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

81–174 PDF 2013

S. 744 AND THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND 

CONTROL ACT OF 1986: LESSONS LEARNED 

OR MISTAKES REPEATED? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

S. 744 

MAY 22, 2013 

Serial No. 113–30 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 22, 2013 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3 

WITNESSES 

Julie Myers Wood, President, Compliance, Federal Practice and Software 

Solutions, Guidepost Solutions 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28 

David V. Aguilar, Partner, Global Security and Intelligence Strategies (GSIS) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable George Holding, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Member, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 4 

Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 53 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 91 

Material submitted by the Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi, a Representative 

in Congress from Puerto Rico, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ..... 97 

Material submitted by the Honorable Suzan DelBene, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Washington, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 116 

Material submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 127 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

S. 744, the ‘‘Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act’’ is not reprinted in this hearing record but is on file with the Committee 

and can be accessed at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744is/pdf/BILLS-113s744is.pdf 

(1) 

*S. 744, the ‘‘Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.’’ 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744is/pdf/BILLS-113s744is.pdf 

S. 744 AND THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND 

CONTROL ACT OF 1986: LESSONS LEARNED 

OR MISTAKES REPEATED? 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:26 p.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Smith, 

Chabot, Bachus, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Chaffetz, 

Marino, Gowdy, Amodei, Labrador, Farenthold, Holding, Collins, 

DeSantis, Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, 

Johnson, Pierluisi, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez, DelBene, Garcia, and 

Jeffries. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Andrea 

Loving, Counsel; Dimple Shah, Counsel; Kelsey Deterding, Clerk; 

(Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; 

Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; and Tom Jawetz, Counsel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good afternoon. The House Committee on the 

Judiciary will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this afternoon’s hearing on ‘‘S. 744 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: Lessons Learned or Mistakes Repeated?’’ 

I’d like to start off by commending all of my colleagues in both 

the House and Senate who have worked together in a bipartisan 

manner to address the difficult but crucial issue of immigration reform. As I expect that immigration reform legislation will follow 

regular order, it is important that this Committee carefully examine the proposals that have been offered. Thus we will today turn 

to S. 744,* the omnibus immigration reform being considered by 

the Senate. 

The drafters of S. 744 promise to ensure that this is a successful 

permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to 
2 

be revisited. The drafters seek an end to the problem of illegal immigration for once and for all. While this is a laudable and necessary goal, their bill falls far short of achieving it. In order to effectively deal with the problem of illegal immigration and ensure 

that future generations do not have to deal with legalizing millions 

more people, we need to take a look at our past mistakes. We need 

to ensure that we do not repeat them. 

President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control 

Act, or IRCA, into law on November 6, 1986. The bill provided for 

three main reforms: legalizing the millions of immigrants already 

in the country, increasing border enforcement, and instituting penalties for employers who hired unauthorized workers, in order to 

stop the flow of new unlawful immigrants. These reforms were 

based on the realization that if Congress simply passed a legalization program we would simply be encouraging future illegal immigration. The Select Commission on Immigration had warned just a 

few years earlier that without more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry. 

Unfortunately, IRCA’s enforcement measures never materialized, 

and the Commission’s fears were realized. Border security barely 

improved. Employer penalties were not enforced. Now, 26 years 

later, all of us who want to fix our broken immigration system are 

haunted by the legacy of IRCA’s failure, and we have serious concerns that S. 744 repeats some of IRCA’s mistakes. 

Many advocacy groups who are ardent supporters of S. 744 are 

on record stating that they do not want legalization to be dependent on border security and enforcement triggers. Indeed, whether 

or not it contains triggers, the Senate bill is unlikely to secure the 

border. It requires DHS to simply submit a border security plan to 

initiate the legalization of 11 million unlawful immigrants. Without 

securing the border, and with a simple submission of a plan, unlawful immigrants become eligible for registered provisional immigrant status. 

The legalization of unlawful immigrants continues to advance 

with just a certification that the border security strategy is substantially deployed and substantially operational in the sole discretion of the Secretary. Note that the strategy does not have to be 

complete or be even more than a fantasy. 

In addition, S. 744 ostensibly mandates employer use of E-Verify. 

Now, this is a necessary element of any real immigration reform 

if we want to end the jobs magnet for future illegal immigration. 

However, S. 744 doesn’t fully implement E-Verify for up to 7 years. 

In addition, it actually forces employers to employ, pay, and train 

unlawful immigrants for years should they pursue never-ending 

baseless appeals of their E-Verify nonverifications. 

Further, whatever enforcement provisions are in S. 744 are subject to implementation by the current Administration, which fails 

to enforce the laws already on the books. The Department of Homeland Security is releasing thousands of illegal and criminal immigrant detainees while providing ever-changing numbers to Congress regarding the same. The Department of Homeland Security 

is forbidding ICE officers from enforcing the laws they are bound 

to uphold. A Federal judge has already ruled DHS’ actions likely 

in violation of Federal law. DHS is placing whole classes of unlaw-
3 

ful immigrants in enforcement-free zones. DHS claims to be removing more aliens than any other Administration, but has to generate 

bogus numbers in order to do so. 

Ultimately, the American people have little trust, where the Administration has not enforced the law in the past, it will do so in 

the future. That is why real immigration reform needs to have 

mechanisms to ensure that the president cannot simply turn off the 

switch, any president turn off the switch on immigration enforcement. And let me add that I do not single out the current Administration because previous Administrations of both parties have had 

similar failings. The Senate bill contains no such mechanisms. 

The last time Congress passed a major immigration reform bill, 

its goal was to start with a clean slate and then stop the flow of 

illegal migrants across the border. But in the years after the bill 

passed illegal immigration surged. So the question remains: Are we 

learning lessons from the past or repeating the same mistakes? 

While I commend the Senate for their continuing efforts to tackle 

the extremely difficult task of reforming our broken system, I must 

observe that S. 744 repeats many of the mistakes of the past. 

I look forward to continuing to work in the House to find solutions to reform our broken immigration system, including establishing effective mechanisms to make certain that our laws are indeed enforced going forward. And I again applaud those Members 

of the House, including several Members of this Committee, on 

both sides of the aisle, who are working in a constructive way to 

try to address this very important issue. 

And at this time it is my pleasure to recognize the Ranking 

Member of the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. 

I appreciate the fact that the ball is now in our court here in the 

House. And we want to look carefully at the 1986 law and its legalization provision. Some say the bill granted undocumented immigrants amnesty in the law signed by President Reagan. 

Most undocumented immigrants who qualified for legalization received temporary status. Those temporary residents were allowed 

to apply for a green card after just 1 year, and agricultural workers 

were allowed to apply for a green card immediately, without any 

period of temporary status. And so the law in 1986 imposed neither 

a penalty nor a fine. And so I think an overly critical examination 

of the 1986 law would be hard pressed to say that the Senate bill 

provides amnesty. It doesn’t. And that’s the difference. That’s one 

huge difference. 

Under the Senate bill, undocumented immigrants who register 

must pay a $1,000 fine and are placed into a provisional status for 

a full 10 years. Throughout that period, they of course must remain 

employed, satisfy the requirements of good citizenship, make sure 

they have no tax liabilities to remain eligible for provisional status. 

But the one thing it does is it takes them out of the shadows and 

gives them an opportunity to earn permanent status. 

Remember, too, that in 1986 they were protecting the borders 

with flashlights and outdated equipment. We now have a much 

more effective system. And we ought to, we’re spending about $18 

billion a year on it. And we’ve talked to ICE and Immigration peo-
4 

ple repeatedly about whether we’re getting our money’s worth in 

that circumstance. 

Another criticism of the 1986 law is that while the legalization 

program went forward, the promised enforcement never followed. 

There may be truth to this, and I am not sure. But even if enforcement didn’t increase much in the years immediately following, it’s 

certainly picked up now. And this Committee I think has done a 

good job in trying to make sure that it’s doing a much better point 

in making certain that we get enforcement. 

Now, according to the analysis of the Immigration Policy Center, the Federal Government has spent a total of $186.6 dollars on immigration enforcement. Each year, we detain and remove record 

numbers of people, spend more money on immigration than on all 

other Federal law enforcement efforts combined. 

And still the Senate responds to some of that criticism by preventing undocumented immigrants from registering for provisional 

status until the Department of Homeland Security has begun to 

implement two new strategies: the strategy to gain effective control 

of the southwest border and a southwest border fencing strategy. 

And provisional immigrants cannot get a green card unless and 

until the border strategies are substantially operational or completed, and that the E-Verify, a new technique that we think is 

going to be pretty effective, is mandatory for all employers, and 

that the Department of Homeland Security has an electronic exit 

system at air and sea ports to identify visa overstays. 

And maybe the most important way that the Senate bill differs 

from the 1986 law is that it sets out to actually fix our broken immigration system. The bill aims to prevent future illegal immigration by facilitating legal immigration. And in many ways the biggest failure of the 1986 legislation was that it didn’t leave us with 

an immigration system capable of meeting the future immigration 

needs of the country, no way to satisfy our agricultural needs and 

our non-agricultural needs as well. And so as a result, we need to 

make sure that we fix the system, and this discussion with our distinguished witnesses is one way to move this forward. 

I think that we can do it. I think we’ve got something to build 

on. I applaud the other body for reporting this work finally at last. 

But nothing is perfect, and perhaps we may be the ones that help 

improve it. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for a fine opening statement. 

And without objection all other Members’ opening statements 

will be made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holding follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable George Holding, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Member, Committee on 

the Judiciary 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our immigration system is certainly broken and in desperate need of repair. I applaud the Senate’s efforts to create a bipartisan immigration bill. I appreciate the 

amount of time, energy, and cooperation that went into forming this bill. 

However, I have some concerns about the Senate’s proposal. In 1986, the nation 

was facing an immigration problem similar to what we are dealing with today. 

There were millions of undocumented aliens living in America, and the situation 
5 

was made worse by the fact that many employers were hiring these illegal workers 

off the books and paying them less than U.S. workers. As a result, Congress passed 

the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). This legalized millions of immigrants and established laws restricting the employment of undocumented persons. 

However, due to lax enforcement and insufficient internal controls, IRCA has not 

been effective in regulating illegal immigration, and now we are back in the same 

situation we were in nearly thirty years ago. Problematically, the current Senate bill 

does adequately address the enforcement failures of these immigration laws. In fact, 

it goes so far as to weaken some of the enforcement laws already in existence. 

For example, since 1996, the Department of Homeland Security has operated a 

biometric entry-and-exit system at land, air, and sea ports to authenticate visas of 

people going in and out of the U.S. The Senate bill rolls back this requirement to 

require an ‘‘electronic’’ exit system at air and sea ports only. A biometric system will 

only be required at ten U.S. airports. This increases the possibility that illegal immigration will go unnoticed or that temporary visitors will overstay their visas. 

The enforcement of existing immigration laws is one of the most important aspects of any forthcoming immigration legislation this Congress. If the Senate bill 

proceeds as currently drafted, we will be taking a big step backward instead of moving forward. I believe we need to take a second look at these provisions and make 

sure we do immigration reform right this time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We welcome our distinguished panel today. And 

if you would all rise, we’ll begin by swearing you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. And let the record reflect that all 

the witnesses responded in the affirmative. 

We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses joining us today, 

and I’ll begin by introducing all of them. Our first witness is Julie 

Myers Wood, the president of Compliance, Federal Practice and 

Software Solutions at Guidepost Solutions LLC, an immigration investigation and compliance firm. Ms. Wood served as the Assistant 

Secretary of DHS at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or 

ICE, for nearly 3 years. Under her leadership, the agency set new 

enforcement records with respect to immigration enforcement, export enforcement, and intellectual property rights. Ms. Wood 

earned a bachelor’s degree at Baylor University and graduated cum 

laude from Cornell Law School. 

Our second witness today is Mr. Chris Crane, who currently 

serves as the president of the National Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement Council, American Federation of Government Employees. He has worked as an immigration enforcement agent for U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security since 2003. Prior to his service at ICE, Mr. 

Crane served for 11 years in the United States Marine Corps. 

Chris, we thank you for your service and being with us here 

today. 

Our final witness Mr. David Aguilar, the former Deputy Commissioner of the U.S. Customs And Border Patrol. Prior to this appointment, he was the Chief Patrol Agent of the Tucson Sector, 

United States Border Patrol. In that position, Mr. Aguilar was responsible for all operational and administrative functions of the 

sector. Previously, Mr. Aguilar served in various locations as a Border Patrol officer. He received an associate’s degree from Laredo 

Community College and is a graduate of the John F. Kennedy 

School of Government, Harvard Senior Executive Fellows. 
6 

Thank you all for joining us. And we will begin with Ms. Wood. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into the 

record in its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his or her 

testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, 

there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from 

green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony; 

when the light turns red, it signals that the witness’ 5 minutes 

have expired. 

Ms. Wood, welcome back. 

TESTIMONY OF JULIE MYERS WOOD, PRESIDENT, COMPLIANCE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, 

GUIDEPOST SOLUTIONS 

Ms. WOOD. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, 

Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee. 

In my view, it’s very encouraging to see the progress in the Senate with the passage yesterday of S. 744 out of the Judiciary Committee. And as the Chairman has indicated, this Committee has 

also spent a lot of time looking and thinking about how we can improve our immigration system. And I was honored to be asked to 

testify today in my personal capacity because as a supporter of immigration reform, I want to help ensure that we don’t repeat the 

mistakes of prior legislation. 

As such, I think it’s critical that we bring some perspective to potential provisions in S. 744 that could be problematic before the bill 

is enacted while these issues could still be addressed. Of course, 

now any bill is not going to be perfect, either from an enforcement 

perspective or from an advocacy perspective. If we wait for perfect 

legislation, we’re never going to have a bill, all apologies to the distinguished Members of the Committee. 

At the same time, I do think we have an obligation to the American public to seek immigration reform that would improve our system and not just pass our unresolved problems down to the next 

generation. Today I wanted to highlight four areas where I think 

improvements can be made to ensure successful reform. 

First, I think successful reform needs to protect and assist interior enforcement efforts. In this regard, I think one of the most critical things, when reading the bill—I think that the bill has a lot 

of safety valves that really have discretion in an immigrant’s favor. 

And a lot of those waivers are needed, a lot of that discretion is 

needed to protect the rights of immigrants. 

What the bill is missing, in my view, is the same sorts of safety 

valves in terms of enforcement equities and enforcement exceptions. For example, in section 2101, DHS is required to provide all 

aliens apprehended before or during the application period a reasonable opportunity to apply for provisional status, and they may 

not remove an individual until a final administrative determination 

is made. There’s no exception, none, for public safety or national 

security situations. There should be a public safety exception, a 

safety valve in favor of enforcement equities. I see the same sort 

of thing in the general scope of the waiver provision in section 

2313. So I think we need to look at the bill and see, are there 

places where there need to be waivers in favor of enforcement equities. 
7 

Interviews, I think, should also be required before granting legalization. Even IRCA required interviews. If you combine this with 

the lack of electronic filing—and I know it’s tough, I know that’s 

tough for USCIS—we’re in a place where we’re credentialing people 

who we don’t know and of whose backgrounds we’re unsure. 

In my view, to avoid fraud, the confidentiality provisions should 

be further limited in scope. Sections 2104 and 2212 in my view 

have overbroad confidentiality provisions. One of the most widespread problems back in 1986 was the confidential red sheet and 

the fraud it festered. While it’s understandable that we want to encourage individuals to apply for provisional status, it’s important 

that there be some consequences for not telling the truth. Under 

the current legislative framework, there are no consequences. Combine that with the failure to mandate the interview, and I think 

we’re starting to see some significant vulnerabilities in this area. 

I think the issue of really tailoring the confidentiality provisions 

is particularly important given the litigation that occurred after 

IRCA. We’ve got to remember there’s going to be litigation here 

and the Secretary has to have the discretion to provide this information when it’s needed. 

Next, successful reform must improve the overall immigration 

court and removal process. We’ve got to think about this holistically. And I do think S. 744 provides some improvements in this 

area, particularly including the provision mandating counsel for 

certain vulnerable populations and increasing the legal orientation 

program. 

However, there are certain areas that are undermined, where 

current law is undermined. And one of those areas is I think the 

bill effectively repeals the ability to utilize stipulated removals. 

Under S. 744, stipulated removals have to be in person. That effectively defeats the stipulated removal process, a process that over 

20,000 individuals have used over the past few years. 

Third, I think successful reform must fully address the third border, create an exit system that is biometric, and doesn’t just include air, but also includes land, that’s a comprehensive exit system. 

And finally, successful reform must provide effective tools to reduce unlawful employment. And thinking about the magnet and 

how we can reduce it, I think there are two provisions in S. 744 

that are very problematic. The first one is that legislation appears 

to prohibit employers from using tools to combat identity theft. And 

that is something that I think is very troubling to employers. The 

second thing is I think the extraneous appellate processes, those 

are going to bog down the employment system and make a system 

really not work. 

As a former enforcement chief and veteran of the last debate, I 

know these are tough issues. I hope that Congress will consider 

looking at these issues and improving S. 744 to address some of 

those law enforcement concerns. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wood follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Crane, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL 118, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you. And good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee. 

With my written testimony, I included a letter to Congress outlining general law enforcement concerns with the gang of eight bill 

on immigration reform. 

In this letter the ICE union is joined by the union representing 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Both unions represent 

approximately 20,000 Federal employees handling the bulk of interior immigration enforcement. Additionally, 113 sheriffs nationwide 

are represented on the letter, as well as the National Association 

of Former Border Patrol Officers. Individuals and groups continue 

to sign the letter to express their concern that Senate bill 744 fails 

on matters of public safety, border security, and overall enforcement. I sincerely hope that Members of the House will, unlike the 

gang of eight, include law enforcement in the development of future 

legislation. 

On April 18, 2013, I attended a gang of eight press conference. 

The room was filled with supporters. There was a lot of joking, a 

lot of laughing. There was a lot of talk about what a great humanitarian effort this bill represents. I remember thinking how at that 

very moment ICE agents on our southern border were being overwhelmed by a dramatic increase in illegal aliens crossing the border, most claiming to have entered based on rumors of the new 

gang of eight amnesty, thousands of these aliens being unaccompanied children, runaways, making the treacherous trip across the 

border by themselves. 

Crossings by illegal aliens seeking amnesty will likely continue 

for years. Many may die or be victimized. ICE is already offering 

transfers to permanently move more officers to the border. 

There is a reason why many in law enforcement have repeatedly 

said let’s slow this down, let’s take the time to do this right, starting by putting enforcement mechanisms in place that will deter illegal entry and stop tragedies like this from happening. 

‘‘Enforcement’’ is not a dirty word. Enforcement saves lives. Our 

union has been telling America and Congress that ICE and DHS 

officials are ignoring public safety, the agency’s law enforcement 

mission, and the laws enacted by Congress, carrying out their own 

personal political agendas. I hope that the targeting of conservative 

groups by the IRS, as well as other scandals recently in the media, 

to include ICE and DHS lies uncovered last week regarding hundreds of criminal and convicted felons that ICE recently released 

into U.S. Communities without warning, will lend credence to what 

we have been saying for years. 

There is no oversight of political appointees and other high-ranking managers within Federal agencies. The heads of DHS and ICE 

have overridden Congress and determined that certain laws will 

not be enforced. They came to this conclusion shortly before our 

Nation’s last presidential election. Employees reported that managers at ICE headquarters told employees that amnesty-related 
27 

policies had to be implemented in advance of the election. Policies 

implemented by ICE and DHS managers have become so contrary 

to law and public safety that ICE agents have been forced to file 

a lawsuit against the heads of both ICE and DHS. 

According to Ken Palinkas, union president of employees, and 

employee of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, highranking managers within USCIS have implemented similar policies. USCIS employees are being pressured to approve all applications, even when red flags are present. Proper investigation of applications is not being done. USCIS employees are discouraged by 

managers from denying applications. Palinkas says USCIS has become an approval machine, that officers are discouraged from placing illegal aliens into immigration proceedings and discouraged 

from contacting ICE agents in cases that should have ICE’s involvement. 

In closing, as law enforcement officers we have never taken a position on matters such as the numbers or types of visas to be issued 

or a path to citizenship. We simply seek to assist in creating laws 

that can and will be enforced and that provide for public safety. In 

our opinion, the single most significant task that Congress must 

complete in any immigration reform legislation is that every opportunity to take away or limit the authority and discretion of political 

appointees and Presidents so that the laws enacted by Congress 

will be followed and enforced. Thank you. And that concludes my 

testimony. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Crane. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:] 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

ATTACHMENT 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Aguilar, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID V. AGUILAR, PARTNER, GLOBAL 

SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE STRATEGIES (GSIS) 

Mr. AGUILAR. Good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking 

Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the Committee. It 

is truly a pleasure to be here this afternoon to testify on S. 744. 

I’ve testified many times before this Committee, before other Committees as chief of the Border Patrol in Tucson Sector, the most active sector in the United States, as national chief of the Border Patrol, as Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, 

and lastly, as Acting Commissioner of CBP. 

I believe this is the first time that I testify as a plain citizen, the 

most important position that any one of us can actually hold. I look 

forward to testifying today along with my distinguished and fellow 

members here. 

I believe that the subject of today’s hearing is of critical importance to the Nation. Our country has been struggling with the 

issue of immigration reform for many decades. It is a matter that 

captures our Nation’s attention and generates deep, some would 

say visceral emotions. One thing that the vast number of Americans agree on, and I also agree on this, is that our Nation’s immigration system is in fact broken. 

I spent 35 years working the borders of our country at many levels within the organizations responsible for the security of those 

borders. We have made tremendous advances in securing our Nation’s borders. Illegal immigration that flows across our borders 

must be controlled. That is something that we have to do. But we 

must understand that controlling the illegal flow of persons is but 

one of the many challenges that the men and women who stand the 

line face each and every day. Officers and agents also combat the 

illegal flow of narcotics, criminals, criminal organizations, weapons, 

bulk currency, and cartel activities into our country. Controlling, 

mitigating, managing, and addressing each and every one of these 

flows is critical to the security of our Nation. 

But right now, the most taxing and workload-intensive aspect of 

the job that we do, that I used to do, is the work that goes into 

controlling the illegal flow of people. A comprehensive and balanced 

immigration reform plan that guarantees a workable legal flow of 

immigrants in the future and thereby diminishes the flow of illegal 

entrants would allow the men and women who secure our borders 

to focus time and resources on those other threats and would significantly enhance our Nation’s security overall. 

The best way to do this is to successfully design and implement 

a comprehensive and balanced immigration reform bill that will finally respond to the demands of the American people and fix our 

broken immigration system. Despite the advances in border security that we have made over the years, and there have been many, 

this is a problem that we cannot fix through enforcement alone. We 

need an immigration system that allows us to meet our Nation’s 

labor needs, further enhances our border security efforts, implements an employment verification system with meaningful employer sanctions for violators, and provides a tough but fair path 

to legal status for the current unauthorized population. 
41 

The importance of providing for future legal flows must be taken 

into account. I believe this is the most important lesson that we 

can learn from IRCA 1986. We need to make sure that people who 

come here to join close family members or to fill needed jobs, American jobs, come in through the ports of entry, are subjected to background checks, and are admitted legally for proper reasons and 

under appropriate conditions. Based on my current review of the 

bipartisan Senate immigration reform bill, I believe that it contains 

the general foundational pieces to set up such a successful system. 

Before I speak too much on this, but I need to put this in current 

context, is allow me to provide that context. During IRCA there 

was about 3,000 United States Border Patrol agents along the entire southwest border. Today there are 21,380 operating along our 

Nation’s southwest border. We literally operated with technology at 

the time that consisted of handheld flashlights, Vietnam-era sensors, very little lighting on the border, and certainly none of the 

outstanding technology that our agents work with today. Fencing 

infrastructure was nonexistent. 

The difference between then and now is stark. We are at a time 

of opportunity. Our Nation’s borders are safer and more secure 

than they have ever been before. The flows of illegal crossings are 

at their lowest point in over 40 years. Since its inception, DHS has 

added a tremendous amount of resources and capabilities to the 

borders. 

Our partnership with Mexico is something that we must speak 

about. It has come a long way. We work very closely with our partners in Mexico on both sides of the border. There is a resolute effort to bring control to our borders. There is a recognition on the 

parts of U.S. officers and Mexican officers that we have a joint responsibility to secure our borders. 

Reduce crimes along the southwest border by 40 percent. More 

border fence and infrastructure than ever before, 650 miles of border fence and infrastructure. Largest civilian law enforcement air 

force in the world, including 10 UAS’s. Over 23,000 Customs and 

Border Protection officers at our ports of entry. An 80 percent reduction of apprehensions along our Nation’s southwest border since 

the peak year in 2000 when we apprehended over 1.6 million and 

a 40 percent reduction in apprehensions just from 2008. It is 

against this backdrop of record border enforcement that we must 

view the bipartisan immigration reform bill that is now moving 

through the Senate. 

A critical component of any comprehensive and balanced immigration reform system includes a strong means to crack down on 

the draw of jobs magnet. We have discussed already what it’s going 

to take to do that. A key lesson that we should take away from the 

debacle of IRCA 1986 is that it addressed legalization of the illegal 

population and implemented what turned out to be a very, very 

weak employer sanctions program. We must address that. 

The Senate bill appears to meet a lot of things that we have spoken about today. And critically important, it provides for continued 

enforcement resources to be acquired and applied under strategies 

to be developed by DHS and CBP. 

Chairman, Committee, I look forward to any questions that you 

might have of me. 
42 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

*See letter, page 34. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We’ll now proceed with questioning under the 5- 

minute rule. And before I do so, I would ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record four letters expressing concern over Senate 

bill S. 744. One from Senator Chuck Grassley from the Judicial 

Conference—I’m sorry. One to Senator Chuck Grassley from the 

Judicial Conference of the United States, sent on May 7 of this 

year. Another from the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, sent to the so-called Senate gang of eight on May 2. 

The third item is an open letter from the Coalition Against S. 744, 

a group of over 150 conservative leaders in the U.S., noting that 

this will legislation is defective and urging a no vote. The final letter, submitted by Mr. Crane, comes from the National Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement Council of the American Federation of 

Government Employees,* a diverse group of law enforcement officers and their representatives, expressing concern regarding S. 744 

within the law enforcement community. 

Also, without objection, I would ask to enter a press release from 

the American Federation of Government Employees, dated Monday, May 20, entitled ‘‘USCIS Union President; Lawmakers Should 

Oppose Senate Immigration Bill, Support Immigration Service Officers.’’ 

Without objection, they will be made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My first question I’ll address to all three of you. 

And since I have several other questions I want to ask, and I’m 

going to try to strictly limit all the Members’ time to 5 minutes, 

because we have a lot of Members interested in this issue, I’d ask 

you to answer as briefly as possible. 

Is there any provision in S. 744 that would prevent the President 

from simply deciding not to enforce the immigration laws? Ms. 

Wood? 

Ms. WOOD. I’m not aware of any provision that would do that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. I’m not aware of any provision that would do that, 

sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Aguilar? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Not aware, sir. Same here. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My second question is addressed to Mr. Crane. 

How broad is the executive branch’s discretionary authority in this 

bill? Do you think that S. 744 continues the trend toward our 

Founding Fathers’ fear that there will be an all-powerful executive 

branch? 

Mr. CRANE. That is exactly my feel for this bill, Chairman. It 

seems to give unlimited authority and discretion to the Secretary 

of DHS. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My next question is directed to Ms. Wood. Isn’t 

interior enforcement an essential component of immigration policy 

in order to locate and apprehend illegal immigrants who have successfully evaded U.S. Border Patrol and who have entered legally 

but who chose not to leave when required to do so? And do you believe that this bill recognizes the critical nature of this interior enforcement with estimates as high as 35 to 40 percent of those not 

lawfully present in the United States having entered lawfully and 

therefore the border enforcement issue, while very important, is by 

no means the total enforcement issue that we need to focus on? 

Ms. WOOD. Chairman, I do think that the interior enforcement 

provisions could be strengthened, that the exit provision in particular could be strengthened, which would really help us to address the problem of overstays more effectively. 

And then the funding stream for interior enforcement. The funding provided for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not 

the same as the kind of funding that’s provided to CBP over the 

years, and we have got to make sure that the interior of the country, those agents working there, ERO as well as HSI, have the resources they need to do the job. 

The other thing that I would say that I think is very important 

is that I do think the bill limits a lot of discretion in terms of ICE’s 

ability to use its current authorities to arrest and detain individuals who may have ties to national security or terrorist organizations, but we don’t have enough evidence yet to bring criminal 

charges against them. And so I think that is an area that really 

needs to be focused on, you know, does the Department have 

enough discretion to exercise law enforcement equities to hold individuals or to bring certain kinds of immigration charges against 

them. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 
72 

And, Mr. Crane, you—I’m sorry, Mr. Aguilar—you mention in 

your testimony on page 9 that one of the key takeaways from the 

debacle of the IRCA, the 1986 law, is that the same broken system 

that existed before IRCA was enacted continued to exist after the 

law was enacted. Mr. Crane suggests that the current Administration blocks ICE officers from enforcing our Nation’s laws, and that 

is the subject of litigation right now. 

What specifically does S. 744 do to ensure that the agents responsible for enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws are, in fact, 

able to do so. 

Mr. AGUILAR. As I stated on my testimony, sir, I firmly believe 

that interior enforcement is a critically important aspect of any immigration reform bill. Carrying out basically, as Mr. Crane put 

forth a few minutes ago, carrying out the laws that are on the 

books currently, being allowed to do that, is absolutely important. 

It has to be allowed. 

I also added critically important is resourced at the right levels. 

That is one of the things that was not done in IRCA of 1986. Interior enforcement was not carried out because investigations was 

not resourced, beds were not available, and frankly we just didn’t 

have enough people to do the job. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. 

And I’m going to get all my questions in under the limit here. 

So, Ms. Wood, the last one is for you. And that is, why is it problematic for a State or locality to refuse to cooperate with ICE enforcement officers? 

Ms. WOOD. All kind of reasons. But, you know, one of them is 

that we’re paying those State and local authorities to house illegal 

aliens under the SCAAP program in certain instances. But if it’s 

Federal enforcement and Federal authorities have the responsibility to carry out the job, your State and local entities shouldn’t 

be allowed to go off on their own and create their own law by refusing to enforce ICE detainers or refusing to cooperate with ICE. It’s 

been very problematic in the past, particularly when you think 

about the jail environment and you think about what ICE has tried 

to do with Secure Communities. When ICE doesn’t have the cooperation from an entity like the difficulties ICE had with Cook 

County, for example, makes it very, very hard to rid the streets of 

individuals who not only came here illegally or are now here illegally, but also committed serious crimes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. Thank you all. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. 

I begin by noting, Members of the Committee, that we have 

joined as our guests this afternoon the United We Dream, the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the country, made up of 52 

affiliate organizations in 25 States that are here to learn about 

what we’re doing and to bear witness to their concern and desire 

to see that we get the best legislation on immigration that we possibly can. And if I may, I’d like them to just stand up for a moment. All the people in United We Dream. 

Okay. Thank you very much. You may sit down. 
73 

We have got some big problems here. We have one witness that 

is a veteran, but unrelentingly opposed to Senate bill 744. We have 

the former leader of ICE, who has put forward some very important criticisms of 744 in which it might be improved. And we have 

a third witness who supports S. 744. What concerns me is that 

sometimes when you’re comparing what it was like in 1986 with 

where we are in 2013, you know, looking back sometimes you always don’t get it perfectly right. Nobody’s perfect. 

But, Ms. Woods, there have been a lot that’s gone on in that period of time, and no one would recognize that I think more importantly or accurately than you. Increased resources, agents, aircraft, 

build fencing, border enforcement, which we all know was a tragedy. And so we’re trying to design an immigration system that provides a viable legal way for immigrants to come to this country. We 

want a path. And at the same time we need to combat the people 

that would illegally come in, the drug smugglers, the weapons traffickers, and all. 

Do you think we’re on the right track here and with our discussions today and others that we might be able to come out of this 

holding our heads up, saying that we took the lessons of 1986 and 

instead of trying to trash the past and glorify the future, maybe 

there’s something that people can seriously, in a bipartisan way, 

come forward with something that we’ll all be able to acknowledge 

as a good faith effort. 

Ms. WOOD. Yes. I definitely think we are on the right track. I 

think there are places where important improvements should be 

made and that we have an obligation to think about those so in 

2020 we’re not looking back and say, what did we do here, this is 

not an enforceable thing, we have a problem from a national security perspective. But I think because of the long-term problems 

we’ve had with immigration, we’ve got to look at reforming and 

changing our system. And so I’m very encouraged that all of Congress is thinking about how can we do that and how can we do that 

smartly. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

I just wanted, Mr. Aguilar, if he can, to add his experience. 

You’ve been a career government employee in ICE. Do you think 

we can get this thing together? Do you see that there is hope to 

develop a pathway? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I do. I support this, with criticism and critiques 

that I’ve outlined in my testimony. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, you have. 

Mr. AGUILAR. We need to fix some of the problems that have 

been articulated here today, because if we don’t, we may end up 

with a situation like IRCA. But the support that I give is specifically to border security. If we can reduce the flow of illegal aliens 

coming into this country, we can redirect the tremendous resource 

capability that we have against the other threats, vulnerabilities, 

and risks that are very much real on today’s border. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar. 

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for 5 minutes. 
74 

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

I think all of us here, and I certainly subscribe to that, say that 

our current immigration system is broke. And I think we have to 

look at both the legal immigration and the illegal immigration part 

to figure out how to fix it and fix it in the best way possible. 

I certainly salute the people who have been working on this. This 

is a minefield, and as the person who tried to do this last, in 2005 

and 2006 and 2007, let me say that this isn’t easy and it probably 

is the most difficult thing that the Congress will have to face because there are so many conflicting interests involved. 

The Chairman in his opening statement referred to the select 

commission that was appointed by President Carter in 1979 and 

was headed by Father Theodore Hesburgh, who at that time was 

the president of Notre Dame University and is being honored here 

this week, on his 96th birthday. Father Hesburgh was an admitted 

liberal. He still is and will tell you that. And his commission came 

up with a recommendation that basically said that we have to control the border and we have to enforce employer sanctions. And, 

significantly, he said that they should not—or Congress should not 

have any form of legalization or amnesty until the border control 

and the employer sanctions were in place, lest that bring about an 

increase in illegal immigration in the country. 

Well, Congress ignored the select committee’s recommendations, 

passed IRCA. Father Hesburgh was right and Ronald Reagan was 

wrong, because we had about 3.5 million illegal immigrants in the 

country then and now we have about 11 million illegal immigrants. 

The fear that I have is that unless we effectively control illegal 

immigration now, we will be slowly closing the door to legal immigration, because if one can become a citizen of the United States 

after breaking our laws quicker than jumping through all of the 

hoops both before their entry and after they’re here to be able to 

be naturalized as a United States citizen, who’s going to bother 

obeying the laws and filing applications for an immigrant visa at 

our embassies and consulates overseas. And that will mean that we 

repeat the mistake of IRCA and probably compound it even more. 

I think this is our last best chance to get it right, and we better 

get it right this time, otherwise we are going to have a system that 

is even worse and a problem that is even bigger than what we have 

today. 

Now, my question is, looking at Senate bill 744, what three 

changes do you think are necessary to make sure that the mistake 

of IRCA is not repeated? And in what order priority would you suggest these changes? 

And we’ll start with Mrs. Wood. 

Ms. WOOD. Thank you. And I certainly agree that we’ve got to 

address this now in order to avoid repeating the problems. 

I think first I would deal with the employer verification section. 

Five to 7 years is too long for all employees to have to go through 

the system. And the inability to verify an existing workforce is 

going to create an uncleared workforce. And so there’s going to be 

a lot of illegal migration and problems with that workforce. And so 

I think that needs to be addressed and fixed. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, it would make the existing workforce 

effectively indentured servants. 
75 

Ms. WOOD. That’s exactly right. And unscrupulous employers 

could take advantage of those individuals, you know, pay them substandard wages or treat them poorly. It’s problematic for a whole 

host of reasons. 

Second, I think the government’s really got to address the identity theft issue more strongly and more effectively, kind of from day 

one, to give the employer some tools. And if they’re not going to 

give the employers tools, at least take away the provision in 744 

that appears to prohibit employers from using some of the manual 

and automated tools that they are currently using. I think that’s 

a big problem for companies who are really trying to wrestle with 

how does a good faith exception apply to us if we repeatedly have 

people that evade the existing E-Verify system. So I would focus a 

lot of effort on that. 

I think the second thing is resources. Make sure that interior enforcement has enough resources and that the court system has 

enough resources. If it were me, I’d revamp the whole immigration 

court system. That may not be realistic. You know, we’re biting off 

an awful lot. But, you know, kind of look at that. 

And then third, make sure national security equities are protected. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

I think my time has expired. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Prior to IRCA, we had a largely unenforced border. We had 

something like 2,100 border enforcement people for the entire border. We made very little attempt to enforce the border crossings. 

And yet in the 22 years between the end of the Bracero program 

in 1964 and IRCA in 1986, it’s estimated that 28 million people 

from Mexico entered the U.S. and 23.4 million returned to Mexico, 

that there was a, in a largely unenforced border and no law preventing U.S. Employers from hiring undocumented individuals, 

there was a circular migration pattern and very little net migration, illegal migration to the United States. 

But this began to change in 1986. And some people have observed that once we started really enforcing the border and people 

no longer felt free to come and go, people came here, stayed, and 

brought their family because they were afraid to try to go home 

and then to try to come back again. And the median stay of undocumented Mexicans before 1986 was 2.6 years; by 1988 it had 

risen to 6.6 years. 

This seems to say that border enforcement spending all that 

money simply got us a lot more net illegal immigration. Would you 

comment on that? Ms. Wood, then Mr. Aguilar. 

Ms. WOOD. I’m not familiar with that, those particular statistics. 

But I think, you know, we have to look at are there unintended 

consequences, like you said, and would this bill create any unintended consequences, kind of we’re not happy with. And if we have 

a workable program where temporary workers can come in, where 

supply meets demand, then hopefully we won’t see those things. 
76 

I will say, as head of ICE, we did see seasonal shifts in migration. So there were a lot of people that were, you know, coming in 

and going back home. So we did see that sort of activity as well—— 

Mr. NADLER. And less after IRCA or no big change from IRCA 

or 

Ms. WOOD. I wasn’t there in 1986, so this was more recent. But 

maybe—— 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Aguilar? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I’m a little older than Ms. Wood, so I was there. 

What you just described so adequately, Congressman, are the results of a broken immigration system. We added border enforcement. We should have added that. What we didn’t add was interior 

enforcement. What we didn’t add was strong employer sanctions. 

What we didn’t add was strong employer verification capabilities. 

And we didn’t add the follow-up capabilities of the illegal population in the country. When you add one piece of what is required, 

those are the results. 

Mr. NADLER. And do you think S. 744, whatever the number is 

of the Senate bill, does a reasonable job of integrating these different pieces? 

Mr. AGUILAR. It does a reasonable job. There are some critiques 

and criticisms that we have. You’ve heard some of them already. 

But this is first time that we actually get a comprehensive piece 

of legislation that addresses what I believe all of us think are 

foundational to a good immigration system. 

Mr. NADLER. And so you think that with the increased border enforcement that we’ve been doing and will continue to do, and with 

the E-Verification system and the verification here, and with trying 

to match employee needs and employment, that is, needs for employees and available workers, we should have a balanced system 

where we can in fact enforce the law? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. If we do this right, yes, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. So this would be very different from IRCA then. 

The lesson to learn from IRCA is not to do a one-sided enforcement 

law without also dealing adequately with the employment needs. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. It should be comprehensive. It should be holistic to the degree possible, as quickly as possible, in order to go 

ahead and get this system in place. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. 

Now, Ms. Wood, in your testimony you make one caveat that I 

think is fairly striking. You say in a footnote that you will not address the enforcement triggers in the Senate bill but rather focus 

on how the bill will work if enacted. But those enforcement triggers 

are presumably in the bill for a reason and designed to help answer 

criticisms of the 1986 law. 

Don’t you think that by including enforcement triggers tied to 

the registration of the undocumented and the ability of provisional 

immigrants to obtain green cards, the Senate bill guarantees that 

certain specific enforcement provisions will in fact take place? 

Ms. WOOD. I think that there are some, you know, limitations on 

the triggers and some qualifications on the triggers. I didn’t address those because I think reform needs to happen regardless of 

those triggers and that we need to look at our system regardless 
77 

of those triggers, but, you know, if I were to go through those, I 

think they could be stronger, that the Secretary should have more 

requirements, that we shouldn’t allow litigation to keep agencies 

from doing things, et cetera. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. And my last question is, you begin your testimony by saying that IRCA’s two-pronged approach of legalization 

and employer sanctions failed to stop the tide of unauthorized employment. That’s obviously true. But the main reason for that, as 

Mr. Aguilar and I discussed a moment ago, is that IRCA did not 

include additional necessary prongs. IRCA set up two seasonal 

guest worker programs that are proving to be problematic and did 

nothing to reform our laws to provide a viable way for people to 

come to the country to fill needed nonseasonal, lower-skilled jobs, 

and did nothing to help families reunify. 

So if the reason IRCA failed isn’t because its enforcement provisions weren’t tough enough, but rather because the immigration 

system it left behind didn’t work any better than the system that 

existed before the bill was enacted into law, isn’t that our main 

charge today, to design an immigration system that works so well 

that families, businesses, and people in search of work are encouraged to go through the system rather than around it? 

Ms. WOOD. We definitely want to encourage people to go through 

the system rather than around it. I do think that some of the enforcement provisions in IRCA did fail and I think they weren’t 

strong enough, they weren’t resourced enough. So I think it’s more 

than just the demand side. I think it was also the enforcement side 

where there was good language but there was not a lot of followup. 

Mr. NADLER. I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me address my first question to all of our witnesses here 

today, and it is this. I believe that I have read the relevant provisions of the Senate immigration bill, and in regard to border enforcement, and I cannot find any deadline by which the border is 

to be secured. 

And my question, Mr. Aguilar, we’ll start with you, if you will, 

is there any year by which we can tell the American people that 

the border will be secured under the terms of the Senate immigration bill? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I think the first challenge that we have, Congressman, and I believe you and I have discussed this before, is the definition of ‘‘secure.’’ Secure right now holds—— 

Mr. SMITH. Beyond the definition of ‘‘secure,’’ let’s just assume 

that we agree on that. Is there any year by which, under the provisions of the immigration bill, that the border will be secure under 

any definition? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Let me describe what would, I think, get us to a 

position of acceptance at the border. 

Mr. SMITH. No, no, and I understand that. With all respect, I understand what the bill said. But is there any year by which the 

American people can be assured that the border, in fact, will be—— 
78 

Mr. AGUILAR. Not within the bill, not right now, no, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. None that I’m aware of, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

And Ms. Wood? 

Ms. WOOD. None that I’m aware of either. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. In that case, why aren’t we setting ourselves 

up for the same problems we had with the 1986 bill if we aren’t 

able to assure the American people that we are going to secure the 

border by a time certain? 

And let me reverse the order. Ms. Wood? 

Ms. WOOD. For the hard one, you turned over. I think—— 

Mr. SMITH. If we don’t have a secure border and there is no guarantee that we will ever have it, why are we repeating the same 

problem we had from 1986? 

Ms. WOOD. The reason I believe we need to address immigration 

and fix it right now is because there is not enough resources. So 

some of the things I think the bill does address and should address 

in a different way to get toe security of the border is an exit system. Have a real robust exit system. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand that, and I appreciated your answer a 

few minutes ago. 

Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Why are we setting ourselves up for the same problems if we can’t have a secure border—— 

Mr. CRANE. I think that’s exactly what we’re looking at. I mean, 

I think that there’s a complete lack of interior enforcement in this 

legislation. I don’t think there is any real triggers at the border. 

I don’t think this has been well thought through, and I think that 

that’s exactly where we’re headed with this legislation. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Let me go to another question because Mr. 

Sensenbrenner started the question. You all did not have a chance 

to respond, Mr. Crane and Mr. Aguilar. And that is this, and I am 

paraphrasing him: What provisions do we need in any immigration 

reform bill in order to avoid the problems of 1986? You all have 

given some partial responses to that, but if you were to give the 

top two or three provisions that we need in order the avoid the 

problems of 1986, what would those provisions be in an immigration reform bill? 

Mr. Crane first, and then we’ll go to Mr. Aguilar. 

Mr. CRANE. Okay. I think that first and foremost, like I said in 

my original testimony, that we need to take away as much discretion and authority away from political appointees. 

Mr. SMITH. And is that because we don’t have confidence in Administration officials or in the President to enforce immigration 

laws? 

Mr. CRANE. That’s absolutely correct. 

Mr. SMITH. What immigration laws has the Administration not 

enforced to date? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, quite a few, but, you know, one, for example, 

is public charges. Others being right now, illegal entry and visa 

overstay. You know, basically we have to establish that the person 
79 

has been convicted of multiple criminal offenses before we can even 

make an immigration arrest. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And, Mr. Aguilar, to go back to the original 

question, what provisions should we have in any immigration reform bill so that we could avoid the experience we had in 1986? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The top three would be continued border enforcement under this Senate bill. It’s the southwest border strategy and 

the fence strategy. Second would be a very, very strong and robust 

interior enforcement program. And thirdly, to the discretion piece, 

is to ensure that we’re doing everything we can at the border and 

in the interior to ensure the national security and public safety 

concerns are being addressed. 

Mr. SMITH. Now, as far as interior enforcement goes, isn’t it the 

case that this bill is actually weaker than current law when it 

comes to interior enforcement? And I’m thinking here of an entry/ 

exit system. The Senate bill only has that kind of an entry/exit system at airports and seaports, not land ports. Current law says land 

ports, which of course is where most of the illegal entries occur. So 

why wouldn’t this bill be even weaker than current law when it 

comes to interior enforcement? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The current bill, right now, asks for air and sea. 

Do we need the land exit? 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Which is current law. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Which is current law. 

Mr. SMITH. So this bill is weaker than current law? 

Mr. AGUILAR. And as the head of CBP, I can tell you that we 

went to everything that we could. It is literally impossible at this 

point in time. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand, but the question is, by definition—— 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, I would agree with that. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you all for your questions. 

Mr. Chairman, yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Crane, you talked about lack of enforcement. How do other 

Administrations compare in enforcement of immigration laws? 

Mr. CRANE. I could speak mainly, sir, to the Bush administration. 

Mr. SCOTT. Uh-huh. 

Mr. CRANE. And we did have some difficulties during the Bush 

administration, especially during the first 4 years. However, during 

the last 4 years of that Administration, they did pick up the pace. 

We did start getting resources, we did start getting more people, 

and we did have more flexibility to enforce the law, in particular 

in jails and prisons and things like that. 

Once this Administration came on board, there was pretty much 

an immediate stop to that, and we’ve kind of been on a roller coaster every day with regard to who we can and cannot enforce. And 

currently we can’t really do a whole lot in terms of interior enforcement. 
80 

Mr. SCOTT. What about deportations, how do they compare? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, obviously, deportations are higher and have 

continued to get higher year after year. 

Mr. SCOTT. Higher under this Administration? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, let me specify on this. First of all, the interior 

enforcement numbers, I’m going to tell you no, because ICE interior enforcement numbers have actually gone down. They’re taking 

border patrol arrests, turning them over to ICE, and then we’re removing them and counting those as ICE enforcement numbers 

when in the past both agencies were doing their own enforcement 

and our interior enforcement numbers were much higher. 

Now, anecdotally, I can also tell you, the last 4 years our officers 

are sitting around looking at each other saying we’re not able to 

go out and arrest anybody, what are we doing? We can’t even get 

prisoner transportflights to land in respective cities because we 

don’t have enough people to put them on there. So, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. So resources. What did sequester do to the Administration’s ability to enforce the law? 

Mr. CRANE. What did sequester do, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Mr. CRANE. Well, sequester up to this point for ICE I don’t think 

has had a really big effect. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Wood, what is the present law on employment 

verification and how does S. 744 change that? 

Ms. WOOD. Right now, and in fact it was required first under 

IRCA that employers have to use the form I-9. So anyone that is 

hired, you have to use a form I-9 for that. There is E-Verify, the 

former basic pilot system, which is not mandatory except for Federal contractors, and some are also required to use that if they are 

in a plea agreement or something with ICE. 

Under S. 744, it would phase in a mandatory system like EVerify over a period of 5 to 7 years for all employers, and then it 

would not allow those employers to use that system on their current workforce to E-Verify essentially existing workers. It would 

also limit the ability of employers to use anti-fraud tools. So some 

employers in high-risk workforces use some anti-fraud tools to prevent identity theft. This bill appears to prohibit that while—and 

those employers are worried that they could be subject to the enhanced criminal penalties under S. 744. 

Mr. SCOTT. Comments have been made about the fact that we 

don’t keep track of people when they’re in the country, when 

they’re coming and going. How much would an entry/exit software 

system cost, if you know? 

Ms. WOOD. I can’t give a precise number. Certainly it would be 

expensive to do that. Other countries do have regulated entry and 

exit systems, and it has been a requirement for, I think, 16 or 17 

years to have an exit system. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does anybody have an estimate on the cost of that? 

Can anybody make a comment about those who are here without 

documentation, how many got into the country legally and because 

they overstayed their visa or are no longer in school, so forth, are 

not presently legal? How many people got here legally but are now 

not? 
81 

Ms. WOOD. Some of the estimates are between kind of 30 and 40 

percent of all individuals who are not currently in the country legally. Initially came legally but then overstayed their visas. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that—— 

Mr. AGUILAR. That is correct. That’s the approximation. 

Ms. WOOD. But we don’t know. That’s the problem. That’s part 

of—yeah, that’s part of what we need to address. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Bachus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

Ms. Wood, you wrote an article on March 28th in the Washington 

Times. 

Ms. WOOD. Yes. 

Mr. BACHUS. And let me quote you: ‘‘The government’s purpose 

in detaining immigrants is not to punish them, but to ensure that 

they show up for hearings and comply with removal orders. In 

many cases, though, detention is not the best way to achieve these 

goals. Alternatives to detention are both routine and effective. 

They’re employed every day, not just in the immigration system, 

but in the criminal justice system of all 50 States and the Federal 

Government.’’ 

I also believe in that statement. Can you explain your views on 

the importance of alternatives to immigration detention and what 

are some of the examples? 

Ms. WOOD. Certainly. And let me say I do believe that there are 

some individuals that must be detained; otherwise, they won’t 

show up for their hearings or they pose a significant public safety 

threat. 

Mr. BACHUS. Right. 

Ms. WOOD. And so it’s important that ICE conduct an individualized assessment to see whether or not a particular individual 

should be detained or whether there are less restrictive means. 

For many of the individuals that come through the Secure Communities program, regardless of whether 236(c) was on the books, 

those would be individuals where detention would be appropriate. 

But for many others, alternatives, you know, could work very well. 

And the current alternative to the detention system, and I do assist 

the company that’s currently providing that, has had a lot of successes. And what we have seen is that immigrants who are in the 

alternative to detention system, they show up for their hearings, 

their final hearing 99 percent of the time. And they, if they’re ordered removed, they comply with that removal order 84 percent of 

time. If you compare to individuals who are not detained but not 

on any sort of system, you have about a 13 percent rate of compliance for those. 

So, there are really—I think there are a lot of tools that ICE has, 

everything from release on recognizance, to bonds, to alternatives 

working with the NGOs, to ICE-led initiatives, to detention, and I 

think it’s important that ICE look at all of those to see how could 

we be most effective in a cost-effective manner that when somebody 

is ordered removed, they actually comply with those orders. 
82 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. You have concerns with the Senate bill, 

but I believe I also heard you say that the enforcement provisions, 

and the interior enforcement, particularly, would be stronger than 

what existed in the 1986 legislation. Is that correct? I mean, I 

know we’ve been comparing the Senate bill to the 1986 bill, and I 

see a lot of differences in those two pieces of legislation. 

Ms. WOOD. I mean, certainly there are some portions which are 

stronger than 1986. For example, the requirement at some point 

that all employers go through E-Verify, that wasn’t around, you 

know, back in 1986, so that is an area that’s strengthened. 

I do think that the bill needs a good law enforcement red line, 

to go through and see are there unintended consequences, are there 

tweaks where words were added in or added out that might really 

affect ICE’s ability to enforce law enforcement equities when needed. 

Mr. BACHUS. So, Mr. Aguilar, the Tucson area of the border, 

you’ve made tremendous strides in security there. I think you are 

up to about 85 percent, or 80, 85 percent enforcement. And I think 

the problems are more El Paso and other parts of the border. How 

easily is it to obtain your enforcement level that you obtained along 

the border in Tucson with those other areas? 

Mr. AGUILAR. It is attainable by adding the right type of the requirements and needs that we have. In the case of Tucson, it was 

additional personnel, infrastructure, accessibility to the border, and 

technology. We have done that in Tucson and it’s worked very well. 

By the way, we did that in Yuma also, and Yuma is actually in better shape than Tucson. 

Mr. BACHUS. That’s right. I noticed it, and I want to compliment 

you because, I mean, you know, we talk about an open border, and 

certainly I don’t think that describes Yuma or Tucson. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Correct. 

Mr. BACHUS. So I see my time has expired. Let me say, I don’t 

think President Reagan made a mistake when he allowed the 3 

million immigrants who were here to obtain legal status. In fact, 

I think they’ve been great contributors to our economy, and he said 

these families came to work, they came to build, they believed in 

America, and I think they’ve made America better. And I think the 

same thing can be true of the vast, vast majority of immigrants 

today, and I hope we won’t lose sight of that and say in any way 

that Ronald Reagan was mistaken to believe in the value of immigration or the value of these 3 million now Americans that contribute and their families. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Bachus. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for 

his question. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I served as the Ranking Member of the Immigration 

Subcommittee for one term in this Congress and the one thing I 

learned more than anything else is that the devil is in the details 

of this. And so I think the Committee would probably be better 

served and I would be better served to have the people who have 

been really working on this issue have the opportunity to ask more 
83 

questions. So I’m going to yield my time to Mr. Gutierrez rather 

than ask questions that other people may have already asked. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Congressman Watt. 

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Crane. As part of the solution to our broken immigration system, do you believe that we 

should give a pathway to legalization to the 11 million undocumented workers that currently exist in the United States, and do 

you believe that that would help with enforcement issues here in 

the United States. 

Mr. CRANE. Well, sir, first, like I said in my original testimony, 

that’s something we do not weigh in on. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That you don’t weigh in on. I guess a plumber 

wouldn’t weigh in on stopping leaks either. I guess that would 

be—— 

Mr. CRANE. I’m sorry? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So you don’t have a—— 

Mr. CRANE. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. You don’t have a position? You have 

an enforcement position but you don’t have a position on whether 

or not we can allow 11 million people to legalize in the United 

States? You don’t think that that helps to solve the problem of enforcement? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, respectfully, sir, what we’re trying to do is let 

America and let lawmakers craft what type of, you know, system 

we’re going to have in the future, whether legalization—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me ask Ms. Wood that. Do you think—— 

Mr. CRANE. Sir, could I—okay. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Do you think that legalizing 11 million people 

that currently live in the United States would help to secure America? 

Ms. WOOD. So long as we do that properly and we go through an 

appropriate process, yes, I do. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Aguilar, do you believe that legalizing would help the Border 

Patrol that you used to head secure the border, legalizing the 11 

million that are currently here, make America a safer place for us? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Doing it in the right way and the right 11 million 

people, yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Great. You know what, I really like the right 11 

million people, because I think the vast majority of those that are 

undocumented in this country need an opportunity and are the 

right kind of people that America needs and that they are working 

very, very hard. 

I just want to say that, to my colleagues, I’ve introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation with then Congressman Flake, now 

Senator Flake, and Kennedy and McCain, and I assure you, if you 

go back to that bill, it was about 700 pages, and all I got criticism 

was about the first 400 pages. They said, oh, Luis, how could you, 

an advocate of immigrants, ever want an E-Verification system, 

how could you want more Border Patrol agents, how could you 

want more entry and exit? Look at the book? It is very much, how 

could you put triggers that if these things are not accomplished, 

those that you care most about, the undocumented workers in this 

country, don’t ever achieve American citizenship? 
84 

You want to know why? Because I detest the system, the broken 

immigration system, and I want to work with the other side of the 

aisle to fix that broken immigration system, because I think—in 

your former job, I mean, we hear about the sexual exploitation that 

exists in the armed services of our women. Did you ever come 

across evidence, as I have, as I’ve visited the fields in Salinas or 

I’ve gone to apple groves in Washington State or citrus farms in 

California or even Postville where I interviewed many women who 

talked about the sexual exploitation that they were submitted to 

day in and day out, did you ever come across that information? 

Ms. WOOD. Certainly ICE pursued a number of human trafficking and sex trafficking cases, and, you know, is very concerned 

about that and supporting appropriate visa program for those individuals. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And isn’t sexual exploitation of undocumented 

women and our broken immigration system a stain on our society 

that we are allowing that to continue to happen? 

Ms. WOOD. I mean, all kinds of exploitation is a stain on our system. It means that we should move forward in a positive manner. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because when we do separate—Ms. Wood, would 

you agree we do separate American citizen children from their parents, that there are millions of American citizen children whose 

parents are undocumented, and when they are picked up and deported they leave behind their American citizen children? 

Ms. WOOD. Obviously they can make the decision to take those 

kids with them. But those are all the reasons why the current system—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I just wanted to make sure that somebody from 

your position that was invited by the majority, would you just 

agree that this is what happened? So we agree that there are millions of American citizen children who shouldn’t wake up every day 

to fear an ICE agent knocking on their door and being snatched 

from their parent’s arms, but it happens. 

And I just want to conclude by saying, to say that it immediately 

stopped when this Administration. This Administration has deported 400,000 people a year at a record pace each and every year 

during the last 4 years. It has a voracious appetite for deportations. 

And you know what? I want to end that, but I want to end it in 

a smart, effective way, and we will give you the smart tools of enforcement in order to get that done. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. SMITH. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. 

Gutierrez. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

First of all, I am not going to criticize the authors of these 867 

pages, which I have in the past attempted to read and reread. My 

background is prosecution and law enforcement, but I taught a little bit, and I always told my students, the most difficult thing to 

do is first draft of whatever you’re writing. It’s real easy for someone else to edit it after it’s written because all the work, the brain 

power has gone into getting something on paper, so I commend my 

colleagues. 
85 

However, with that being said, I think we need to go back 

through this document, both sides of the aisle, converse more between the Senate and the House, and I’m sure that we will be able 

to edit, refine, and address issues that each one of you brought up. 

I think that’s critically important, to address the issues that you 

brought up. 

So if I may ask again, and these questions were asked in different ways, but if each one of you could specifically suggest on 

what we could do to improve this new legislation but yet at the 

same time holding those responsible that are here illegally on how 

to address that. Do you understand my question, Ms. Wood? 

Ms. WOOD. I believe so. What would I do to change the bill while 

holding those responsible? 

Mr. MARINO. Yes. 

Ms. WOOD. I would require in-person interviews, limit confidentiality, and have consequences for not telling the truth for those 

who go through the system, and then allow law enforcement to use 

that information as we look at further legalizations or adjustments. 

So that would be one thing. 

Second thing would be to develop a biometric exit system which 

would help people—hold them accountable by making sure we 

know who is going in and out, and have it also affect the land borders, not just sea and water. And third would be really to fix the 

employment verification. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Crane, please? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, sir, kind of on your first comments, I’d just like 

to say a lot of our frustration, I think, on the law enforcement end 

comes into play because of the way this is being handled by the 

gang of eight, the way it’s being shoved through so fast. 

You know, this has been going on for a while. We’ve got a little 

bit of time. We need to get this right. I think an important part 

of that is we need to bring law enforcement in, people that actually 

do this job out in the field, and take a look what’s working now and 

what’s not working. 

Mr. MARINO. Let me stop you right there. I agree with you 100 

percent. In my past life in industry, I brought in the frontline people when we sat down to build a factory, per se, and got not only 

input from the architects and engineers, but from the people who 

were going to work that line and produce a product. I agree with 

you. We absolutely have to bring in the frontline officers. We have 

to interview as many as we possibly can. We have to get your 

thoughts down in this process. 

Now, I don’t know how much that was done, but if it were done 

at all, I suggest that we do it even more intently and take our time 

on these documents. 

Now, there was an issue, I agree with my colleague on the other 

side of the aisle concerning what do we do with the children. That’s 

not only a factual issue but an emotional issue that we need to deal 

with. But would you please explain again, you brought up a little 

bit in detail on what has been referred to in the media about this 

Administration cooking the books on those that they’ve sent back. 

And my colleague, my friend on the other side said, you know, 

there were astronomical numbers. Again, would you explain how 

you perceive those numbers to be inflated? 
86 

Mr. CRANE. Basically, the information we have has come from a 

lawsuit. It’s information that we never had before. And those numbers indicate that basically Border Patrol apprehensions, people 

that initially would have just been turned back, voluntary returns, 

are being taken into custody, turned over to ICE, then ICE is, you 

know, moving them down the border and doing a deportation. So 

previously more and more of those numbers would have been ICE 

internal arrests and deportations. 

Mr. MARINO. Is it correct to say that you could have sent them 

back across right then and there? 

Mr. CRANE. It’s correct to say that the Border Patrol—— 

Mr. MARINO. Border Patrol. 

Mr. CRANE [continuing]. Could have sent them back in most, if 

not all of those cases instead of turning them over to ICE. 

Mr. MARINO. Ms. Wood, I see you shaking your head. Do you 

agree with that? 

Ms. WOOD. It is my understanding that that is what occurred. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. 

Ms. WOOD. You know, they may have thought there was an enforcement reason. Perhaps in their view it was a deterrent effect 

to transfer these individuals over into ICE custody. But it was a 

change in prior practice and it did affect, you know, approximately 

20,000 removals a year. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. 

Mr. Aguilar, I see my time has expired, but quickly please? 

Mr. AGUILAR. All right. As a prosecutor, sir, you know the consequences are absolutely critical for any actions illegally done. 

What Mr. Crane just described is historically the Border Patrol 

would in fact apprehend and just turn right back, the so-called revolving door. 

Mr. MARINO. Yeah. 

Mr. AGUILAR. We implemented a consequence delivery system 

that basically for every apprehension, because we finally had the 

capability because of the lower numbers, to take each individual 

alien apprehended and take a look at what consequence should be 

applied in order to have an impact, a negative impact on that person crossing back across the country. In the past, we could have 

turned them back, but placing them through formal deportation, 

detaining them in front of a judge, sending them back, that process, we found, has a dramatic impact of consequences on those 

aliens. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. I see my time has expired, but all three of 

you, do you mind if my office tries to set up a meeting between individually the three of you because I find your testimony to be extraordinary and I am very interested in you educating me further 

on this. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir 

Ms. WOOD. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Marino. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And to all three of our witnesses, thank you for your testimony. 
87 

I am mindful that there are lessons to be learned from the 1986 

act. Those who criticized the enforcement efforts were right, both 

in terms of employment-based. I think Mr. Aguilar’s testified quite 

powerfully about, you know, the amount of efforts made, you know, 

and the kind of equipment they have and the numbers of personnel. But I think there is another element, which is, yes, there 

were 3 million people legalized, but there was really no effective 

provision for people to come in very well in the future. 

The H-2A and the H-2B program have been very roundly criticized both from employers and labor unions, both sides hate them. 

I’m mindful that they haven’t really worked all that well in some 

case. And I guess, you know, I’m thinking about a number of years 

ago when I chaired this Subcommittee and we had Dr. Richard 

Land from the Southern Baptist Convention as a witness, and I always mention that because I don’t want to steal his line, but he 

said for years and years that we had two signs at the southern border. And Dr. Land said one sign says ‘‘no trespassing,’’ and the 

other sign says ‘‘help wanted.’’ 

And, you know, when you look at it, we have 5,000 permanent 

resident visas a year for so-called unskilled. I think of it as noncollege-educated employees. And we’ve got 2 million migrant farm 

workers. So clearly we did not set up a system to meet America’s 

economic needs. 

And also, you know, there is backlogs in some cases of husbands 

and wives of legal residents being separated for half a decade, you 

know, and so that may have also—I’m not condoning not living 

within the law, but you know, families trying to get together. 

That’s a human phenomena. 

We’ve had, since that time, tremendous increases in enforcement. 

I note that the year I took office, 1995, ICE detained 85,730 people. 

In the year 2011, they detained 429,247. So I mean, that’s a dramatic change. 

Here’s my question to you, Mr. Aguilar. I’ve always admired you. 

I mean, you started on the line and you worked your way up all 

the way to the top of the agency, so you’ve seen it from every which 

way. Here is the question. If you could do only one of these two 

things today, further increase resources, add agents, aircrafts, fencing, towers, sensors, or design an immigration system that provides 

a viable legal way for immigrants to come to the country to fill 

needed jobs or to reunite with their loved ones, which alternative 

do you think would have the greatest impact in reducing unauthorized entry into the United States? 

Mr. AGUILAR. At this point in time—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

Mr. AGUILAR.—I think the latter, and the reason for it is because 

it would redirect the illegal entry of people looking for jobs through 

the ports of entry; therefore, relieve the responsibility of Border Patrol agents having to deal with, in the case of last year, 356,000 

interdictions. It could then be redirected to the other threats. 

Now, we will still deal with criminal aliens, we will still deal 

with criminal organizations and all of the other things that we 

spoke about. But I truly believe that by reducing that flow of illegal 

people into this country, it would be one of the biggest force multipliers that the United States Border Patrol could receive today. 
88 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, luckily we don’t have that choice before us 

because we can do both. We can improve our system so it meets 

the needs of the American economy and American families, but we 

also can do more on enforcement, both in the workplace, we’ve 

talked about the E-Verify system, also additional steps. I am mindful that just last week the Homeland Security Committee, which 

has jurisdiction actually over the border, not this Committee, reported a bill, a bipartisan bill, it was authored by Chairman 

McCaul, and it actually passed by voice vote. I mean, it was a 

unanimous vote of a Committee I served on for 10 years. Believe 

me, there were some knock-down, drag-out fights in that Committee, but they were able to agree on that, which I think is quite 

a credit to them. 

So I think that we are moving in a direction to do all of the aspects that we need to do: securing the border, enforcing in the interior, remedying the system. You know, I read the Senate bill twice. 

It’s one of the values of living in California and having a 6-hour 

flight every few days, put it on my little iPad and read it. I am not 

saying that this is necessarily everything, you know. But compared 

to our current situation, it’s an honest effort to move forward. And 

we need to work together, I think, on this side of the building, in 

the House, to try and do a similar effort. And I thank you very 

much for your testimony. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amodei, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, in studying this I have spoken with folks from around 

the country and stuff like that, and I’d like you to respond to a 

theme that I keep hearing. We talk about reform, and I don’t think 

anybody is opposed to it. I mean, you call it a broken system or 

whatever. So we’ll skip all that. 

Talking about border security, and the statement is this. It 

doesn’t matter what your interior policies are if you don’t have effective operational control over who crosses your border. So when 

you talk about the order of things in terms of securing the border, 

not sealing but whatever securing the border means, I’d like you 

to respond to, what difference does it make what your interior policies are if you have no control over people coming into your country? 

Ms. Wood? 

Ms. WOOD. Well, because, you know, approximately 40 percent of 

the people who are now in the country illegally came in legally, it’s 

important to have interior enforcement and a good, robust exit system. If we have the best control of our physical border but we’re 

not paying attention to the third border, those who come in on 

visas and overstay, we’re going to continue to have a significant 

problem, a potential significant underclass of unauthorized workers. 

Mr. AMODEI. Okay. 

Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. Sir, I think, you know, Congresswoman Lofgren 

brought up the story about the help wanted sign down at the bor-
89 

der, and I think we have to take that sign down, and I think the 

way that we do that is we start with interior enforcement, that we, 

you know, put laws in effect that, you know, employers say, hey, 

you know what, there may not be that many ICE agents out there 

but it’s just not worth it to me to take the chance, I’m not going 

to gamble with this, you know. And we start shutting down and 

taking down that help wanted sign, and I think it’s a critical part 

to border security. 

Mr. AMODEI. Okay. 

Mr. Aguilar? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Sir, that help wanted sign, that draw of labor, our 

economy is on the upswing right now as we speak, thankfully. That 

is going to create a bigger help wanted sign. The resources that we 

have on the border right now can do so much. If the draw continues to grow, there will come a point where even these resources 

could be overwhelmed. 

Now, overwhelmed on the land border, I feel confident in saying 

the following: We are pretty strong there, we are very strong there, 

but we’re going to see them coming across the littorals where we 

are not strong, we haven’t gotten there yet. 

Mr. AMODEI. Okay. 

Mr. AGUILAR. So that draw, that help sign has to go away. That 

help for illegal labor has to go away. 

Mr. AMODEI. Ms. Wood, ATD system, once you’re inside, presently is that working, in your experience? 

Ms. WOOD. The alternative to detention system? 

Mr. AMODEI. Yeah. In terms of tracking people that are—— 

Ms. WOOD. In terms of tracking people, yes. It tracks people 

through the system. It makes sure that they show up for their 

court appearances. And at the end of the day it works with them 

to get travel documents and help them go home. 

Not everybody is appropriate for it. You know, there are some individuals who are better suited for detention or in fact release on 

recognizance. But again, it is a system, for its population, I think 

it’s working pretty well. 

Mr. AMODEI. Do you think in going forward, in trying to craft a 

new policy, there ought to be a role for that? 

Ms. WOOD. I’m sorry, I couldn’t quite hear you. 

Mr. AMODEI. Do you think in going forward and crafting a new 

interior policy, that there ought to be a role for that to continue in 

any new legislation? 

Ms. WOOD. You know, absolutely I think should be a role for alternatives. S. 744 talks about alternatives to detention. I think it’s 

very important that there be an ability for all entities to compete 

for contracts for that. But, yes, there certainly should be a role for 

alternative to detention, as well as all the other tools ICE has. You 

know, one thing that ICE could do and hasn’t done is look at reforming the bond system or reforming other sorts of systems. You 

know, a lot has changed since 1986, how can we use new technology to make sure people show up, and if they’re ordered remove, 

that they go home. 

Mr. AMODEI. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to yield the remainder of my time to the 

gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador. 
90 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to thank first Ms. Lofgren for acknowledging that we 

actually have to learn some lessons from 1986. I’ve been a little bit 

dumbfounded hearing some of the people on the other side saying 

that we shouldn’t take an overly critically examination of the 1986 

law. I think that’s the only thing we should be doing here, is taking 

a critical examination of the 1986 law, because if we repeat the 

mistakes of 1986, we are going to have 11 million to 20 million illegal people in the United States in the next 20 years. 

Now, Ms. Wood, can you explain a little bit? I am a little bit— 

I am not understanding what the Senate did with E-Verify. It 

seems like we have been trying to fix E-Verify, make it applicable 

to all employers, and now my understanding is that the Senate bill 

actually changes E-Verify completely and it starts a whole new program. 

Ms. WOOD. The Senate bill says that it changes E-Verify and it’s 

starting to develop a whole new system. And, in fact, it has a provision that even says it repeals E-Verify in the current system. If you 

talk to folks up there and you talk to the drafters, they say that’s 

actually a drafting issue. We really aren’t going to toss all that out. 

We’re going to actually encourage USCIS and the government to 

use E-Verify. 

Now, if you ask them, does the bill require you to use the existing system or could any Administration decide we don’t like that, 

we’re going to create something new, they say, well, they could do 

that. So I think that the language in S. 744 is modeled on the current system by having individuals attest, similar to section 1 of the 

I-9, employers attest, similar to section 2 of the I-9, although it includes some documents that are not currently permitted and are 

problematic, and that includes an employment verification requirement. 

Ways that it differs from the current system or what’s proposed 

in House bill 1772 is there’s a very long lead-in time to use the system. It’s, you know, from 5 to 7 years. That definitely can create 

an unclear class of workers, people that can be taken advantage of, 

and you’re going to have a lot of problems with fraud in that workforce. 

It also really beefs up the special counsel provisions in terms of 

reducing the ability of employers to take any other steps to prevent 

problems. So right now there are some employers, like some in the 

meat packing industry and other industries, that go through EVerify but still have a big problem with identity theft because EVerify doesn’t solve that. So they use other tools, either manual 

tools or automated tools to address it. There is some concern that 

language in the Senate bill that expands the Office of Special 

Counsel will reduce their ability to do that, and that’s critical for 

them. 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Labrador. 

And we will go now to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson 

Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, the Chair and Ranking 

Member of this Committee, for holding an important hearing. 
91 

And, Mr. Aguilar, it is good to see you again. Thank you so very 

much for your service. I think we’ve worked some long years together and thank you for your service. 

Let me just at least put on the record my statement of the existence of a bipartisan border security bill, H.R. 1417. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on 

Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 

Thank you, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Chairwoman 

Miller and distinguished Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased that the Committee on Homeland Security is meeting today to mark 

up H.R. 1417, the ‘‘Border Security Results Act of 2013,’’ which is an example on 

what can be achieved when Members of Congress reach across the aisle to find common ground and commonsense solutions to America’s border security challenges. 

I believe in the years to come we will look back on today’s action as a pivotal moment in the ultimately successful effort to secure America’s borders in a manner 

consistent with our national values. 

I am proud to have introduced this bill with my colleague from Texas, Chairman 

McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson and the Chair of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, Mrs. Miller. 

I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work and bipartisan cooperation of 

our dedicated staff: Alison Northrop, Shashrina Thomas, Paul Anstine and Steven 

Giaier. Thank you! 

As Ranking Member of the Border and Maritime Subcommittee, ensuring that we 

have the resources, the technology, the personnel—and sound plans and policies— 

to secure our nation’s borders has been one of my major legislative priorities. 

That is why I am so please to have worked with all my in a bipartisan manner 

to craft the measure before us today which enable DHS to develop and implement 

a sound border security strategy and the metrics to measure its effectiveness. 

I am particularly pleased that the measure approved at the subcommittee markup 

incorporated in the base text several of my proposals and that the ANS before us 

reflects three amendments I offered during the subcommittee markup, including: 

1. An amendment providing that the border security strategy required under 

the bill include input from State, local, and tribal law enforcement as well 

as border community stakeholders, including ranchers and local chambers of 

commerce; 

2. An amendment requiring DHS to collaborate with a DHS National Lab and 

DHS Centers of Excellence in the development of the metrics required under 

the bill; and 

3. An amendment requiring that border security strategy efforts to increase 

‘‘situational awareness’’ not infringe or abridge privacy, civil liberties, and 

civil rights protections. 

I also appreciate that the ANS incorporates my suggestion that DHS be required 

to develop the capability to ‘‘forecast’’ trends in border traffic and movements, which 

is a more reasonable and attainable standard than requiring it to predict those 

movements with certainty. 

I also look forward to discussing the amendments I will offer later during this 

markup, including one that I am so proud to have worked on so closely with Mrs. 

Miller, my subcommittee chair. 

Mr. Chairman, the reasons we have put in so much effort in making this legislation the best it can be is because we understand that Americans are entitled to expect that their country has secure and safe borders and that it has operational control over who enters and what they bring with them. 

The action the Committee will take today in favorably reporting this bill will lay 

the foundation for our colleagues in the Senate as it helps to complete the essential 

task of providing the guidance needed for federal law enforcement officials to 

achieve their mission and improve their ability to collaborate with state, local, and 

tribal law enforcement. 

The resources made available through this legislation will build upon our successful efforts to protect communities along the Southwest border and across the country. 
92 

As I have said many times, those of us who believe that America is the greatest 

nation on earth because of its cultural diversity have a special obligation to ensure 

the security of our borders so we can ensure the safety of the persons we welcome 

to our shores. 

As the tragic events occurring in Boston last month remind us, not everyone who 

seeks entry into the United States is coming to realize the American Dream. Some 

come to destroy it and are willing to hurt and kill innocent people to do it. 

If we wish America to remain the welcoming place it has been for more than two 

centuries, it is important that we have in place a strategy that will enable us to 

maintain situational awareness and operational control of our borders. 

The bill we markup today is a step in the right direction. So is the bipartisan and 

cooperative manner that all members of this committee have worked together to 

produce this constructive legislation, led particularly by Chairman McCaul, Ranking 

Member Thompson, and Border Security Subcommittee Chair Miller. 

So Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson and Mrs. Miller, I thank you for your leadership 

and your commitment to protecting our communities and keeping our nation safe. 

Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And it has a number of answers. And I think 

my friend in the Chair is aware of it, that I think is important for 

me to make a comment on, and that is that it has—this is on the 

House side—it has an extensive component, Mr. Aguilar, on operational control. I think that terminology has grown out of a lot of 

the work that you all have done. And it has moved to having that 

operational control in place in 5 years and that there will be annual reports, and on the southern border it’s a 90 percent operational control. 

Putting aside S. 744, and I know they have a border security 

component, Mr. Aguilar, does that not give you, give us a better 

framework? This is a bipartisan bill passed out of the Homeland 

Security Committee getting ready to go to the floor? When you 

have reports to Congress, when you have measures on operational 

control and you seek to reach a 90 percent operational control, obviously there are resources to be added, but you have something to 

be guided by, is that a better construct than what we’ve had in the 

past? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Working in that direction is certainly a better construct than what we’ve had in the past. The only caution that I 

would give is, frankly, I was the one who began the term operational control and defined it. When defined, it was defined as a 

very tactical term for immediate juridical line border operations. 

Unfortunately, it was grabbed to describe a more strategic definition. That will not work. 

Now, keeping the term but broadening the scope of the definition 

will work as a benchmark and as a metric, but we need to change 

the definition. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It will give you comfort to suggest that is the 

case. We talk about strategy. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Uh-huh. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so the strategy comes first before the 

operational control. So I think your question has been asked and 

answered in the structure we have put in place. I think one of the 

good parts about the legislation is that it is a moving document 

and it responds to what is happening at the border, but it doesn’t 

let the border go without attention in terms of Congress actively 

involved with homeland security. 
93 

So, let me go back to E-Verify, which seems to be a popular 

issue. And, Ms. Wood, on the Senate bill, even though you said it 

has a question whether E-Verify is in place, one, this is a two-body 

process and we get the chance to look constructively at—we just 

heard Mr. Gutierrez said he’s fine with E-Verify—we want to make 

it right. But one of the things I think is important, doesn’t the Senate bill make the documents going to be utilized by individuals far 

more secure documents? 

Ms. WOOD. The Senate bill does talk some about the security of 

documents, yes, that’s correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so that is at least an advance as to what 

people were actually showing employers, it’s going to be now more 

secure documents. 

Ms. WOOD. If there are those documents, then, yes, that is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. On the IRCA, why we were concerned with 

that, I just want to put on the record, and you might say ‘‘yes’’ or 

‘‘no,’’ one of the problems is that you have to be continuously out 

of status. They only had a small number of special agricultural 

visas, they had something dealing with Cuban and Haitian visas, 

and then they had very limited in terms of when you came to the 

country. It was some time around 1972. 

The S. 744 does a little bit more on who can get status. You may 

have been in status, you may have had a student visa and you are 

out of status. S. 744 covers that. Is that not correct? 

Ms. WOOD. That’s right. It’s very broad in terms of who would 

be eligible, assuming you’re in the U.S. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But what it means is that you will have more 

people that have the opportunity to be static and identified. Is that 

not correct? 

Ms. WOOD. That’s right. There’s no question there would be more 

people who have opportunity, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so that means that we have a better 

chance of being able to know who’s in this country and who’s not 

in the country? 

Ms. WOOD. As long as we have a secure, you know, interview 

process. I would suggest one that includes a personal interview 

with the right kind of background checks and then we make sure 

there’s no fraud in the file, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Aguilar, with respect to the whole concept 

of comprehensive immigration reform, which I think the Senate 

has made great strides, and also the difference with IRCA was that 

we spend more time on S. 744 in dealing with legal immigration. 

Would you speak to that, but would you also speak to the point of 

the issue of family visas and family reunification and whether or 

not we can see an improvement on what the Senate has done. 

First, if you could speak to the fact of how IRCA contrasts with 

where we are today. We have a much broader plan, I believe, on 

the S. 744. 

Mr. AGUILAR. It is broader in several areas, but as it relates to 

border security 744 addresses the market—what I believe to be the 

market-driven labor requirements for visa purposes. It then also allows for accompanying aliens to come into the country once visas 

are granted, so that will stop the family members that weren’t al-
94 

lowed to come into the country before to not have to cross that border illegally, which in the end is going to reduce the negative impact on the Border Patrol dealing with, in the case of last year, 

356,000 illegal entrants, magnifies our capacity—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Many of them families trying to reunite? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I’m sorry? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Many of them families trying to get united? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Some of them were, some of them were. Some of 

them were first-time entrants. It’s a whole array. 

Mr. SMITH. The is gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Ms. Wood, let’s continue our conversation about E-Verify. I’ve 

been told by several people that it’s going to take 3 to 5 years to 

fully implement E-Verify for all employers. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. WOOD. Certainly that’s what’s in S. 744. At least 5 years, 

plus the time for USCIS to do the implementing regulations. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But do you think that’s—do we need 5 to 7 years 

to fully implement E-Verify? 

Ms. WOOD. I think we need to do it sooner or find some way to 

address the pending workforce that’s not going to be covered by 

that system, that’s not going to have the more secure documents, 

that’s not going to be kind of eligible for any sort of adjustment. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And, do you think that’s possible, for us to do it 

sooner? 

Ms. WOOD. I do think it’s possible for us to do it sooner. It’s going 

to be a lot of work, but this whole thing is going to be a lot of work, 

and I think USCIS certainly could work with the system they have 

to move forward in that direction. 

Mr. LABRADOR. A quick follow-up question on what you were discussing with Ms. Jackson Lee. Some of the identification that’s required for people that are in this program, it says that an affidavit 

by any individual over the age of 21 can be used to identify a person under the age of 18. Is that correct? 

Ms. WOOD. That’s my understanding, and yeah, that’s obviously 

highly problematic. You know, there are always issues with the 

under-18 individuals if they’re trying to use their nursery school 

application kind of in the past and things. So I think reducing the 

number of eligible documents, you know, would be a way of reducing fraud. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So you think an affidavit that addresses the 

fraud issue—— 

Ms. WOOD. No, I do not. I think that permitting that is ill advised. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Crane, I know you’ve spoken about the need 

for biometric-based ID to track visa holders and there’s a CRS report that indicates that such a system would require really heavy 

infrastructure cost and reduced trade. And I am a fiscal conservative first. I came here to reduce the cost of government. So I am 

sensitive to these concerns. However, I am not entirely convinced 

that such a system would cost as much as the government bureaucrats claim that it’s going to cost. Can you address that issue? 
95 

Mr. CRANE. Well, only, sir, to the extent that that’s my exact 

feeling for it, that in our offices and out in our processing areas, 

we are able to put those little boxes out there. We don’t have to 

tear walls down or do anything extensive. They just sit on a preexisting desk. I can’t for the life of me see how this thing is projected to cost $8 billion. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So can you explain that a little bit? How is it that 

you do it in your office? You have a little box and what happens? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, yeah, I mean, we have some different equipment now, but in the past we had a little box that sat there and 

the alien put their one finger on that little box and then they put 

the other one on there and we captured both index fingers. And it’s 

extremely effective, extremely effective. Even just one index finger, 

it’s extremely effective. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. 

Ms. Wood, I saw you nodding your head. Do you agree with what 

he’s saying. 

Ms. WOOD. I do think that we’ve had some amazing advances in 

technology and we should not kind of shrink from the past. We 

should push and push the government to see how can we get an 

effective biometric exit and do it in a cost-effective manner. 

Mr. LABRADOR. What do you think, Mr. Crane, about the amendment that was just made to the Senate bill, that they actually 

started a pilot project for biometric exit, entry/exit data? Is that 

helping you feel more comfortable with it or do you think—— 

Mr. CRANE. I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that they had an amendment. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I believe there is amendment. Or what if we just 

started a pilot program. Let’s not worry about what they did over 

there. But if we just did a pilot program with certain exit areas, 

you know, the most trafficked exit areas, would that make you feel 

more comfortable? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, my experience at ICE with pilot programs 

doesn’t give me a real warm fuzzy about it continuing after this 

kicks off. So, I mean, I guess if we had the pilot program ongoing 

right now and, you know, we could see that it was effective and 

that we could see some kind of implementation beginning, then 

yes, but the fact that they tell us that they’re going to start a pilot 

program, not really. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. 

Mr. Aguilar, you said in your testimony that you believed that 

a workable legal flow of legal immigration is one of the main components of fixing the illegal immigration—— 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR [continuing]. Problem that we have in the United 

States. Are you familiar with the Senate proposal on nonfarm or 

non-ag legal immigration and that it starts out at 20,000 visas per 

year? 

Mr. AGUILAR. That is the W visa. That is the low-skilled visa, 

yes, sir, 20,000, 35-, 55-, and 75-—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you think that that’s sufficient to address—— 

Mr. AGUILAR. That is one of the critiques that I’ve got, sir, because it would be way above that. In my experience, I think it’ll 

be way above that. 
96 

Mr. LABRADOR. We would have a need that’s way above that, 

don’t you think? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. That’s the reason for the commission, or the 

commissioner under CIS to make that determination along with 

the Secretary of Labor. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. 

Ms. Wood, would you agree with that? It seems to me that’s such 

a low number that we’re just going to have the same problem 

again, that we’re going to create a black market where people are 

going to come and work illegally because there is just not enough 

visas available for people to come legally. 

Ms. WOOD. I think there’s a big potential problem with that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Are you familiar with that issue, Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. Not in detail. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Labrador. 

The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi, is recognized. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a former attorney general of Puerto Rico, I’m pleased to submit two records. So I ask unanimous consent to submit two letters 

for the record of this Committee. The first letter is signed by 36 

current State attorneys general, and it expresses support for immigration reform that, I quote, ‘‘improves our immigration system, 

keeps our communities safe, and protects our borders.’’ Such reform 

should, I quote again, ‘‘provide a sensible means to deal with the 

immigrants who are currently in the country without legal status 

but are of good character, pay taxes, and are committed to continuing to contribute to our society.’’ 

The next letter is signed by 76 former State attorneys general 

and it expresses support for comprehensive immigration reform. 

The letter highlights the ways in which comprehensive reform will 

‘‘significantly improve public safety.’’ 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Without objection those letters will be made a 

part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to begin by expressing my strong support for the passage 

of comprehensive immigration reform legislation during this session of Congress. We need to fix our broken immigration system so 

that it works for all Americans, helps our economy, and advances 

our national interest. I believe S. 744 provides a solid framework 

for this purpose, and I’m confident that the efforts of my colleagues 

in the House will also yield results. 

Having said this, I must express my concern that Puerto Rico is 

currently excluded in the definition of ‘‘southern border’’ in S. 744, 

and therefore in the bill’s strong border security provisions. As 

many of you are aware, in recent years, while the security situation 

on the U.S. border with Mexico has improved by most, if not all 

statistics, Puerto Rico has experienced a dramatic increase in the 

level of drug-related violence on the island that is directly tied to 

the territory’s use as a transshipment point for illegal drugs destined for Stateside markets. 

The recent surge in violence, which has been acknowledged by a 

multitude of top-ranking Federal law enforcement officials, including Mr. Aguilar, has pushed the island’s already historically high 

murder rate to approximately six times above the national average. 

The cause of the drug-related violence is directly associated with 

the transit of illegal narcotics into the territory through its undersecured and underresourced maritime borders. 

While there are indications that Federal law enforcement, mostly 

DHS and its component agencies, has worked to increase the operations in Puerto Rico in recent months, the underlying security dynamics remain the same for the 3.7 million American citizens residing in the territory. 

Last year, the CJS bill recognized that efforts by the Federal law 

enforcement community to reduce drug trafficking and associated 

violence in the southwest border region have affected trafficking 

routes and crime rates in the Caribbean. 

Stated simply, if we try to plug the U.S. border with Mexico 

without increasing security in America’s Caribbean border, we’re 

just going to displace the criminal activity from one U.S. border to 

another. Therefore, I believe the U.S. territories in the Caribbean, 

specifically, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, must be included in any border security package that is considered by Congress. 

Do you agree with me, Mr. Aguilar? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. Absolutely. One of the things that we 

must recognize is that the criminal organizations, we have actually 

termed their actions displacement and entrenchment, deflection actions, based on our successes. That is why it’s so critical that we 

take a look at the entirety of our enforcement challenge that we 

have. 

By reducing the flow of illegal aliens coming into this country, 

the 356,000 last year, it gives CBP and DHS greater capability to 

shift resources where those deflections or those displacements are 

taking place. In addition to the money that is being appropriated 

as a part of the user fee, these are the things that will come into 

play and make the entirety of our southwest border and the 

littorals safer and more secure. 
106 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Does anybody disagree on the panel? Ms. Wood or 

Mr. Crane, do you disagree with my proposition, which is to include 

the Caribbean border in the southern border provisions in this bill? 

Ms. WOOD. I mean, certainly I think that we should focus on the 

entire country and we should certainly not exclude Puerto Rico or 

any other area when we’re thinking about how do we prevent illegal migration and how do we prevent transnational organized 

crime. 

Mr. CRANE. Did you want me on comment, sir? 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Yes. 

Mr. CRANE. No, sir, I do not disagree with you at all. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the witnesses for your testimony here today. And 

I’ve had the privilege of hearing from each of you on other occasions as well. So I respect the level of expertise that you bring to 

this panel. 

I think there are a lot of things being discussed here today that 

really aren’t relevant to the big picture. And if you start out with 

a flawed premise, the smartest people are going to end up with the 

wrong conclusion. So I want to first concede this point: That except 

for certain felons or those mysterious combinations of three misdemeanors, those are the exceptions in the bill for those that are 

unlawfully present in the United States. And the bill essentially 

automatically says all of you that are here now, with those exceptions and those who came before December 31st of 2011, are hereby 

legal, as I read the bill. 

And then it also says that if you were deported in the past and 

you’re not guilty of a felony or these three mysterious misdemeanors, then it’s an invitation to come back, apply to come back 

to the United States after the bill might be passed. And as far as 

I can see there’s no prospect that people that haven’t committed 

felonies or people that haven’t committed these three serious mysterious misdemeanors, there’s no prospect that those that came 

here after December 31st, 2011, or might come here in the future 

would be either deported. 

And so I call this the Always Is, Always Was, and Always Will 

Be Amnesty Act, in that if you is in America illegally, you get amnesty and you get to stay; if you was in America and were deported, you get to come back; and if you will be in America, there 

is no prospect you will be deported, and you get to stay. The Always Is, Always Was and Always Will Be Amnesty Act, this is the 

largest and most expansive amnesty act that ever got any traction 

in the history of the United States of America. And for me it’s 

breathtaking to see how a Nation could go through a law enforcement whiplash like we have seen since November 6. 

And so I was very surprised, after paying great attention to the 

presidential race, probably longer and harder than anybody else in 

this room, that somehow some guru woke up on the morning of November 7th and concluded that Mitt Romney would be Presidentelect on that day if he just hadn’t uttered a couple of words, ‘‘self- 
107 

deport.’’ That was astonishing to me, and even more astonishing 

was the logical disconnect of many of the people within my own 

party who seemed to leap to this conclusion that that was the right 

assumption. 

And so I dialed this back in my memory, and, yes, I do remember 

1986. And we know that that number started out less than a million. And the lowest number that I can see out there of those that 

actually were legalized in that amnesty act were about 2.7 million 

or 2.8 million; many of those numbers go 3 million or 3.5 million. 

We also see numbers that show that the family reunification that 

resulted from that was something in the order of at least 5 to 1. 

So 5 times 3 is 15. That would mean there are something like 15 

million people in this country, not discounting deaths and those 

that might have gone back, that were the beneficiaries of the 1986 

amnesty act. 

So I’d just pose this question: Does anybody think that Barack 

Obama would be president today if the 1986 amnesty act had not 

become law? And I’d turn first to Mr. Aguilar because he had the 

most confused look on his face. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. Frankly, I have to tell you, I’m not quite 

sure I understand the question. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Thanks. Because the clock is ticking, and so I’ll 

just make this point. Because it’s more than rhetorical. I will tell 

you that I don’t believe Barack Obama would be president today 

if Ronald Reagan hadn’t made the most colossal mistake of his career in signing the 1986 amnesty act. He let me down that day. 

And now I have people that are concluding that if we can just 

pass an amnesty bill today and send to it a Democrat President’s 

desk, who lectured us in February, said, I’m trying to help you, Republicans, you’ll never win another national election if you don’t 

pass some kind of comprehensive immigration reform—which we 

do concede, I think, is a euphemism for amnesty—and yet the beneficiary of that’s Barack Obama. Now, why would we think we 

would get less of the same if we did more of what we did in 1986? 

And I’d point out also, when I hear the discussion about we have 

to do this because of the labor force that’s out there and we need 

to have more than 50,000 workers in this category or that because 

we think the market demands that, Milton Friedman said you cannot coexist with an open-borders policy and a cradle-to-grave welfare state. And we are a cradle-to-grave welfare state. It is a 

wealth transfer. This is a class leveller. This is the kind of thing 

that’s driven by a socialist agenda to take from the people that 

have and give to the people that have not and transfer this wealth. 

A hundred million Americans in this country are not in the workforce. A hundred million. And we’re talking about bringing in a 

number that they’re not going to limit this to 11.3 million or any 

other number like that. The amendment was offered in the Senate 

at 33 million and rejected. So we know this is bigger than 11 million people. 

This is a transformative economic, rule of law, and cultural 

change. It destroys the rule of law with regard to immigration. You 

can never again restore immigration law enforcement if you pass 

anything that looks like this amnesty act. I think it transforms 

America forever. And I think that people that are advocating for 
108 

this have just simply started with completely the wrong premise, 

it’s not supported by any kind of data that’s out there and they’re 

not willing to debate that. They want to talk around the edges. I 

think we need to get to the core of this problem and define how 

America became great and how we restore the pillars of American 

exceptionalism. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [presiding]. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Deutch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would start simply by making the observation that the reason 

that America became great, the reason that America’s economy has 

thrived in every generation, the reason that we find ourselves in 

a country that continues to be the envy the world is because of our 

immigration policy. That is a point that I think is irrefutable. I’m 

not sure what country we wish to go back to that I hear my colleague talking about, but I think as we approach this whole issue 

there are a myriad of reasons for immigration reform—economic 

reasons, humanitarian reasons, we can go down the list—but it is 

eminently clear that we are a country of immigrants. And those 

who speak out so forcefully and passionately against any sort of effort to deal with the immigration situation that we have ignore the 

very fact that we are a country that is a Nation of immigrants. 

I’d like to get back to something you spoke about earlier, Ms. 

Wood, and that is you talked about both—in your testimony you 

talked about alternative forms of detention. I have in my district 

something called the Broward Transitional Center, which is a detention facility, it’s in Pompano Beach, Florida, houses nonviolent 

detainees, which include asylum seekers. Most people housed at 

the facility have committed no crime or only minor nonviolent infractions. They are not violent criminals. And I just wanted to ask 

you some questions about that. 

According to the Department of Homeland Security, in 2011 the 

United States detained an all-time high of 429,247 individuals in 

our immigration system in the detention system. We spend $2 billion a year on immigration detention, $164 per detainee per day. 

Alternative forms of detention can cost, as I think you touched on 

earlier, anywhere between 30 cents and $14 a day. In fact, at the 

Broward Transitional Center, which is used to detain 700 people 

who pose, for the most part, no threat to our national security, and 

for the most part no threat to the community—these are people, by 

the way, I would point out, who often are picked up from buses or 

as a result of traffic violations. 

I’d just ask whether the whole approach to mass detention of 

people who are here, who have come here illegally, whether that 

mass detention secures our borders. Does that make us more secure when we do that? 

Ms. WOOD. Certainly, you know, the purpose of detention is to 

ensure that people who are ordered removed will go home. And, 

unfortunately, over time people that were not in detention, they 

were ordered removed, they wouldn’t go home. You know, the OIG 

said in the last study done on this that only 13 percent of individuals who are not detained, if they were ordered removed, would go 
109 

home. And so massive ignoring of immigration court orders I think 

undermines our immigration system and I do think makes our borders less secure by people flowing in. 

But to your point, you know, I think it’s important to look at who 

are we currently detaining and how are we doing that and are 

there ways we can do that more effectively. And some of the individuals, for example, that might be subject mandatory detention, 

you know, arriving aliens or others, may not need to be subject to 

mandatory detention. So having the ability to do an individualized 

assessment and think about, is this person a public safety threat 

or do they pose a significant flight risk, I think makes a lot of 

sense. And then the government can think more appropriately, 

what’s our goal? Our goal is to make sure they comply with removal orders. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Are you familiar with and can you speak to the bed 

quota requiring the detention of 34,000 people per day? Is that a 

good policy for securing our borders? 

Ms. WOOD. I don’t think that we should have a fixed number in 

terms of how many individuals need to be detained. We should 

focus on how can we be most effective. 

I will say that with the focus on Secure Communities, most of 

the people that ICE is arresting and removing are people that are 

coming out of Secure Communities as well as kind of arriving 

aliens. And so for many of those folks that are coming out of the 

jails, you know, there may be significant public safety concerns and 

it would make sense that there would be a need to detain them. 

For others there’s not that need. So to have a fixed number, in 

some years you may need more. I think right now ICE is detaining 

37,000 individuals or something to that nature. Other times you 

may need less. So to give the agency the flexibility to use its spending most effectively I think makes a lot of sense. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Why is there a requirement? Where does the 34,000 

come from? 

Ms. WOOD. I think it comes from the Appropriations Committee. 

It was put in the report. They didn’t have a lot of trust in ICE over 

the years that ICE would spend the money in the way that they 

thought appropriate. And so that requirement, before I even came 

to ICE, was put in there to prompt ICE to act in way that the Committee thought appropriate. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from South Carolina, the Chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, is recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I want to 

start by apologizing to you and to our witnesses and our colleagues 

for being in another hearing this morning. Although I’m quite certain everyone is thankful that there’s not more than one of me, I 

really wish I could have been here for the entire hearing and did 

not have to go to the IRS. So I want to apologize to our witnesses 

for being in another hearing. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for all of the time and 

effort that you have spent on this issue. For every 1 hour folks see 
110 

you in this room there are 10 hours that you’re working in another 

room where nobody sees you. So thank you for devoting as much 

of your time and energy to this issue as you have. 

And with that in mind, to our three witnesses, my constituents 

in South Carolina want a real remedy and not a political remedy. 

This debate can be divisive. And they want a remedy that will last 

a lifetime. So with that in mind, I’m going to bounce from issue to 

issue and then see if we can come up. But let me start with this. 

What in the Senate bill or what can exist in a House bill that 

ensures subsequent Administrations, whether they be Republican 

or Democrat, can’t fail to enforce whatever we come up with in this 

Congress? What guarantee would you suggest we include so we 

don’t have this debate 3 years from now, 6 years from now, for 

purely political expediency? What should we do to make sure this 

is the last time we have this potentially divisive debate as a Nation? Not all at once. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I’ll make the following statement. Each one of us 

has served. Chris is serving today. We execute the policies. The political machines basically develop those policies. I think that question better goes to this group as to what you can put in there so 

that those that are executing the laws execute the laws as designed. Ms. Wood, myself as Acting Commissioner, as Assistant 

Schedule, we have bosses, politicals. We have the Hill that we answer to. Policies are put in place. We execute those policies. We 

don’t design them. 

Mr. GOWDY. No, I did not mean to suggest that you were the—— 

Mr. AGUILAR. No, I understand. That’s why I answer in the way 

I do. 

Ms. WOOD. I think the most effective tool for ICE historically has 

been the funding streams, and the things in the House Appropriations conference report that drive certain ICE requirements. And so 

to the extent that you can use appropriations or funding streams 

or cut things off, if that’s not done, that seems to drive, at least 

in my experience, the agency more than anything—more than anything else. 

Mr. CRANE. Yeah. I think, sir, that the biggest thing that we can 

do again is we can take the discretion away from the Secretary of 

DHS whenever possible, and, you know, codify what officers and 

agents have to do out in the field. I mean, DHS and ICE right now 

has the authority—you know, the law gives us the authority to 

make arrests, they can determine whether or not we even have 

those authorities or not. 

This bill is littered—you know, everything at the bottom seems 

to say at the discretion of the Secretary of DHS. Well, we have 

nothing as long as one individual or their boss, basically the President of the United States, can determine, you know, whether 

they’re going to exercise that discretion or not. And I understand 

that there has to be a certain degree of discretion for agencies, but 

we have to work hard to take away as much of that as possible. 

Mr. GOWDY. I want to get to a question about mandatory detention, but your response provokes this question in me. What is the 

single best way, if you were king or queen for a day and you had 

to ensure border security as a trigger for anything else that may 

come subsequently, what is the single best way to convince our fel-
111 

low citizens that the border is adequate—I don’t mean hermetically 

sealed, I mean adequately secured such that it would trigger whatever else comes post-border security, fully recognizing there are two 

borders, not getting into internal securities. But to the extent that 

I’m asked about border security more than everything else combined in my district, what’s the best way for us to make sure that 

we’re doing the best job we can on that? 

Mr. AGUILAR. At this point in time there are strategies, there are 

solutions, resource solutions already in place designed. This bill 

talks about the appropriations that will allow for those expansions. 

That’s one. 

To continue the interior enforcement is critically important, to 

address that continuing draw, especially in today’s economy. As the 

economy takes up, those hoses on the other side of the border, not 

just Mexico, but other countries, are going to open up because that 

help sign is going to be there. 

Mr. GOWDY. I’m out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

indulgence. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When John Morton, Ms. Wood, when John Morton, the Director 

of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, appeared before Congress earlier this year, he noted that ICE tries to live within the 

budget that Congress provided. He also argued in his written testimony before this Committee that these budget constraints are now 

further compounded by the reductions required by sequestration, 

which represents a nearly $300 million cut to our budget that we 

must absorb over the remaining 7 months of this fiscal year. 

You point out in your written testimony that one of the failures 

of previous immigration legislation was fully funding and supporting immigration agencies who have been woefully understaffed 

for the last several decades. Do you agree, ma’am, that sequestration was a step in the wrong direction on immigration enforcement? 

Ms. WOOD. Sequestration didn’t help any law enforcement agency. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It was a step in the wrong direction. 

Ms. WOOD. It’s certainly not helpful, absolutely. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And it hurts, actually. 

Ms. WOOD. Yeah. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It hurts immigration enforcement. Would you be 

able to admit that? 

Ms. WOOD. If you don’t have the resources, absolutely. Sequestration reduces the resources that ICE has or that any other agency 

has. Absolutely, it hurts their ability to enforce the law. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How about you, Mr. Crane? Would you go so far 

as to admit that sequestration hurts the efforts of ICE? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, again, sir, I mean, I think I would have to, you 

know, steal Mrs. Wood’s comments on that in terms of I don’t think 

there’s been a great big impact to ICE at this point. But certainly 

if you take—— 
112 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that’s not my question. Now, that’s not my 

question. 

Mr. CRANE. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. My question is, can you admit that sequestration 

is not good for enforcement, for ICE enforcement? Can you admit 

that or do you deny? Do you admit it? 

Mr. CRANE. I mean, yeah, if you take money away from the agency, yes, it’s not going to be good, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s not a good thing. I find it interesting that you 

both would find it difficult to make that admission. 

What I’d like to know, Mr. Crane, is does your organization represent about, what, 7,000 of 20,000 ICE agents and professionals? 

Mr. CRANE. Actually, they’re ICE agents and staff, yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So you represent 7,000 of the 20,000. So not even 

half of them. 

Mr. CRANE. That’s correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And you’re speaking on behalf of the entire organization, though here today, is that correct? 

Mr. CRANE. I don’t believe so, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, nothing in your statement indicates otherwise. In fact, your statement indicates that you are speaking on behalf of the organization. 

But let me ask you this question. Does your organization get 

dues that are checked off by the employees in their paychecks? In 

other words, does your organization benefit from the automatic 

dues check-offs? 

Mr. CRANE. Okay. So the question is, are the dues taken out of 

the employees’ checks? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. And taken out of all the employees’ checks. 

Mr. CRANE. No, sir. No. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Just the 7,000. 

Mr. CRANE. Membership is optional. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I see. Okay. Do you all receive funding from other 

sources, does your organization receive funding from other sources? 

Mr. CRANE. Do other sources donate money to us? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, other organizations. 

Mr. CRANE. No, sir. I haven’t received any donations. No, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Corrections Corporation of America. 

Mr. CRANE. I’m sorry? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Has Corrections Corporation of America contributed money to your organization? 

Mr. CRANE. No, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Not to you personally, but to your organization? 

Mr. CRANE. Neither. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. What about the American Legislative 

Exchange Council? 

Mr. CRANE. I’m not even familiar with what that is, sir. So, no. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Ms. Wood, do you know what that is? ALEC. 

Ms. WOOD. I’ve heard of it, but I’m not able to speak to it, no. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Well, now, ma’am, you mentioned in 

your testimony that—you argue that focusing on criminal immigrants leaves undocumented immigrants alone to ‘‘plan, take steps, 
113 

cause harm.’’ This is charged rhetoric that implies a whole lot of 

negative stuff. So I’d ask you to clarify that phrase. Is it your position that all undocumented immigrants are criminals who will 

plan, take steps, cause harm? 

Ms. WOOD. No. It’s certainly my position that a broad legalization program could make sense. What I think is that it’s important 

for ICE to have now and in the future a layered enforcement where 

they focus on a wide variety of immigration violations, including 

immigration fugitives or those who have committed other laws, not 

just felonies. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, what did you mean by that comment, leaving undocumented immigrants alone to plan, take steps, cause 

harm? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We’ll allow Ms. Wood to answer the question. 

The time for the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. WOOD. What I meant is that we need to focus and think 

about layered enforcement, including enforcement of visa overstays. 

If we only focus on those who have already been convicted of felonies then we would miss some who might come into this country, 

either legally or illegally, and then cause harm. So in my view we 

have to look at a range of immigration violations. But I’m certainly 

supportive, as I said in my testimony, of a program of bringing individuals out of the shadows, putting them through a proper procedure, and then having kind of enforcement on those who violate the 

law further on. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the witnesses being here. 

Mr. Aguilar, in talking—I’m sure you still talk to folks that work 

to defend our borders. Have you been hearing from them what 

we’ve been reading and hearing anecdotally, that after talk of legalization for people in the United States, that there’s been a dramatic uptick in people coming across the border illegally? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. And we’ve experienced that in the past. 

That is just a part of every time that we talk about some kind of 

immigration reform, especially when there are still questions out 

there, there is some kind of increase. Can’t give you what that increase is. I don’t know. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, you had mentioned earlier in answer to a 

previous question that you believe we need to continue the current 

enforcement. I’m curious, do you know how many border officers or 

how many officers, agents we have that are protecting our borders 

currently? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir: 21,370 is a baseline, 18,500 of those on 

the southwest border, 2,212 on the northern border. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I figured you would know. Thank you. 

Because I was reading again recently about the time that we had 

absolute border security back when Woodrow Wilson was President, and Pancho Villa, depending on your perspective, was a hero 

or was an enemy. But he did have folks that crossed the border 
114 

with him, killed American families, robbed some places in the U.S. 

And, of course, General Pershing never caught him. But, in the 

meantime, one article indicated there was many as 158,000 National Guard troops that were sent to make sure that we didn’t 

have people coming across that we did not agree on. And I thought 

about 158,000; others say there were tens of thousands. Don’t say 

that many. But that was at a time when the United States had 100 

million people in the country. Now well over 300 million. And it 

just seems that it’s all about priority. 

And I appreciate so much my friend Mr. Johnson from Georgia 

bringing up the issue, and other friends have brought it up, about 

how bad the sequestration was. And I am so glad people are finally 

recognizing what I said after President Obama proposed it, what 

I said after our leadership got sucked into agreeing to it, that sequestration was a terrible way to govern. And I very much regret 

that entities as valuable as the Customs and Border Patrol got hit 

like they did, that our defense got hit like they did. I thought it 

was a terrible mistake. I tried to convince the Republican leadership they shouldn’t have gone along with President Obama’s proposal, but they didn’t listen to me, so we got what we got. 

But there’s also been discussion, too, about all of the money that 

is spent prosecuting people who have been deported and come back 

into the country, our country, illegally, making it a crime. I was 

blown away when Ms. Lofgren brought that up this year at a prior 

hearing. I had no idea we were spending that kind of money and 

man-hours—woman-hours and man-hours, for those who are genetically—or generically challenged—but I had no idea we were 

spending that much time going after people that were returning 

into the country. And it just seems that if we would secure our own 

border, we’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on 

other things. 

So just keep coming back to this and I don’t see how there’s an 

escape from this. Until we secure the border this is going to be an 

ongoing problem. And a question was asked earlier about is there 

anything in the new legislation that will force this President to secure the border more securely than he has been in the past, and 

there’s nothing there. And it just seems we’re going to be back 

doing this again, talking about all those who have come into the 

country undocumented. 

I’m still back there. I really think, you know, and I note that our 

friends that came in and made the appearance when my friend Mr. 

Conyers recognized them are no longer around—but I really think 

that if we could secure the border so—not close it, but secure the 

border so people we want who had legal visas would come in, it 

seems like, I really believe, we could get an agreement on the folks 

that are here really quick. And that’s what I want. But I just have 

not heard anything in this hearing that changes my impression 

that until we secure the border we’re jumping the gun on working 

something out here. 

And I appreciate your time, Iappreciate your being here. And I 

yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And recognize the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. DelBene. 
115 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, first I’d like to 

ask for unanimous consent to submit a letter into the record, a letter from many national, local, and State organizations regarding 

their feedback on the lessons to be learned from the 1986 law. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the letter will be made a part 

of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
116 
117 
118 
119 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

And I just want to thank all of you for being here for many hours 

and giving your testimony. 

Mr. Aguilar, you talked in your written testimony about the successes of a secure border, how it has economic—the economic successes of a secure border. I’m from a northern border State, Washington, and when we talk about border security it’s incredibly important to also realize the trade and economic activity that happens across our borders. And I wondered if you would comment on 

how you would put together comprehensive immigration reform 

policy in a way that would optimize and deal with the tension that 

might exist between having a secure border and also making sure 

we have trade and economic activity going across. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Trade is an absolutely critical part of our national security. $2.3 trillion worth of trade last year that we’ve dealt with 

in CBP, Customs and Border Protection. $1.7 trillion worth of exports out of the country. Some of the figures that have been thrown 

about that relate to immigration enforcement spending are inaccurate. That’s the simplest way I could put it. Because when you 

fund a Border Patrol agent, you fund a CBPO officer, you fund an 

agricultural inspector, or ICE in the area of IPR, of trade, all this 

other kind of stuff, you are also funding our country’s capability to 

deal with the trade that’s so critically important to our country. So 

not losing sight of that is absolutely critical. 

Border security, 744 has the foundational principles. The problem we find ourselves in now as a country is the following: that we 

have reduced illegal immigration dramatically. In the last 40 years, 

the number—we haven’t seen these numbers in over 40 years. The 

point of decision now is do we add funding for additional technology, agents, fences and things of that nature in order to continue securing that border to the degree that at some point is going 

to be defined? Or do we remove one of the flows, illegal flows that 

our agents and officers deal with every day by way of a properly 

instituted immigration reform bill. 

By doing that, now we provide our enforcement officers at all levels with, as I said before, with the greatest force multiplier that we 

have toward security, securing our Nation’s borders. 

Illegal flow of people right now is the most workload-intensive 

component of border enforcement. If we apprehend a ton of narcotics, we apprehend a ton of narcotics, we secure it and we hand 

it off to DEA. There is no securing, there is no jailing, there is no 

feeding, there is no medical expenses associated with a ton of narcotics. 

You apprehend one illegal alien, you have to feed, you have to 

secure, you have to transport, you have to process, you have to jail, 

you have to secure, you have to take before an immigration judge, 

a court, do all of those things. So that is my interest here specific 

to border security. By removing that illegal flow of people, you increase tremendously and dramatically the capability and the capacities of our border enforcement assets. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Ms. Wood, in your testimony, you commend the Senate bill for 

requiring counsel for vulnerable populations, including children 

and the mentally ill. And I agree with that. 
120 

There are organizations like Kids in Need of Defense who provide legal representation to unaccompanied children who enter the 

U.S. immigration system. And you talked earlier about reform that 

you think we might need in our immigration court system. And I 

wondered if you’d elaborate on what types of reforms you’d like to 

see there that you think would help us protect these vulnerable 

populations and be more efficient. 

Ms. WOOD. Certainly. And I do think providing counsel for unaccompanied kids and those who have a serious mental disability is 

absolutely critical. ICE attorneys try to do the best they can to analyze these cases and see whether or not someone has a claim for 

relief. But they are not the advocate of those individuals. And so 

imagine coming to this country young, by yourself, and there’s nobody there to advocate our behalf. And so I was very, very pleased 

to see this in the bill. 

And I think that actually studies show that aliens who have 

counsel move through the immigration court system more quickly, 

that they, when they understand whether or not they have a right 

to a judge, sometimes they may decide to voluntarily depart rather 

than drag something on for years. So I think it’s really critical to 

think about those who are vulnerable. 

Other kinds of reforms that I think we could have include thinking about are there idiosyncrasies in our system. If I’m from a visawaiver country and I come here and I overstay any visa, I’m treated one way. If I’m from a nonvisa-waiver country and I come here, 

I’m treated another way when I overstay my visa. There’s no reason why there should be a difference. And, you know, so I think 

looking at where are the idiosyncrasies and how can we resolve 

them. 

And then I also think focusing on how can we smooth the immigration process, how can we make the courts move quickly. It 

shouldn’t take 5 years to determine whether or not someone’s in 

the country illegally. So we should see are there opportunities, 

frankly, more people to voluntarily depart, you know, enhanced 

stipulated removal, with protections, of course, and other sorts of 

things. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. My time’s expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chair. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank the gentlewoman. 

And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Chair 

for—and the Chairman of Subcommittee, Mr. Gowdy, as well—for 

working through this immigration mess in a methodical way. We 

have to get it all fixed. There are numerous problems. There’s not 

just one, there are a lot of problems. And as I look at the immigration system in this country, I think there’s a problem in every aspect of it, from border security, for people—and people just want 

to cross over for the day to work. 

Mr. Aguilar, you said that you believe that the border is more 

secure now than it ever has been. Let me ask you this specific 

question: Do you believe that the border is secure, in your opinion, 

whatever that means, just yes or no, is it secure or not? 
121 

Mr. AGUILAR. No, sir. We’ve said it constantly before, there is yet 

more to do. 

Mr. POE. And I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POE. And I think it’s getting worse. And I think the problem 

is the drug cartels have long since quit bringing drugs to the country to make money, they have now gotten involved in the scourge 

of human trafficking, bringing young children in this country to 

sell them for sexual favors throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, 

my hometown of Houston is the hub of trafficking in the United 

States because of its location. 

That’s a recent phenomenon that’s getting worse. And it’s getting 

worse because of the border in some areas is worse. And now we 

hear the stories of, on the American side, we have American citizens and foreign nationals that are legally here having—being extorted for money, protection, racketeering money to protect their 

family members in Mexico. We had a couple at my church in Houston whose nephews were kidnapped by the Zeta drug cartels. Last 

year they were told to pay the ransom of several thousands of dollars and the nephews would be released. They paid the money, the 

Zetas murdered the nephews. 

That’s happening in America. It’s not happening south of the border. And to me, it’s border security. We have to define what it is. 

That’s what the Senate, I think, tried to do. I don’t know if I agree 

that they did it. What we have to do in the House, because that 

depends on what we do after so-called border security. And I’m not 

sure I know the definition. I think border security is when I say 

it’s secure. But I don’t think get the only vote on that issue. 

What do you think about the idea of helping out our border protectors on the border, Federal, State, local, with taking some of the 

equipment from Iraq and Afghanistan that is necessary, that 

Americans have already paid for, and rather than just dump it in 

the ocean or even give it to our allies, bring it home and use it on 

the border? The recommendations I have heard is we need 

Humvees, we need night-vision equipment, and we need drones on 

the border itself. Would that be helpful in your opinion or not? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. And, in fact, we are already working 

toward it. Before I left on March 31st, that was one of the areas 

that we were focusing on. We actually have a program within CBP 

dedicated to identifying all the tools, all the resources that we can 

use that are coming out of theater. We are working with the Department of Defense, have identified things like airships, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, ELR fleer capabilities that we are in 

fact putting into use. 

Mr. POE. And the records that I have before me show that apprehensions actually for fiscal year 2013 are continuing to increase. Is 

that correct? 2012, 170,000; 2013, 192,000. Are you familiar with 

those statistics? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Through March 31st, I am, sir. I believe when I 

left on March 31st we were up by about 14 percent, if I’m not mistaken. 

Mr. POE. And that may go back to the reason that my friend Mr. 

Gohmert pointed out, when anybody in Congress starts talking 

about immigration reform, foreign nationals try to get here as fast 
122 

as they can to get some of that free amnesty, as our border sheriffs 

call it, on the border. 

I did want to make this comment. I think Congress has the obligation and the duty, and I commend the Chair, and the Chairman 

of the Subcommittee, for working on this issue. We got to fix it. We 

got to get it right this time. And we have to start with border security. I think we should work next on the temporary guest worker 

program, have it market driven. We decide as Congress what the 

number should be. Because that seems to be the focus of many of 

the other issues. But immediately we’ve got to deal with those drug 

cartels and keep them out of the country by what means we can 

figure out. 

And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

And the Chair now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Garcia, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Likewise, I want to commend the work of the Subcommittee Chair and your work on this. 

I know how important this is, and it is probably one of the most 

important pieces of legislation that we’re going to try to get 

through. And I know how much you’ve worked on it. 

Ms. Wood, I want to ask you, how much do you think we’re 

spending right now on boarder enforcement? What’s the total cost 

of this? 

Ms. WOOD. I can’t give you the total cost. 

Mr. GARCIA. Would you have an idea, Mr. Aguilar? So if I used a figure like $18.5 billion, is that about right? Is it too much? Is 

it too little? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I think that figure reflects what the budgets for 

the organizations having border enforcement responsibility. But we 

cannot forget that those same organizations have a tremendous 

amount of responsibility for trade—— 

Mr. GARCIA. Correct. 

Mr. AGUILAR [continuing]. And other things, narcotics interdiction and things of that nature. 

Mr. GARCIA. Correct. What percentage, if I asked you, what percentage of the folks that overstay make up the body of undocumented folks? 

Ms. WOOD. Well, the estimate is between 30 and 40 percent. But 

we’re not—— 

Mr. GARCIA. So if we followed Mr. Gohmert’s theory, right, that 

we enforce the border, we could put—and following the judge’s concept that we line up after we put CBP personnel, then we put 

tanks, planes, moats, 30 percent of those people would simply have 

a document that allowed them to go right through. Correct? 

Ms. WOOD. That’s exactly right. And then you’d expect ICE to 

focus on those overstays and look at them. ICE has fewer agents 

than the New York City Police Department. So ICE has been faced 

with this really impossible task, given its resources. 

Mr. GARCIA. Correct. So, Mr. Crane, you seem to favor a sort of 

a deportation approach to this. So I want to tell you about my community. In South Florida, where I live, I have a huge number of 

thousands of Venezuelans, somewhere between 80,000 and 120,000. 

They came fleeing Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, be-
123 

cause Hugo has long since departed, but fortunately we still have 

his people in our neighborhoods. 

And they’re stuck in this complicated process. Right? They’ve invested money in our community. As the real estate market was 

completely collapsing across the country, in Doral, or Doralezuela, 

as it’s called, the prices increased. They have either overstayed 

their visas, someone in the family has gotten their petition approved, others have not. And they’ve spent this—a huge time 

bouncing through this process through temporary visas. 

But regardless of how many businesses have they started, the 

millions they’ve invested in our community, the vital role they play 

in the economic development of my community, would you still support sending them back to Venezuela, regardless of their individual 

circumstances, the economic benefit they have given it, or the oppressiveness that they face having their businesses and homes 

being taken over by the government? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, first of all, sir, I mean, I think the assumption 

was incorrect. We haven’t taken any stance on a deportation-only 

type of enforcement technique. We’re asking to be a part of what 

lawmakers create in legislation so that we can—whatever you develop, that we can bring the proper and appropriate enforcement 

components to that plan. That’s what we’re asking for. 

Mr. GARCIA. But you mentioned that you’d like us to take away 

discretion. In fact, part of the problem, I think, and maybe Mr. 

Aguilar or Ms. Wood would comment, is that we’ve taken away a 

lot of discretion. In other words, a lot of these cases before, we 

could have immigration judges see the case and sort of put them 

through. Right? Find a category, find a place, put them through. 

Do you disagree with me or do you think that that’s something we 

should put back in the system, is a little bit more discretion to immigration judges? Ms. Wood? 

Ms. WOOD. I think immigration judges should have a fair 

amount of discretion. And I think the agencies should also have 

discretion. But as I mentioned before, both to grant things in an 

immigrant’s favor and also for law enforcement equities. 

Mr. GARCIA. Okay. Mr. Aguilar? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Same thing, sir. On the immigration judges, they, 

in fact, are the best position to have the discretion to act. On the 

agency part, I believe that discretion, responsible discretion should 

be acted upon by the agencies also, yes. 

Mr. GARCIA. When you look at what the Senate put forward, how 

do you feel about that in terms of discretion? Is there anything 

there that gives you some hope? Is there not enough? 

Ms. WOOD. I think in certain places it actually limits the agency’s discretion where they might need a law enforcement or national security, public safety exception. I have not analyzed the 

other, you know, the numerous other waivers that are in the bill 

in the immigrant’s favor. I will tell you, since leaving the government I’ve seen many instances where people needed a waiver or 

discretion. 

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I’ll conclude with this. We introduced the Venezuelan Liberty Act that recognizes the unique contributions of Venezuelans to our community and to our country and 

the unique political circumstance that they face. I hope that some 
124 

of the Members of the Committee will have a chance to look at it 

as we go through markup and would appreciate their support. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. And I want to recognize 

the other gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to pick up with this discretion issue because it seems to 

me that there’s actually a huge amount of discretion that’s been 

delegated, not necessarily to judges or enforcement agents on the 

ground, but to the bureaucracy, in particular political appointees. 

I mean, for example, I count 129 instances in which the Secretary 

shall do something, 102 instances in which the Secretary may do 

something, and 35 instances in which the provisions, the applicability of those provisions, go on what the Secretary, ‘‘determines.’’ 

So it seems to me that this is actually delegating a huge amount 

of authority to DHS. 

So, Mr. Crane, I just wanted to get your impression. Do you 

agree with how I’ve analyzed that in terms of giving discretion to 

some of the higher-up officials in DHS? 

Mr. CRANE. Absolutely agree with that. I mean, currently, right 

now, we cannot enforce visa overstay and illegal entry into the 

United States, the two most fundamental aspects of any immigration system in the entire world. So there’s nothing in this policy 

that limits it. And it seems to open it up even further, as you say, 

for the Secretary of DHS to continue that type of discretion. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Because this is just my reading, and correct me 

if I’m wrong, Mr. Crane, but it seems that the Secretary’s been delegated the authority for people who have already been deported to 

allow them to essentially get legal status under this bill. Correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And the Secretary’s determination is really the 

linchpin for when the border is secured. In other words, it’s not objective criteria, although they do say, oh, certain percentage. But, 

to me, that’s going to be hard to calculate. But ultimately she has 

to certify that. Correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And if the DHS fails to do that, they do create 

a border security commission, but that is purely advisory in nature, 

that does not have any binding authority. Am I reading that right? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. That’s my interpretation. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And then with E-Verify, there was some discussion about it. It seemed to me one of the things they were doing 

was allow the Secretary defining which employers qualify in the 

first place, so that there are folks who may have more seasonal employees or may have other folks who are not necessarily traditional, 

40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year employees, and that they would 

completely be out of the E-Verify system. Is that true? 

Mr. CRANE. I’m sorry, sir. I’m not as familiar with the E-Verify 

section. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Ms. Wood, do you—— 

Ms. WOOD. I think until—at the very end, they make it loosened 

at the very end. But, yes. 
125 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. And another issue I have is someone had 

said, you know, legalize the right number of people, or whatever, 

and we’ve been talking about background checks and making sure 

that we do have the right folks. Because I think most people, you 

know, if you’ve come here unlawfully and then you’ve committed 

additional crimes, you know, that’s a hard case to make that somehow you should be given legal status, especially when we have a 

lot of meritorious people throughout the rest of the world who 

would like to come. 

But as I read it, it seems like, you know, you can still qualify 

for status even though you’ve been guilty of document fraud, false 

statements to authority, and even if you’ve absconded from previous removal proceedings. Is that accurate, you would still be able 

to get RPI status? Anyone of you can take that. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. And then there are certain—the way they 

deal with State convictions, it directs DHS to essentially ignore 

some of these convictions that may have happened under State 

law. Is that accurate? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. And then, you know, this gang issue. Obviously, if someone’s a part of a criminal gang, you know, we don’t 

want to be giving them legal status. But the way they write it, you 

actually have to have been convicted of the Federal gang statute 

provision, 18 USC 521. The problem is, is that that’s rarely the 

statute that would be used, because if you’re part of a gang, you’re 

engaging in criminal activity, you’re just going to be prosecuted 

under the prevailing general criminal laws. A lot of times those 

aren’t even Federal laws. If there’s no interstate commercial nexus, 

it would just be the basic State laws that are there. So to me that 

is inadequate. 

And then DUIs. It says three or more DUIs would make you ineligible. So, in other words, you could have two convictions for driving under influence and still get status under this law. Is that accurate? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. You also hear people talk about back taxes. You 

know, hey, people got to get right to the law, pay back taxes. I 

think a lot of people say, okay, well, yeah, that makes sense, if 

you’ve been working unlawfully, you’ve been earning an income, 

haven’t necessarily been paying taxes. I know some may, if they 

have a fake Social Security number. But I think most people view 

that as whatever income you’ve made that you would then pay 

taxes on that. But the law actually—that’s not what it is. It’s just 

if you happen to have an outstanding IRS assessment, then you 

have to pay your taxes. But if you’ve never been assessed anything 

by the IRS, then there’s not going to be a requirement for back 

taxes. Is that accurate? 

Ms. WOOD. That’s the way I understand it, yes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And I don’t know how that’s going to work. I 

mean, is that back taxes just going to apply to those who have 

demonstrated evidence of conservatism, the way the IRS treats this 

stuff? It seems like an open question to me. 
126 

So I just, as I look at this, we hear a lot of rhetoric from politicians. Really, once you start looking at things, you’ve got to square 

the rhetoric with the reality. And whatever the reality is, whatever 

bill you’re supporting, I just think that you should be honest about 

that so that the American people can have a better understanding 

of what it is. You know, as far as I’m concerned, lawful immigration is very beneficial for the country, both in terms of economic 

growth and in terms of cultural vitality. And I’ll yield in 10 seconds. 

A lot of folks who come here legally have to work very hard to 

do it. They really appreciate what this country has to offer. Seeing 

people who are here who were born into wealth and they criticize 

the country and all this stuff. So I really appreciate getting that 

new vitality in the United States. But we got to do it right, we got 

to do it in a way that’s fair for all. Thanks. 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. Thank the gentleman from Florida. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. Jeffries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask unanimous consent 

that an article from the Tucson Citizen entitled ‘‘ICE Agent’s Union 

Speaks Out on Director’s ’Discretionary Memo’’’ be entered into the 

record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
127 
128 
129 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Crane, I believe on June 23 of 2011 your organization issued a press release as it relates to this discretionary 

memo, as it’s been coined. Is that correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Honestly, sir, I don’t remember. We’ve put quite an 

few press releases out there. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. That’s been clear. Do you recall a statement that 

you made, ‘‘Any American concerned about immigration needs to 

brace themselves for what’s coming’’? 

Mr. CRANE. I do remember that, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And you then stated, I believe, in that very 

same missive, ‘‘This is just one of many new ICE policies in queue 

aimed at stopping the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in the 

United States.’’ Do you recall that statement? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And do you recall saying, ‘‘Unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, the Administration is now 

implementing it through agency policies.’’ Do you recall that statement? 

Mr. CRANE. Not so much, sir. But it sounds accurate. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And that’s your position. Correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, in your testimony today, you mentioned and 

compared your organization and the fact that there are only about 

5,000 customs agents, less than the number of officers in many 

local police departments. Correct? You stated that? 

Ms. WOOD. That was my testimony. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. That was you? Okay. 

Now, well, would you agree that ICE is a paramilitary organization in its construction? That’s for Mr. Crane. 

Mr. CRANE. Oh. It’s a law enforcement organization, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And as a law enforcement organization— 

most law enforcement organizations, I don’t know of one that’s 

not—but most law enforcement organizations are paramilitary organizations, correct, in their structure? 

Mr. CRANE. I don’t know, sir. I was in the military. I don’t consider it to be very close to the military. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. A paramilitary organization. 

Mr. CRANE. Yeah. I’m sorry, sir, I don’t know if I can answer 

that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. But there’s a chain of command within ICE. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And as part of that chain of command, 

there’s a Director, John Morton. Correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And that Director is responsible for policy in the 

agency as part of the chain of command that exists. Is that correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. But you disagreed with the policies that have been 

articulated by Director Morton. Correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Especially when they appear to be illegal, sir. Yes, 

sir. 
130 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And you’ve also disagreed with the policies 

of Secretary Napolitano, who is the Secretary of Homeland Security. Is that correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And she’s also, as part of the chain of command, above John Morton. Is that right? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, you’ve also disagreed with the policies 

of the Obama administration. Correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. 

Mr. CRANE. I think they’re kind of one in the same oftentimes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Right. Okay. And the President of the United 

States is ultimately at the top of that chain of command, correct, 

as the United States President? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, he’s been elected not once, but twice. 

Correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And does he have the discretion, is he lawfully 

permitted to execute, as the President of the executive branch, policies in the immigration and customs space? 

Mr. CRANE. Lawfully, yes, sir. But like I’ve said, we’re concerned 

that some of them are unlawful. And I think a judge may, you 

know, second that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Right. We’ll see what the Federal court determines. 

Now, in terms of annual removals, in the 1980’s, am I correct 

that annual removals never exceeded 35,000 at any point during 

that decade? 

Mr. CRANE. I’m sorry, sir, I don’t know those numbers. But I 

would trust that you have the correct numbers. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And in fiscal year 2002 under the Bush administration, if my timing is correct, 2002, the Administration removed approximately 165,000 people. Is that correct? 

Mr. CRANE. I don’t know that number, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, the Bush administration, I also believe, never removed more than about 360,000 people in a given 

year. Correct? 

Mr. CRANE. I thought it was 370-something thousand. But that 

might—— 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, under the Obama administration they 

have averaged approximately 400,000 removals and deportations. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. CRANE. That’s the numbers that they provide. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, you have reason to believe that those 

numbers are inflated? 

Mr. CRANE. I do, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And you believe those numbers are inflated 

because they include individuals who are not immediately ejected 

from the border upon their detention. Is that right? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, that’s some of it, sir. I mean, we also have a 

feeling in some offices and some locations that they are double 

counting statistics. Sometimes statistics are being counted by the 
131 

Border Patrol, sometimes they’re also then being counted by ICE. 

We believe, but I want to specify that I don’t have, like, documented proof of that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. So you have no real hard number. 

Mr. CRANE. No, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. This is a theory you have. 

Mr. CRANE. It’s more than a theory, I believe. But I do have documented proof. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. You don’t have a specific number at all. 

Mr. CRANE. A specific number of? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. You claim the numbers were inflated, but you 

have no specific evidence to back up that claim. Correct? 

Mr. CRANE. No, I don’t. I know the—I think it was the first year 

that President Obama came on board, I know they carried 20-someodd-thousand removals over from the previous year. That seemed 

pretty clear to us that, you know, that that number—that was 

cooking the books a little bit for us. But past that, no, I don’t know 

that we have any specific numbers. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from New York. 

And I want to thank again on behalf of Chairman Goodlatte and 

all of our colleagues our three witnesses for your expertise, your 

endurance, and your comity and professionalism with respect to 

one another and with respect to the Committee. 

With that, this concludes today’s hearing. Without objection, all 

Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. 

With our appreciation again, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ