ID waiver and its use. 

PART I: IMPACTS OF BORDER WALLS 

Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Fish, Wildlife, and Plants 

Defenders of Wildlife, in conjunction with a broad cross-section of stakeholders including FWS, NPS, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), and scientists with the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, Conservation Biology Institute and other institutions, have recently identified some of 

the most critical wildlife migration routes, including those utilized by the only 

119 

known jaguars in the United States, and compiled the results into a publication entitled Stakeholder Recommendations. Four out of five of these corridors would be 

blocked and permanently fragmented if DHS proceeds with construction of border 

walls along areas previously outlined in the Secure Fence Act (see Figure 1). 

More generally, much of the borderlands area is situated in ecologically-complex 

areas at the intersection of major ecosystems. For example, in the ‘‘sky islands’’ region of southern Arizona and New Mexico, subtropical ecosystems predominant in 

Mexico and Central America overlaps with temperate ecosystems characteristic of 

the U.S. Rocky Mountains region, resulting in high concentrations of endemic species (species found only in this region) and important north/south trending wildlife 

corridors. In addition, DOI lands in the borderland region provide critical habitat 

to large numbers of imperiled wildlife, fish, and plants. According to FWS, the Arizona borderlands region alone contains nearly 40 threatened, endangered, and other 

special status species. The imperiled species along the borderlands region range 

from tiny fish, such as the beautiful shiner and Sonoran chub, to large, wide-ranging mammals such as desert bighorn sheep, ocelot, Sonoran pronghorn and jaguar 

(see Table 1). Significant disruptions to this habitat could quickly result in the extirpation of certain species from the United States. There is also concern such extensive ground disturbance will provide footholds for exotic and invasive plants to establish and spread, negatively affecting native flora and fauna and requiring costly 

efforts to attempt to control their spread. 

Impacts to Protected Federal Lands 

From the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge in San Diego, California, to the 

Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge in southern Texas, the borderlands region encompasses numerous protected federal lands administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI). In all, approximately a quarter of our nation’s nearly 

2,000 mile long border with Mexico is comprised of federal lands, including National 

Parks and Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, and other protected areas. The 

total rises to nearly a third of the southern border when tribal lands, administered 

in trust for Indian Nations by DOI, are included (See Figure 2). The direct and indirect impacts border walls and other security infrastructure raise major concerns for 

these protected lands. 

Border Walls Have Direct and Lasting Impacts on Protected Lands 

Border Walls and the patrol roads that accompany them dramatically alter the 

landscape. They also physically fragment once-contiguous wildlife habitat (see Figures 3 and 4). The deleterious impacts of anthropogenic habitat fragmentation upon 

biodiversity is well-documented in the scientific literature, especially from the burgeoning fields of Wildlife Biology, Conservation Biology and Landscape Ecology. In 

addition to habitat fragmentation, building border patrol roads and walls will result 

in clearing extensive acreages of native vegetation, disturbed and compacted soils, 

accelerated erosion and disrupted hydrologic function. 

As Refuge Manager Mitch Ellis stated in his formal determination that the border 

wall was not an appropriate use for the wildlife refuge: ‘‘It is now clear that the 

barrier proposed by CBP is inconsistent with Service policy and is likely detrimental 

to the refuge’s natural and cultural resources.’’ (emphasis added) 

Border Walls Negatively Impact Protected Land Management and Tourism 

In some circumstances, the construction of border fences and walls will inhibit access to, and thus the management of, protected public lands and private nature preserves. Numerous tracts of the Lower Rio Grande Wildlife Refuge would be located 

south of the proposed levee-wall, limiting managerial access for important resource 

management activities. The Sabal Palm Nature Reserve, managed by the Audubon 

Society, would be located entirely south of the proposed levee-wall, raising questions 

regarding manager access, public safety, perception and education (See Figures 6 

and 7). As a result, managers anticipate if wall construction proceeds as proposed, 

the operations of the Sabal Palm Sanctuary will likely be closed down. Serious concerns have been raised by land managers regarding the wall restricting their ability 

to safely respond to and manage important ecological processes such as fire. In addition, there are concerns walls will have a negative impact upon the ecotourism industry, which is driven in large part by the existence of, and accessibility to, numerous wildlife refuges and nature preserves. 

Border Walls Funnel Activity and Additional Impacts to Remote Wildland Areas: 

Pedestrian fences are not impermeable barriers for humans. While disturbances 

from illegal border activity may be lessened in the area immediately next to the 

north side of a border wall, we anticipate this ‘‘benefit’’ will drop off quickly further 

to the north and may in fact be worsened in areas to the east and west of the wall 

120 

segments. Wildlands will still be impacted by people who have climbed over, tunneled under, or walked around the wall. The impacts from this funneling-effect are 

well documented. 

Increased border infrastructure in urban areas within California and Texas, for 

example, have driven illegal activity and associated impacts into the remote and 

largely unpopulated desert areas of the border. Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and even protected areas far from the 

immediate border area, such as Ironwood Forest National Monument, are all currently experiencing unprecedented resource damage to soils, vegetation, waters, and 

wildlife. Similarly, while border walls in Arizona went up, levels of undocumented 

immigration and drug smuggling have skyrocketed in the ‘‘boot heel’’ area of New 

Mexico’s borderlands, threatening several unique Wilderness Study Areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Wildlife Managers are raising concerns about this effect. The effects of the newly 

constructed wall on patterns of illegal entry across Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge have not yet been documented. However, the Final Environmental Assessment, the Section 7 Consultation (for jaguar, lesser long-nosed bat and Kearny’s 

Blue Star), and the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Manager’s Appropriate 

Use Determination all note the potential for illegal foot traffic, trash and concomitant problems to be re-routed around the fence into adjacent mountain ranges and 

sensitive habitats. 

The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Manager, Mitch Ellis, publicly expressed his concern about this type of impact, stating: ‘‘The refuge is also concerned 

with potential impacts to the Arivaca Creek Management Unit should smuggling 

traffic to the east of the barrier escalate. The riparian habitat in Arivaca Creek is 

extremely valuable for migratory birds and other wildlife’’. Based in part on this impact, Mitch Ellis also made a formal determination that the border wall was ‘‘incompatible’’ with the wildlife refuge. 

Border walls funnel additional illegal traffic and enforcement activities into remote sensitive areas where sharp increases of human-induced disturbance is impacting important wildlife habitat. Where border walls are crossing protected areas, 

they do not prevent people from impacting protected lands once they have walked 

around, climbed over or tunneled under the wall. 

A number of border wall proponents suggest that border walls are a good option 

because they might address the negative environmental impacts currently associated with illegal border activity. The impacts of illegal border crossings are substantive and legitimate concerns, however, responding to one set of impacts by creating a new set is not problem solving, it’s problem shifting. At a regional scale, 

walls are adding dramatic ecological disturbances to already injured ecosystems; 

they are also failing to address the root of the problems at hand and in some situations are making existing impacts worse. 

Impacts to Cooperative Bi-national Conservation Efforts and Treaty Obligations 

We are deeply concerned that border security infrastructure will have long-term 

negative implications for numerous bi-national conservation planning, restoration 

and wildlife management efforts as well as international treaties and our neighborly 

relations with Mexico. 

In recognition of our shared natural resources, land managers and others within 

DOI have led efforts to engage Mexico in cooperative management of protected 

lands, as well as the wildlife that utilizes habitat on both sides of the border. For 

example, under the U.S.-Mexico Sister Park Partnership, NPS and Mexico’s National Commission on Natural and Protected Areas have designated seven ‘‘sister 

parks’’ along and in the vicinity of the southern borderland region. As stated by 

NPS, such collaboration ‘‘is necessary to address many domestic conservation issues, 

including migratory, shared, and invasive species, border park operations and security, shared cultural resources, and trans-boundary pollution.’’ Border Walls are a 

symbolic and practical obstruction to such constructive and cooperative efforts. 

The proposed border wall threatens to slice through multiple sections of a major 

multi-million dollar effort by the FWS to protect and restore a continuous wildlife 

corridor astride the Lower Rio Grande Valley. FWS has spent decades and upwards 

of $90million dollars piecing together 115 parcels of land in an effort to develop this 

wildlife corridor to connect wildlife populations in Mexico and the US. It is estimated that the border wall will divide this corridor in 11 different places. 

Similarly, a fence along the border in southern Arizona and New Mexico threatens 

to undermine long-standing bi-national efforts to conserve and maintain habitat 

connectivity for wide ranging species such as jaguar, cougar, ocelot, black bear, 

Mexican wolf, desert bighorn sheep, pygmy owls, mule deer, white-tailed deer and 

numerous others. 

121 

For some of these species the majority of the surviving population lives in Mexico. 

The viability of threatened species in the U.S. is strengthened by dispersal from 

source populations south of the border. Such critical dispersal events are not possible through a border wall. 

In addition, the U.S. has important treaty obligations with Mexico. The federal 

government has a responsibility to ensure that border infrastructure projects do not 

violate these important international agreements. 

• The Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico and 

Canada prohibits anyone from pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, or killing 

of identified bird species, or attempting to do so. Several borderland areas administered by DOI, including Tijuana Slough and Lower Rio Grande National 

Wildlife Refuge, contain unparalleled habitat for hundreds of migratory bird 

species. Again, such species may be threatened by border security infrastructure 

and operations. To our knowledge, there has been no oversight of this issue. 

• The 1970 Boundary Treaty. The Treaty of November 23, 1970 resolved boundary differences between Mexico and the United States, and provided for maintaining the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the international boundary. 

Activities in one country which impact water flows on other are also covered 

by the treaty. This is significant because the levee-wall proposal put forth by 

DHS for Hidalgo County may have international implications under this treaty. 

Again, to our knowledge there has been no oversight of this issue. 

Border security infrastructure will have long-term negative implications for wildlife, protected lands, numerous bi-national conservation planning, restoration and 

wildlife management efforts and international treaties. 

PART II: Impacts Of The Real ID Act Waiver and Secretary Chertoff’s 

Authority. 

The REAL ID Act and the Impact of a Government Above the Law: 

The United States of America is a nation of laws. By and large, these laws have 

been crafted by the government to protect the fundamental rights, safety and environment of its citizens. Many of these laws recognize the importance of due process; 

they allow for public involvement in government decision making to ensure that 

those impacted by decisions will have a voice in how those decisions are made. This 

ensures that government has the information it needs, and has carefully evaluated 

multiple alternatives in order to make informed, rational decisions before it drastically impinges on private rights, public safety, and natural resources. But, under 

section 102 of Real ID Act, the DHS Secretary can waive any and all laws in the 

construction of border infrastructure. Below is a description of the imperfect process 

by which REAL ID Act waiver came about and an explanation of why the authority 

is unconstitutional 

The Background and Unconstitutional Nature of the Real Id Act Waiver 

Introduced in the House of Representatives by former Judiciary Chairman James 

Sensenbrenner on January 26, 2005, the REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) was 

signed into law by President Bush on May 11, 2005. Section 102 of the REAL ID 

Act amended section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (‘‘IIRIRA’’) to provide the Department of Homeland Security 

(‘‘DHS’’) Secretary authority to ‘‘waive all legal requirements’’ that he determines, 

in his ‘‘sole discretion,’’ are ‘‘necessary to ensure expeditious construction’’ of the 

barriers and roads authorized under the IIRIRA. See § 102(c)(1) of Pub. L. No. 109- 

13; 8 U.S.C. § 1103 Note. 

Despite significant controversy associated with the section 102 waiver provisions 

and other aspects of the legislation relating to immigration and asylum, the REAL 

ID Act was passed without any Committee consideration or hearings in either 

Chamber of Congress, and without having ever been introduced, considered, or debated by the Senate. In the limited floor debate on the REAL ID Act in the House 

of Representatives, one member noted the breathtaking scope of the waiver authority provided to the DHS Secretary, and the lack of meaningful Congressional consideration of that provision: 

The REAL ID Act contains a provision that would provide the Secretary of 

Homeland Security with authority to waive all laws he deems necessary for 

the expeditious construction of the barriers authorized to be constructed by 

section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, IIRIRA. To my knowledge, a waiver this broad is 

unprecedented. It would waive all laws, including laws protecting civil 

rights; laws protecting the health and safety of workers; laws, such as the 

Davis-Bacon Act, which are intended to ensure that construction workers 

122 

on federally-funded projects are paid the prevailing wage; environmental 

laws; and laws respecting sacred burial grounds. 

151 Cong. Rec. H459 (daily ed. Feb. 9. 2005) (statement of Rep. Jackson-Lee) 

(emphasis added). 

Subsequent to its passage in the House as a stand-alone bill, and before any Senate Committees had considered or held hearings on its provisions, the House added 

H.R. 418 as an unrelated legislative ‘‘rider’’ to H.R. 1268, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill allocating $82 billion to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tsunami relief in southeast Asia, and other purposes. P.L. No. 109-13. By attaching the REAL ID Act to H.R. 1268, the House leadership successfully gambled 

that even if Senate members were troubled by their lack of opportunity to consider 

the legislation, they would not let those concerns derail the Senate’s approval of 

H.R. 1268, which as an emergency funding bill for war and humanitarian relief efforts, was considered a ‘‘must-pass’’ piece of legislation. See Congressional Quarterly, Senator Feinstein Expresses Concern About REAL ID Act in Supplemental 

Appropriations Bill. On May 10, 2005 the Senate cleared H.R. 1268 by a vote of 

100-0. 

Despite the lack of close Congressional consideration or meaningful debate, the 

scope of the REAL ID Act’s waiver provision is unprecedented in our Nation’s history. See Congressional Research Service (‘‘CRS’’) Congressional Dist. Memo., Sec. 

102 of H.R. 418, Waiver of Laws Necessary for Improvement of Barriers at Borders, 

Stephen R. Vin ̃ a and Todd Tatelman (Feb. 9, 2005). Previous statutory waivers have 

almost without exception involved Congress directly waiving laws itself, or instructing the President or another officer to waive particular provisions (usually provisions of the same law containing the waiver) if certain circumstances occur. Congress has thus itself made the determination to waive the application of particular 

provisions of law in these instances. 

In contrast, section 102 of the REAL ID Act provides the DHS Secretary with a 

roving commission to repeal, in his sole discretion, laws that would otherwise regulate and restrain his own conduct. Section 102 is thus not a mere delegation of 

broad policy responsibility that can be defended by pointing to some ‘‘intelligible 

principle’’ guiding the Executive Branch in its implementation. Rather, it is the 

transfer of an inherently legislative power to the DHS Secretary—the power to repeal standing laws in his sole discretion. In addition, the waiver provision departs 

from past Congressional practice and Constitutional constraints in its elimination 

of any judicial review with the exception of Constitutional challenges, thus precluding any independent review of whether the DHS Secretary has only waived thus 

laws ‘‘necessary’’ for the expeditious construction of border walls. 

Compounding this absence of meaningful review, the REAL ID Act also eliminates 

the right to appeal decisions to the Federal Court of Appeals, providing a discretionary writ of certiorari as the only possible avenue for review of District Court 

decisions. This unrestricted and unprecedented grant of legislative authority, combined with the absence of meaningful judicial review and oversight, is an inescapable violation of both Article I and Article II of the Constitution. 

Secretary Chertoff’s Misuse of Authority 

Under the Secure Fence Act, Congress has mandated the construction of some 700 

miles of border fencing. But how, where and when it chooses to build those miles 

are now within the agencies’ discretion. 

DHS has always had discretion as to which laws it waives and which it chooses 

to comply with and of course the agency has the authority to abide by the law if 

it so chooses. Recent changes in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, (PL 

110-161,Sec 546) have provided DHS with additional flexibility as to where and 

when to build. No longer required to build in specific locations, DHS must focus construction ‘‘where fencing would be most practical and effective’’ (PL 110-161,Sec 

546). Congress also gave the Secretary the authority to change the number of miles 

that need to be built by the end of the year. Specifically, the current language calls 

for construction by December 31, 2008 of ‘‘370 miles, or other mileage determined 

by the Secretary...’’ (emphasis added) (PL 110-161,Sec 546). 

With these changes, DHS has the authority, the flexibility and the time to consider viable alternatives and to fully inform his decision making by complying with 

study requirements under the law. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act 

explicitly directs that DHS does not have discretion to bypass consultation. In fact, 

the language states ‘‘the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with ‘‘local 

governments, Indian tribes, and property owners in the United States to minimize 

the impact on the environment, culture, commerce, and quality of life for the communities and residents located near the sites at which such fencing is to be constructed.’’ (PL 110-161,Sec 546). As local government officials, Native American 

123 

tribal leaders, and property owners all attested to during oral testimony before the 

committee on April 28, 2008, DHS has moved full steam ahead with discretionary 

construction but has failed to meet its obligation to consult. 

The following is a timeline of DHS activities since the passage of the REAL ID 

Act of 2005 and Secure Fence Act of 2007. This timeline includes just a handful of 

‘‘collateral impacts’’ on communities and the environment that have occurred as a 

result of DHS’s rush to waive laws, and its failure to consult and consider alternatives. 

January, 2007—DHS discards National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

• After NEPA analysis finds a vehicle barrier is the preferred border infrastructure for the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona, DHS ignores the findings 

and waives NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

Clean Water Act, and others laws to move ahead with building the wall. 

July-August, 2007—DHS Denies Public Participation 

• DHS’s Environmental Assessments of the impact of the border wall on San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area and Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge are completed with no public comment period. • DHS ignores Tohono O’odham Nation concerns about five cultural sites in the 

path of the proposed wall and issues a finding of ‘‘no significant impact’’ despite 

threats to protected lands, endangered species, historical and cultural resources. 

October, 2007—DHS Bulldozes Protected Area After Request to Stay 

Construction is Filed 

• Environmental groups file a request to stay construction of the border wall 

within San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area until an adequate Environmental Impact Statement can be completed pursuant to NEPA. • Bulldozing starts the very next day, a Saturday. (See Figure 2) 

September-October, 2007—DHS Dismisses Environmental Impacts and 

Waives 19 Laws to Push Construction. 

• Two citizen groups sue DHS for violating NEPA at San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in Arizona. • A federal judge grants a temporary restraining order which confirms the government had rushed its decision and failed to meet its legal obligations under 

NEPA. • DHS waives NEPA and 18 other laws, construction resumes immediately. 

September-November 2007—DHS Forces Construction of Wall Determined 

to be Incompatible with Wildlife Refuge. 

• The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manager of Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge in Arizona determines the border wall is ‘‘inconsistent with Service policy and is likely detrimental to the refuge’s natural and cultural resources.’’ • FWS is forced to decide between yielding ownership of Refuge land DHS wants 

for its walls, in exchange for an as-yet unidentified small land parcel, or facing 

the REAL-ID waiver and getting the wall but nothing else. FWS agrees to the 

land transfer. 

• Before the land transfer is complete, DHS begins wall construction (See Figure 

3). 

April-December, 2007—DHS Ignores Citizens Concerns in Texas and 

Threatens Refuge Habitat and Tourism. 

• Texans raise strong concerns about the elimination of access to their irrigation 

source, the Rio Grande, the taking of private property, environmental and economic damage, and DHS’s refusal to consider alternatives to border wall construction 

• Tourism and wildlife are threatened on three national wildlife refuges in Texas, 

where the border wall will slice through at least 14 refuge tracts, fragmenting 

or eliminating habitat for numerous endangered or threatened species. 

January, 2008—DHS Delivers Ultimatum to Citizens in Texas 

• DHS brings ex parte (i.e. without the owners of the property present) condemnation actions against Texas landowners who do not cooperate with agency 

surveys. 

February, 2008—DHS Ignores National Park Service Request 

• DHS denies requests by the National Park Service to shorten a proposed border 

wall on the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument by 90 feet to spare important columnar cacti and Sonoran desert tortoise habitat on Monument Hill. 

124 

April, 2008—DHS Announces Border-wide Waiver 

• DHS Waives 35 Environmental, Health and Safety Laws across nearly 500 

Miles of the border to avoid legal compliance and expedite fence and levee-wall 

construction projects (See Figure 1). 

• DHS claims that it intends to comply with the intent of environmental laws it 

waived. DHS then proceeds to brush aside ongoing public processes and evaluation of alternatives required by the National Environmental Policy Act. 

• DHS fails to appear before a congressional hearing regarding the impacts of 

border walls and waivers. 

In less than three years, Secretary Chertoff has invoked the REAL ID waiver authority on five occasions, to waive a broad variety of laws intended to protect wildlife and endangered species, clean air and water, historic and cultural sites, Native 

American sacred sites and burial grounds, and public health and safety. With each 

successive waiver, Secretary Chertoff has targeted more laws—many with no clear 

relation to proposed border wall construction. The most recent waiver signed by Secretary Chertoff on April 1st, 2008 waived 35 different federal laws across 470 

miles—nearly a quarter of the U.S. southern border area. The laws waived included 

the Safe Drinking Water Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, 

Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. No explanation 

was provided as to how these laws were chosen or why DHS needed to waive such 

fundamental protections for the construction of the border wall. 

There are significant and substantive effects to waiving laws and bypassing process and forcing construction without adequate consultation. In addition to the specific impacts to wildlife and public lands outlined in Part I of this testimony, there 

is also the opportunity cost of win-win solutions never developed or implemented. 

Conclusion 

In its current rush to bypass the law in pursuit of arbitrary deadlines DHS has 

failed to properly analyze both direct and indirect impacts of ‘‘walls and waivers’’ 

at a regional scale. It has not adequately considered viable alternatives and they 

have failed to consult with those who know the most about the area and those who 

will be bear the brunt of the impacts of DHS decisions. The result of this type of 

uniformed and rash decision making has and will continue to result in greater environmental impacts, unanticipated problems, disgruntled communities and escalating 

financial and ecological costs. Unfortunately, we fear we are only beginning to understand the far-reaching collateral impacts from walls and waivers upon our communities, precious natural areas and wildlife. As a country, we can and must to better. 

Defenders of Wildlife is doing what it can. We currently have a petition for certiorari pending before the Supreme Court to challenge the unchecked and 

unreviewable authority to waive any law as provided for under REAL ID. But much 

of the devastation from construction will already have happened by the time the Supreme Court is able to respond. It is incumbent on Congress to remedy its error in 

passing this dangerous and plainly unconstitutional provision in the first instance. 

The Congressional mandate for consultation needs to be enforced and DHS needs 

to be explicitly directed to consider viable alternatives to border infrastructure. In 

addition, the rule of law needs to be returned to the U.S. Citizens along the border 

in the form of a Repeal of the REAL ID waiver; Defenders of Wildlife supports Rep. 

Grijalva’s proposal in H.R. 2593 to address this issue and we urge this Committee 

to take every action in its power to repeal section 102 of the REAL ID Act. 

125 


41959.003.eps
126 


41959.004.eps 41959.005.eps
127 


41959.006.eps 41959.007.eps
128 


41959.008.eps 41959.009.eps
129 

[A List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files 

follows:] • Abolt, Steve, President, 7th U.S. Infantry Living History Association, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Alamo Inn, American Birding Association, Audubon Society of Western 

Pennsylvania, Coastal 

• Habitat Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, et al., Statement submitted for the 

record 

• Bartholomew, Wayne, Executive director, Frontera Audubon Society, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Chapman, Karen, Water & Wildlife Analyst, Environmental Defense Fund, 

Statement submitted for the record 

• Dewar, Ruth F., Ed.D., Pacific Palisades, California, Letter submitted for the 

record 

• Irwin, Dorothy N., Nye Plantation, Brownsville, Texas, Letter submitted for the 

record 

• Lopez, Genaro, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas at Brownsville, 

Letter submitted for the record 

• Lucio, Robert and Lucio, Diana, Ft. Brown Memorial Golf Course, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Madrid, Ruby and Enrique, Redford, Texas, Letter submitted for the record 

• McKnight, Barbara, Austin, Texas, Letter submitted for the record 

• Melton, Mary Ann, Mary Ann’s View Nature Photography, Statement submitted 

for the record 

• Merrill, Sarah Bishop, M.S., Ph.D., Recording Clerk, Rio Grande Valley Friends 

Meeting (Quakers). Also member, Sierra Club, National Energy Committee, and 

Lone Star Chapter, Letter submitted for the record 

• Millard, Ann V., Edinburg, Texas, Letter submitted for the record 

• Moore, Wayne, Brownsville, Texas, Letter submitted for the record 

• Nicol, Scott, No Border Wall Coalition, Statement submitted for the record 

• Payne, Richard H., Ph.D., President and CEO, American Birding Association, 

Letter submitted for the record 

• Payne, Richard H., Ph.D., President & CEO, American Birding Association, 

Letter submitted for the record 

• Pe ́rez, Betty, Brownsville, Texas, Letter submitted for the record 

• Platt, Kamala, M.F.A., Ph.D., Edinburg, Texas, Letter submitted for the record 

• Plitt, Walter E., III, Chairman, Palo Alto National Park Committee, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Roberts, S. Gary, President, Concerned Citizens Against the Border Wall, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Schwarz, Kurt R., Conservation Chair, Howard County Bird Club, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Schwarz, Kurt R., Conservation Chair, Howard County (Maryland) Bird Club, 

Letter submitted for the record 

• Tamez, Eloisa G., RN, Ph.D., FAAN, San Benito, Texas, Letter submitted for 

the record 

• Thompson, Susan, Penitas, Texas, Letter submitted for the record 

• Whittle, John A., Secretary, Golden Triangle Audubon Society, Letter submitted 

for the record 

Æ