U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

82–582 PDF 2013

MEASURING OUTCOMES TO UNDERSTAND THE 

STATE OF BORDER SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER 

AND MARITIME SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 20, 2013 

Serial No. 113–8 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DONDALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

GREG HILL, Chief of Staff 

MICHAEL GEFFROY, Deputy Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairwoman 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (Ex Officio) 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

PAUL L. ANSTINE, Subcommittee Staff Director 

DEBORAH JORDAN, Subcommittee Clerk 

ALISON NORTHROP, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Candice S. Miller, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Michigan, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security ........................................................................................................ 1 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security ........................................................................................................ 3 

WITNESSES

Mr. Michael J. Fisher, Chief, Border Patrol, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 

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

Mr. Kevin McAleenan, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 13 

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

Mr. Mark Borkowski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department 

of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 15 

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

Ms. Veronica Escobar, El Paso County Judge, El Paso, Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19 

APPENDIX

Materials Submitted by Veronica Escobar ............................................................ 41 

(1) 

MEASURING OUTCOMES TO UNDERSTAND 

THE STATE OF BORDER SECURITY 

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller [Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Barletta, Jackson Lee, and 

O’Rourke. 

Also present: Representative Barber. 

Mrs. MILLER. The Committee on Homeland Security, our Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to examine how to measure 

our Nation’s border security and our witnesses today are Chief Michael Fisher, chief of the United States Border Patrol, Kevin 

McAleenan, acting assistant commissioner in the Office of Field 

Operations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Mark 

Borkowski, who is the assistant commissioner for the Office of 

Technology, Innovation, and Acquisition at the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, and Judge Veronica Escobar of El Paso County 

Texas, and we certainly welcome all of our panel. I will introduce 

them a bit more in detail in just a moment. 

But how this committee and how this Congress really, this subcommittee, approaches border security should be based on answers 

I think to some very simple questions. 

First of all, what does a secure border actually look like? How 

do we get there? Then, how do we measure it? 

As Chairwoman of the subcommittee, I have made these questions certainly a focal point of our efforts here in this Congress. 

Identifying some of the principal characteristics of what a secure 

border looks like was the goal of this subcommittee’s first hearing. 

Today, we are going to be examining what is perhaps the most 

important piece of border security, and its puzzle so to speak, and 

that is how we measure border security outcomes. 

In the past, we have based our standing of border security 

progress at how much technology or how much personnel we have 

along the border or how many linear miles of the border that were 

under operational control. 

The current conversation focuses on the record, the number of 

Border Patrol agents, on how many UAVs we have there, on the 

fact that the amount of people that we are catching is low. So we 
2 

assume that the border must be secure, and security is certainly 

more than resources or low apprehension rates. 

Without a way to quantify effectiveness there can be really no 

sound basis for determining how secure our borders are, let alone 

justification for immigration policy decisions. 

I think it is time to change the conversation up a little bit. In 

my view I think a better way to the state of border security is how 

effective we are at keeping bad people or bad things out of the 

country; basically, we need to stop measuring resources and pivot 

to a measurement of outcomes. 

Our borders, whether that is the Southern Border or the Northern Border or all of our maritime borders, are very dynamic places 

that are constantly changing. Once we have secured a section of 

the border, that doesn’t mean that it will be secured forever. 

Smugglers are always going to seek out the area of least resistance and how we address our border security in measuring that 

has to reflect that reality also. 

At our last hearing, Assistant Commissioner McAleenan said 

something that I want to reiterate. He said, ‘‘There is no single 

measure that will tell the whole story at the border,’’ which I 

thought was very true. I certainly agree with that, which is why 

I am certainly open to a series of measures that could better inform 

the security and the vastly different terrain along the border or at 

our ports of entry and in the maritime environment. 

Unfortunately, such measures do not exist today. They don’t 

seem to be ready in the near-term. The Department of Homeland 

Security officials have been telling us for quite a few years that, 

sort of, the next holistic measure called the Border Condition Index 

is on its way and we have yet to see—to have it make its appearance. 

Although I certainly have said that I am willing to look at better 

ways, different ways to measure border security, but we are looking 

for the Department to deliver on that. 

My hope today is that we will get some good answers about the 

status of the BCI, what measures it will take into account, and 

when it may be ready. 

In fact, several Members have asked questions about the status 

of the BCI at our last hearing, but again, we were not able to get 

answers really from those on the ground. 

This is very troubling because if we learned anything from the 

failure of SBInet, it was that the operators on the ground have to 

be more involved, must be more involved. The ground-floor stakeholders must be more involved in the development of border security decisions, I think, in order to prevent any failure. 

Developing a complicated measure without the continual input of 

the men and women who are in the field, on the ground, who will 

be held to this standard, is not the best way to do business. 

So, if the BCI cannot be ready in 2 years, you know, we have to 

question if it is going to be a useful tool. 

In 2010, when the administration stopped reporting operational 

control information, the GAO warned that—they said, ‘‘The absence of measures for border security may reduce oversight and the 

Department of Homeland Security accountability.’’ 
3 

Congress and the American people must have a great deal of confidence that the Nation’s border security agencies can deter or apprehend the overwhelming majority who cross the border illegally, 

and possess the ability as well to interdict drugs and whatever else 

may be coming across destined for American cities, that we don’t 

want to be coming into our country. 

I think absence of such assurances, we will just have the same 

border security and immigration conversations next year and the 

following year and the following year thereafter. 

In my view, only a robust and agreed-upon way to measure outcomes can be the basis for that confidence. All of the DHS components for the nexus to the border have to be held accountable for 

success or failure, progress or not. 

We need to have a comprehensive strategy to secure the border 

and part of that strategy has to be a measurement system that 

makes sense. 

The Department should be held accountable for outcomes and 

certainly not keep telling us that the border is just more secure 

than ever because there are a lot of agents or technology or infrastructure along the border. 

Again, we have to be able to have a robust way of measuring it; 

something that can be explained, easily explained to the American 

people, that we are going in the right direction. 

So I certainly look forward to hearing from our distinguished 

panel this morning. I think we have a lot of expertise, fantastic expertise, before the subcommittee here today, and I we certainly 

look forward to hearing from them and at this time, I would yield 

to the Ranking Member for an opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Good morning. I thank the gentlelady from 

Michigan for yielding, and I am very pleased with your leadership 

and us working together on a very important component of America’s National security, and more importantly, Madam Chairwoman, asserting of the jurisdictional authority of Homeland Security and the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee as it relates to the question of comprehensive immigration reform. 

We know well that as the debate moves rather swiftly, one of the 

issues that has been raised, that will be raised, either as a constructive component or either in some camps and categories as one 

that would distract from comprehensive immigration reform, it is 

whether or not we have a secure border. 

Your last hearing, our last hearing, where we asked how the border was being secured was an important outlay, if you will, of establishing what is actually happening. 

This hearing is important because it is really key to have how 

that is measured and the experts that you have here, as I welcome 

the witnesses, will be very constructive in our journey toward making sure that the border security effort is led by this full committee, Chairman, and Ranking Member, and this subcommittee 

that I believe is working with good intentions. 

Let me also acknowledge Congressmen Beto O’Rourke for championing the value of understanding the border and providing us 

with insight as relates to the expertise that is in his Congressional 

district. So besides the witnesses, we look forward to welcoming 
4 

Judge Escobar for that expertise, and we thank the Congressman 

for his leadership on that issue. 

I am pleased the subcommittee is meeting to examine the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to use metrics to quantify 

border security. 

This discussion is particularly timely as Congress continues to 

work on legislation to reform our immigration system; border security will be an integral part of this discussion. 

Also in recent years, Congress has made unprecedented investments in border security personnel, technology, and resources to 

help DHS achieve that goal. 

Existing border metrics, while perhaps imperfect, indicate these 

investments have paid off. Apprehensions at border crosses totaled 

nearly 365,000 Nation-wide in fiscal year 2012, which is a 78 percent decrease from their peak in fiscal year 2000. 

According to the Government Accountability Office, Border Patrol 

data shows that the effectiveness rate for eight of the nine Border 

Patrol sectors on the Southwest Border improved from fiscal years 

2006 to 2011. 

They also found that the recidivism rate across has dropped to 

36 percent in fiscal year 2011, down from 42 percent in fiscal year 

2008. 

Certainly, our leadership on the board should be acknowledged 

for the work that our law enforcement has done along with homeland security. It is important to note these strides, and we thank 

you for it. 

It is important that for Congress to have an accurate assessment 

of remaining needs at our borders so we can identify areas for improvement. But I am encouraged that the trends—about the trends 

that we are seeing. But I also want to say that we want to make 

sure these trends are being seen in the light that they should be 

and that is that you have the resources that you need or is it combined with the weak economy. Likely we will hear some of that 

today. 

While metrics are useful to measure our continued progress towards better-managed borders, I will reiterate my strong opposition to tying a comprehensive immigration reform to achieving 

some arbitrary standard of border security or some exaggerated 

standard; meaning that to make the argument that the border is 

not secure and won’t be for many years to come and therefore we 

will not be able to complete comprehensive immigration reform. 

Indeed, we must move forward on parallel tracks reforming our 

broken immigration system while continuing to work together to 

achieve more secure borders. 

I would also caution that no single number or metrics can tell us 

whether our borders are secure. Geography and terrain of our borders are very diverse and the threats can differ from mile to mile 

based on highways, mountains, waterways, planes, and deserts. 

Madam Chairwoman, I do want to focus on the area that our colleague, Mr. Barber, is from, the Arizona desert area, and the concerns that he has expressed over the last couple of months in the 

time that he has been on this committee. 

Also metrics that are useful at the ports of entry will differ from 

those that are meaningful for between the ports of entry. Instead 
5 

I believe DHS should use a range of data points combined with the 

stakeholder input to determine the state of the border and to make 

decisions about where additional resources may be necessary. 

Today I hope to hear from the operators, Chief Fisher, Assistant 

Commissioner McAleenan, about what they believe are the best 

metrics to assess the state of our borders. 

I am particularly interested in hearing from the CBP about what 

metrics are most valuable at the ports of entry, which is something 

we hear less about compared to challenges between the ports of 

entry. 

Further, I want to hear about how Mr. Borkowski uses information from the operators both in developing Border Condition Index 

and making border security technology acquisition decisions. 

Last, and arguably most importantly, I would like to hear from 

Judge Escobar on how border cities’ and communities’ input and 

needs could be included in these decisions. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us and look forward to a productive discussion. 

Finally, in conclusion, I am aware of the GAO report, which I 

will make more comments on as I go forward, and the metrics request that was made by Congressman Thompson and also Mr. Barber, and as the Ranking Member, I will look forward to analyzing 

that report and probing it more closely. 

Finally, Madam Chairwoman, I will look to posing some questions regarding the utilization of drones on the border and will look 

forward to some in-depth responses to that inquiry. 

This is an important hearing. I thank the witnesses and look forward to a productive discussion. 

I yield back to the gentlelady. 

Mrs. MILLER. I thank the gentlelady, and I am prepared to accept a UC request if the gentlelady would like to offer one for Mr. 

Barber to sit in on our hearing. He said he had to run a quick errand and be right back. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I do. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Barber, as a Member of the full committee who is not a Member of the 

subcommittee, have permission to sit and to inquire through questioning on this committee and at this hearing. 

Mrs. MILLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mrs. MILLER. Other Members of the committee are reminded 

that opening statements might be submitted for the record and 

again, we are pleased to have four very, very distinguished witnesses before our panel here today. 

Michael Fisher was named chief of the United States Border Patrol in May 2012. Chief started his duty along the Southwest Border in 1987 in Douglas, Arizona. He has also served as the deputy 

chief patrol agent in the Detroit sector and as an assistant chief 

patrol agent in Tucson. 

Mr. Kevin McAleenan is the acting assistant commissioner at the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection where he is responsible for 

overseeing CBP’s antiterrorism, immigration, anti-smuggling, trade 

compliance, and agricultural protection operations at the Nation’s 

331 ports of entry. 

Welcome both of them back. 
6 

Mark Borkowski became the assistant commissioner at the Office 

of Technology, Innovation, and Acquisition at the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection in July 2010. 

In this role, he is responsible for ensuring technology efforts are 

properly focused on mission and well-integrated across CBP. Prior 

to his appointment as the assistant commissioner, Mr. Borkowski 

was the executive director of the Secure Border Initiative, SBInet. 

Veronica Escobar was sworn in as El Paso County Judge on January 1, 2011. She works on issues related to health care, border 

policy, government consolidation, nature tourism, economic development. In her role as judge, she has been active in addressing 

issues important in border communities. 

Judge, in my area, we call you the county executive. That is our 

term in Michigan for what you do there. 

But we welcome all of you here and certainly the witnesses’ full 

written statements will appear in the record. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Chief Fisher for his testimony, 

and thanks again for appearing once again before this subcommittee, Chief. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. FISHER, CHIEF, BORDER PATROL, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Chief FISHER. Chairwoman Miller, thank you for the opportunity. 

Ranking Member Jackson Lee, Congressman O’Rourke, Congressman Barletta, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the state of border security and the role that the Border Patrol 

agents and our mission support employees play to secure the border along with our strategic partners. 

I believe the committee has it right in terms of characterizing the 

border as a non-static state and framing the discussion around the 

state of border security. 

As we have discussed in the past, the border fluctuates with 

ever-present and dynamic threats along the continuum of potential 

vulnerabilities at a point in time. 

A condition that sets in motion risk mitigation as well as risk 

management responses primarily utilizing advanced information, 

operational and technological integration, and rapid response applied both at the strategic and the tactical level, all the while, recognizing the interdependency of intelligence, interdiction, and investigative capabilities. 

As stated in my previous remarks before this committee, I believe the state of border security is one in which we reduce the likelihood of attack to the Nation, one that provides safety and security 

to the citizens against the dangerous people seeking entry into the 

United States. 

Given this framework, the question becomes how should we 

measure this, not just how we can measure this; an important distinction in my opinion. 

In order to explain how we might show sustained progress over 

time in this mission space, I want to frame my brief remarks 

against our strategic plan. I will start with our classified environment, which is nothing less than the prevention of terrorists and 

terrorist weapons from entering the United States. 
7 

I propose that I would prefer this committee on the potential corridor threats to the homeland and describe to you our integrated 

risk mitigation approach. 

In a classified setting, I would share how we are prioritizing 

threats and how we are refining situational awareness. If amendable, we would also include outcome measures for your insights towards our progress. 

In the unclassified environment, our focus for this hearing on 

managing risk and disrupting and degrading transnational criminal organizations. Outcome measures to assess our progress in this 

area would include the following. 

First, analysis of unique subjects, which helps us determine the 

number of people who have entered between the ports of entry and 

were subsequently apprehended. 

Distinguishing unique subjects and as a subset of apprehensions 

is important because it informs our understanding of patterns and 

rates of flow toward and into the United States. It also allows us 

to measure illegal activity at in between the ports of entry. 

The second outcome measure would be recidivism, which separates the number of people arrested at least two times from those 

who are arrested only once. 

Third, the average apprehension-per-recidivist rate provides us 

with the ability to analyze the flow and corresponding trends to 

distinguish between those that only enter two times from those 

with multiple entries in a given area over a period of time. 

This is important in assessing the threat. Moreover, as a measure, it informs our decisions to redeploy resources to high-risk 

areas as well as applying the appropriate consequences in order to 

reduce a further entry while disrupting criminal smuggling networks culminating and reduce flow rates. 

Fourth, as we have discussed in the past, affective rates in corridors characterized by significant illegal cross-border activity is 

equally important. We need to be aware of those who make illegal 

entry and track as best we can the outcome. 

Now we are learning and getting better at knowing how many 

people entered, and of that number, how many did we apprehend 

or turn back. This, in essence, is the effectiveness ratio; an informed assessment governed by our best efforts of integrating technology along with our agent judgment and experience not predicated on certitude. 

Fifth, and final, post-apprehension analysis. For instance, how 

many individuals do we arrest with criminal records and what does 

the trend line suggest? How many individuals have outstanding arrest warrants? Were they previously removed from the United 

States, and if so, under what circumstances? Were they arrested 

while smuggling illegal contraband? 

These are just a few examples of outcome measures that I would 

offer this committee. To balance our judgments regarding the state 

of border security, outside entities at that track similar measures 

may be used. 

For instance, the FBI’s uniform crime reports, established to 

meet the needs for reliable, uniform crime statistics for the Nation, 

perhaps may be useful. Today, data from these reports and the 
8 

analysis are provided by nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies 

across United States. 

In conclusion, I want to thank the committee for leading this important effort to get the outcome measures right. I look forward to 

questions. Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Chief Fisher, Mr. McAleenan, 

and Mr. Borkowski follows:] 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. FISHER, KEVIN MCALEENAN, AND MARK

BORKOWSKI

MARCH 20, 2013 

Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members 

of the subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the role 

of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in securing America’s borders, a role 

that we share with our Federal, State, local, Tribal, and international partners. 

We are here today to discuss measurements of border security. Some have suggested that it can be measured in terms of linear miles of ‘‘operational control,’’ a 

tactical term once used by the Border Patrol to allocate resources among sectors and 

stations along the border. We do not use this term as a measure of border security 

because the reality is that the condition of the border cannot be described by a single objective measure. It is not a measure of crime, because even the safest communities in America have some crime. It is not merely a measure of resources, because 

even the heaviest concentration of fencing, all-weather roads, 24-hour lighting, surveillance systems, and Border Patrol agents cannot seal the border completely. 

For border communities, important barometers for success are security and facilitation of travel and trade. A secure border means living free from fear in their 

towns and cities. It means an environment where businesses can conduct cross-border trade and flourish. For other American communities, it means enjoying the benefits of a well-managed border that facilitates the flow of legitimate trade and travel. Our efforts, combined with those of our international, Federal, State, local, and 

Tribal partners, have transformed the border and assist in continuing to keep our 

citizens safe, our country defendable from an attack, and promote economic prosperity. 

For CBP, securing our borders means first having the visibility to see what is 

happening on our borders, and second, having the capacity to respond to what we 

see. We get visibility through the use of border surveillance technology, personnel, 

and air and marine assets. Our ability to respond is also supported by a mix of resources including personnel, tactical infrastructure, and air and marine assets. 

UNPRECEDENTED RESOURCES AT OUR BORDERS

Thanks to your support, the border is more secure than ever before. Since its inception, DHS has dedicated historic levels of personnel, technology, and infrastructure in support of our border security efforts. Resource levels, when considered with 

other factors, remain essential aspects in helping to assess the security of our borders. 

Law Enforcement Personnel 

Currently, the Border Patrol is staffed at a higher level than at any time in its 

88-year history. The number of Border Patrol agents (BPAs) has doubled, from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more than 21,000 agents today. Along the Southwest 

Border, DHS has increased the number of law enforcement on the ground from approximately 9,100 BPAs in 2001 to nearly 18,500 today. At our Northern Border, 

the force of 500 agents that we sustained 10 years ago has grown to more than 

2,200. Law enforcement capabilities at the ports of entry (POEs) have also been reinforced. To support our evolving, more complex mission since September 11, 2001, 

the number of CBP officers (CBPOs) ensuring the secure flow of people and goods 

into the Nation has increased from 17,279 customs and immigration inspectors in 

2003, to more than 21,000 CBPOs and 2,400 agriculture specialists today. These 

front-line employees facilitated $2.3 trillion in trade in fiscal year 2012, and welcomed a record 98 million air travelers, a 12 percent increase since fiscal year 2009, 

further illustrating the critical role we play not only with border security, but with 

economic security and continued growth. 
9 

Infrastructure and Technology 

In addition to increasing our workforce, DHS has also made unprecedented investments in border security infrastructure and technology. Technology is the primary 

driver of all land, maritime, and air domain awareness—and this will become only 

more apparent as CBP faces future threats. Technology assets such as integrated 

fixed towers, mobile surveillance units, and thermal imaging systems act as force 

multipliers increasing agent awareness, efficiency, and capability to respond to potential threats. As we continue to deploy border surveillance technology, particularly 

along the Southwest Border, these investments allow CBP the flexibility to shift 

more BPAs from detection duties to interdiction and resolution of illegal activities 

on our borders. 

At our POEs, CBP has aggressively deployed Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) and 

Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM) technology to identify contraband and weapons of 

mass effect. Prior to September 11, 2001, only 64 large-scale NII systems, and not 

a single RPM, were deployed to our country’s borders. Today CBP has 310 NII systems and 1,460 RPMs deployed. The result of this investment in resources is the 

capacity for CBP to scan 99 percent of all containerized cargo at seaports and 100 

percent of passenger and cargo vehicles at land borders for radiological and nuclear 

materials upon arrival in the United States. 

The implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) involved 

a substantial technology investment in the land border environment; this investment continues to provide both facilitation and security benefits. For example, 

today, more than 19 million individuals have obtained Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology-enabled secure travel documents. These documents are more 

secure as they can be verified electronically in real time back to the issuing authority, to establish identity and citizenship; they also reduce the average vehicle processing time by 20 percent. 

An outcome of the increased use of RFID-enabled secure travel documents is 

CBP’s capability to increase the National law enforcement query rate, including the 

terrorist watch list, to more than 98 percent. By comparison, in 2005, CBP performed law enforcement queries in the land border environment for only 5 percent 

of travelers. In terms of facilitation, CBP has also capitalized upon these notable 

improvements to establish active lane management at land border ports; this process is analogous to the management of toll booths on a highway. Through active 

lane management, CBP can adjust lane designations as traffic conditions warrant 

to better accommodate trusted travelers and travelers with RFID-enabled documents. 

CBP continues to optimize the initial investment in the land border by leveraging 

new technologies and process improvements across all environments. Since 2009, a 

variety of mobile, fixed, and tactical hybrid license plate readers (LPR) solutions 

have been deployed to 40 major Southern Border outbound crossings and 19 Border 

Patrol checkpoints. These capabilities have greatly enhanced CBP’s corporate ability 

to gather intelligence and target suspected violators by linking drivers, passengers, 

and vehicles across the core mission areas of in-bound, checkpoint, and out-bound. 

In the pedestrian environment, automated gates coupled with self-directed traveler 

kiosks now provide document information, query results, and biometric verification 

in advance of a pedestrian’s arrival to CBPOs. 

CBP not only supports security efforts along the nearly 7,000 miles of land borders, but also supplements efforts to secure the Nation’s 95,000 miles of coastal 

shoreline. CBP has more than 268 aircraft, including 10 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), and 293 patrol and interdiction vessels that provide critical aerial and 

maritime surveillance and operational assistance to personnel on the ground. Our 

UAS capabilities now cover the Southwest Border all the way from California to 

Texas, providing critical aerial surveillance assistance to personnel on the ground. 

Our UAS flew more than 5,700 hours in 2012, the most in the program’s history. 

Over the last 8 years, CBP transformed a border air wing composed largely of light 

observational aircraft into a modern air and maritime fleet capable of a broad range 

of detection, surveillance, and interdiction capabilities. This fleet is extending CBP’s 

detection and interdiction capabilities, extending our border security zones, and offering greater opportunity to stop threats prior to reaching the Nation’s shores. Further synthesizing the technology, CBP’s Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) 

integrates the surveillance capabilities of its Federal and international partners to 

provide domain awareness for the approaches to American borders, at the borders, 

and within the interior of the United States. 

CBP is also looking to the future by working closely with the DHS Science & 

Technology Directorate to identify and develop technology to improve our surveillance and detection capabilities in our ports and along our maritime and land borders. This includes investments in tunnel detection tactical communication up-
10 

grades, and tunnel activity monitoring technology, low-flying aircraft detection and 

tracking systems, maritime data integration/data fusion capabilities at AMOC, cargo 

supply chain security, and border surveillance tools tailored to Southern and Northern Borders, including unattended ground sensors/tripwires, upgrades for mobile 

Surveillance Systems, camera poles, and wide-area surveillance. 

INDICATORS OF SUCCESS

This deployment of resources has, by every traditional measure, led to unprecedented success. In fiscal year 2012, Border Patrol apprehension activity remained 

at historic lows with apprehensions in California, Arizona, and New Mexico continuing a downward trend. In fiscal year 2012, the Border Patrol recorded 364,768 

apprehensions Nation-wide. In fiscal year 2012 apprehensions were 78 percent 

below their peak in 2000, and down 50 percent from fiscal year 2008. An increase 

in apprehensions was noted in south Texas, specifically of individuals from Central 

American countries, including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. However, 

significant border-wide investments in additional enforcement resources and enhanced operational tactics and strategy have enabled CBP to address the increased 

activity. Today, there are more than 6,000 BPAs in South Texas, an increase of 

more than 80 percent since 2004. 

At POEs in fiscal year 2012, CBPOs arrested nearly 7,900 people wanted for serious crimes, including murder, rape, assault, and robbery. CBPOs also stopped nearly 145,000 inadmissible aliens from entering the United States through POEs. Outcomes resulting from the efforts of the CBP National Targeting Center and Immigration Advisory Program, include the prevention of 4,199 high-risk travelers, who 

would have been found inadmissible from boarding flights destined for the United 

States, an increase of 32 percent compared to fiscal year 2011. 

We see increasing success in our seizures as well. From fiscal year 2009 to 2012, 

CBP seized 71 percent more currency, 39 percent more drugs, and 189 percent more 

weapons along the Southwest Border as compared to fiscal year 2006 to 2008. Nation-wide, CBP officers and agents seized more than 4.2 million pounds of narcotics 

and more than $100 million in unreported currency through targeted enforcement 

operations. On the agricultural front, from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2012, CBP 

interceptions of reportable plant pests in the cargo environment increased more 

than 48 percent to 48,559 in fiscal year 2012. In addition to protecting our Nation’s 

ecosystems and associated native plants and animals, these efforts are important to 

protecting our Nation’s economy as scientists estimate that the economic impacts 

from invasive species exceed $1 billion annually in the United States. 

Another indicator of the success of our combined law enforcement efforts is reduced crime rates along the Southwest Border. According to 2010 FBI crime reports, 

violent crimes in Southwest Border States have dropped by an average of 40 percent 

in the last 2 decades. More specifically, all crime in the 7 counties that comprise 

the South Texas area is down 10 percent from 2009 to 2011. Between 2000 and 

2011, four cities along the Southwest Border—San Diego, McAllen, El Paso, and 

Tucson—experienced population growth, while also seeing significant decreases in 

violent crime. 

These border communities have also seen a dramatic boost to their economies in 

recent years. In fiscal year 2012, more than $176 billion in goods entered through 

the Laredo and El Paso, Texas POEs as compared to $160 billion in fiscal year 2011. 

Additionally, the import value of goods entering the United States through Texas 

land ports has increased by 55 percent between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 

2012. In Laredo alone, imported goods increased in value by 68 percent. Arizona is 

also a significant source for the flow of trade. In both fiscal year 2011 and fiscal 

year 2012, $20 billion entered through Arizona POEs. 

Communities along the Southwest Border are among the most desirable places to 

live in the Nation. Forbes ranked Tucson the No. 1 city in its April 2012 ‘‘Best Cities 

to Buy a Home Right Now’’ and in February, 2012, the Tucson Association of Realtors reported that the total number of home sales was up 16 percent from the same 

month the previous year. Tucson also joins Las Cruces, New Mexico on Forbes’ list 

of ‘‘25 Best Places to Retire.’’ These Southwest Border communities are also safe. 

In fact, Business Insider published a list of the top 25 most dangerous cities in 

America, and again, none of them is located along the Southwest Border. In fact, 

El Paso was named the second safest city in America in 2009 and the safest in 2010 

and 2011. This is in dramatic contrast to Ciudad Juarez, just across the border, 

which is often considered one of the most dangerous cities in the Western Hemisphere. 

The successes of a secure border are also reflected in key National economic measures. In 2011, secure international travel resulted in overseas travelers spending 
11 

$153 billion in the United States—an average of $4,300 each—resulting in a $43 

billion travel and tourism trade surplus. In addition, a more secure global supply 

chain resulted in import values growing by 5 percent and reaching $2.3 trillion in 

fiscal year 2012 and is expected to exceed previous records in the air, land, and sea 

environments this year. CBP collects tens of billions of dollars in duties, providing 

a significant source of revenue for our Nation’s treasury. These efforts compliment 

the strategies implemented by the President’s National Export Initiative (NEI) 

which resulted in the resurgence of American manufacturers, who have added nearly 500,000 jobs since January 2010, the strongest period of job growth since 1989. 

Additionally, other efforts to boost trade and exports are producing results. In 2011, 

United States exports have reached record levels, totaling more than $2.1 trillion, 

33.5 percent above the level of exports in 2009. United States exports supported 

nearly 9.7 million American jobs in 2011, a 1.2 million increase in the jobs supported by exports since 2009. Further, over the first 2 years of the NEI, the Department of Commerce had recruited more than 25,000 foreign buyers to United States 

trade shows, resulting in about 1.7 billion in export sales. The administration’s National Travel and Tourism Strategy calls for 100 million international visitors a year 

by the end of 2021, bringing more than $250 billion in estimated spending. 

PROTECTING AMERICA FROM AFAR: SECURE BORDERS EXPANDED

Although enforcement statistics and economic indicators point to increased security and an improved quality of life, many of these outcomes are a result of CBP’s 

intelligence-based framework to direct its considerable resources toward a dynamic 

and evolving threat. CBP gathers and analyzes this intelligence and data to inform 

operational planning and effective execution. 

CBP’s programs and initiatives reflect DHS’s ever-increasing effort to extend its 

security efforts outward. This ensures that our POEs are not the last line of defense, 

but one of many. 

Securing Travel 

On a typical day, CBP welcomes nearly a million travelers at our air, land, and 

sea POEs. The volume of international air travelers increased by 12 percent from 

2009 to 2012 and is projected to increase 4 to 5 percent each year for the next 5 

years. CBP continues to address the security elements of its mission while meeting 

the challenge of increasing volumes of travel in air, land, and sea environments, by 

assessing the risk of passengers from the earliest, and furthest, possible point, and 

at each point in the travel continuum. 

As a result of advance travel information, CBP has the opportunity to assess passenger risk long before a traveler arrives at a POE. Before an individual travels to 

the United States, CBP has the opportunity to assess their risk via the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization for those traveling under the Visa Waiver Program, 

or as part of the inter-agency collaborative effort to adjudicate and continuously vet 

visas, which are issued by the Department of State. CBP has additional opportunities to assess a traveler’s risk when they purchase their ticket and/or make a reservation, and when they check-in. 

Before an international flight departs for the United States from the foreign point 

of origin, commercial airlines transmit passenger and crew manifest information to 

CBP. CBP’s National Targeting Center then reviews traveler information to identify 

travelers who would be determined inadmissible upon arrival. As part of its PreDeparture and Immigration Advisory/Joint Security Programs, CBP coordinates 

with the carriers to prevent such travelers from boarding flights bound for the 

United States. From fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2012 CBP prevented 8,984 

high-risk travelers from boarding as a result of these programs. 

Additionally, CBP’s work on business innovations and enhanced partnerships with 

private industry helped lead to the expansion of Trusted Traveler Programs like 

Global Entry. More than 1.7 million people, including more than 414,000 new members this fiscal year, have enrolled in Trusted Traveler Programs, which allow expedited clearance for pre-approved, low-risk air travelers upon arrival in the United 

States. When comparing 2011 and 2012, CBP processed 500,000 more passengers 

using Global Entry and there were 689,000 more kiosk uses in 2012. 

These efforts not only allow CBP to mitigate risk before a potential threat arrives 

at a POE, but they also make the travel process more efficient and economical by 

creating savings for the Federal Government and the private sector by preventing 

inadmissible travelers from traveling to the United States. 

Securing Trade and the Supply Chain 

In fiscal year 2012, CBP processed 25.3 million cargo containers through the Nation’s POEs, an increase of 4 percent from 2011, with a trade value of $2.3 trillion. 
12 

The United States is the world’s largest importer and exporter of goods and services. 

To address increasing travel volumes, CBP assesses the risk of cargo bound for the 

United States, whether by air, land, or sea, at the earliest point of transit. 

Receiving advanced shipment information allows CBP to assess the risk of cargo 

before it reaches a POE. Since 2009, the Importer Security Filing (ISF) and the Additional Carrier Requirements regulation have required importers to supply CBP 

with an electronically-filed ISF consisting of advance data elements 24 hours prior 

to lading for cargo shipments that will be arriving into the United States by vessel. 

These regulations increase CBP’s ability to assess the scope and accuracy of information gathered on goods, conveyances, and entities involved in the shipment of 

cargo to the United States via vessel. 

Since 2010, CBP has implemented the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) pilot, 

which enables CBP and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to receive 

advance security filing cargo data and help identify cargo shipments inbound to the 

United States via the air environment that may be high-risk and require additional 

physical screening. Identifying high-risk shipments as early as possible in the air 

cargo supply chain provides CBP and TSA an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of cargo data while facilitating the movement of legitimate trade into 

the United States. Benefits to ACAS pilot participants include: Efficiencies by automating the identification of high-risk cargo for enhanced screening before it is consolidated and loaded on aircraft and reduction in paper processes related to cargo 

screening requirements which may increase carrier efficiency. 

CBP also has a presence at foreign ports to add another layer of security to cargo 

bound for the United States. The Container Security Initiative (CSI) launched in 

2002 by the former U.S. Customs, places CBPOs on the ground at foreign ports to 

perform pre-screening of containers before they placed on a United States-bound 

vessel. The CSI program has matured since its inception in 2002, through increased 

partnership with host country counterparts and advances in targeting and technology, allowing CBP to decrease the number of CBPOs on the ground at CSI ports, 

while maintaining security outcomes. CBP still screens more than 80 percent of 

cargo destined for the United States prior to lading on a vessel. 

Securing the Source and Transit Zones 

The effort to push out America’s borders is also reflected by CBP’s efforts to interdict narcotics and other contraband long before it reaches the United States. Since 

1988, CBP Office of Air and Marine (OAM) and the former U.S. Customs Service, 

has provided Detection and Monitoring capabilities for the Source and Transit Zone 

mission. The CBP OAM P–3 Orion Long Range Tracker (LRT) and the Airborne 

Early Warning (AEW) aircraft have provided air and maritime surveillance, detecting suspect smugglers that use a variety of conveyances. Transnational Criminal 

Organizations (TCOs) smuggle various contraband towards the United States Borders and Arrival Zones. The CBP P–3 aircraft have been instrumental in reducing 

the flow of contraband from reaching the Arrival Zones, by detecting the suspect aircraft and vessels while still thousands of miles away from America’s border. In fiscal 

year 2012, P–3 crews were involved in the seizure of 117,103 pounds of cocaine and 

12,824 pounds of marijuana. In the first quarter of 2013, P–3 crews have been involved in the seizure of 33,690 pounds of cocaine and 88 pounds of marijuana. Providing direction to interdiction assets and personnel to intercept suspects long before 

reaching the United States, the CBP P–3 aircraft and crew provide an added layer 

of security, by stopping criminal activity before reaching our shores. 

EVALUATING THE STATE OF THE BORDER

DHS uses a number of indicators and outcomes to evaluate security efforts at our 

borders, including factors described above such as resource deployment, crime rates 

in border communities, and apprehensions. However, while enforcement statistics 

and economic indicators point to increased security and an improved quality of life, 

no single metric can conclusively define the state of border security. Any individual 

metric can only capture one element of border security and none captures the true 

state of security along our borders. Rather than focus on any particular metric, our 

focus is on the enhancement of our capabilities, ensuring that we have tools that 

will lead to a high probability of interdiction in high-activity areas along our Southwest Border. 

CONCLUSION

Over the past 4 years, this administration has undertaken an unprecedented effort to secure our border and transform our Nation’s immigration enforcement systems into one that focuses on public safety, National security, and on the integrity 
13 

of the immigration system. DHS has deployed historic levels of personnel, technology, and infrastructure to the Southwest Border to reduce the flow of illicit 

drugs, cash, and weapons and to expedite legal trade and travel through trusted 

traveler and trader initiatives. 

CBP has made significant progress in securing the border with the support of 

Congress through a multi-layered approach using a variety of tools at our disposal. 

CBP will continue to work with DHS and our Federal, State, local, Tribal, and international partners, to strengthen border security and infrastructure. We must remain vigilant and focus on building our approach to position CBP’s greatest capabilities in place to combat the greatest risks that exist today, to be prepared for 

emerging threats, and to continue to build a sophisticated approach tailored to meet 

the challenges of securing a 21st Century border. At the same time, the Secretary 

has made it clear that Congress can help by passing a common-sense immigration 

reform bill that will allow CBP to focus its resources on the most serious criminal 

actors threatening our borders. 

Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members 

of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify about the work of 

CBP and our efforts in securing our borders. We look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thanks very much, Chief. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. McAleenan for his testimony, and again, welcome back to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN MC ALEENAN, ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF CUSTOMS AND FIELD OPERATIONS, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MCALEENAN. Good to be back. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, distinguished Members of 

the subcommittee. I appreciate this committee’s continued leadership on these issues and look forward to our discussion this morning. 

CBP remains committed to increasing the effectiveness of our operations and programs and we welcome this discussion. 

We define a secure border at our Nation’s port of entry as a wellmanaged border where mission risks are effectively identified and 

addressed while legitimate trade and travel are expedited. 

Every day we carry out our mission to protect the people and the 

economy of the United States by preventing dangerous people and 

goods from entering the country while expediting legitimate trade 

and travel that is a lifeblood of our economy. 

Traffic at our 330 ports of entry is diverse and varied. It differs 

by environment—air, land, and sea; type of traffic, whether traveler, conveyance, or cargo; and mode of transportation—commercial 

or general aviation, personally-owned vehicle, truck, rail, and containerized package or bulk cargo. All of these present different 

challenges and different threat profiles and different processing 

time expectations. 

As a result, as you noted, Madam Chairwoman, we don’t have a 

single number or target level by which CBP’s Office of Field Operations can measure the full scope of our security or facilitation efforts, but there are a number of important indicators that we do 

use to address and refine our operations. 

These metrics are both qualitative and quantitative. They include effectiveness and efficiency, and are assessed at the National, 

regional, port, and programmatic levels. 
14 

We use these key indicators to assess our performance and evaluate trends and developments over time. I think we can come to a 

mission and environment-specific understanding of what those 

measures are and the best way to capture and discuss them. 

We start with the volume of travelers and goods. That is the 

backdrop against which we measure our performance. Last year, 

CBP welcomed 350 million passengers and travelers and processed 

over 25 million cargo containers and over 100 million air cargo 

shipments with a trade value of $2.3 trillion. 

We continue to see increases in all of our environments at both 

traveler and trade and anticipate continued growth. 

It is important to note that the vast majority of this traffic, an 

estimated 99.5 percent of land passengers and 90.6 percent of air 

travelers, is in compliance with all laws and regulations. 

Our goal is to identify and interdict those few travelers and shipments that may present a risk, while facilitating the vast majority. 

This presents a complex, multifaceted risk-sorting problem that we 

work very hard to address every day. We are working to find and 

stop those proverbial needles in the haystacks while the haystacks 

are actually in motion. 

Using a number of increasingly-refined tools and techniques, we 

are improving our ability to do this and focusing our finite resources on those people and goods that present the highest potential risk. 

In addition to refining our risk-based and layered approach to security, we have worked to extend our borders outward to interject 

threats before they reach the United States at the earliest possible 

point in the supply chain in the travel cycle. 

DHS, in cooperation with our interagency and foreign partners, 

now screens people and goods earlier in the process before boarding 

passengers or loading cargo onto planes or vessels destined for the 

United States. 

Since 2009, CBP has expanded its pre-departure screening efforts and now checks all air travelers against Government databases on all flights arriving to or departing from the United States 

prior to boarding. 

In addition, all in-bound maritime cargo manifests are screened 

before they are laden vessels with almost 85 percent of high-risk 

shipments being examined or addressed before arrival at a U.S. 

seaport. 

We are tracking improvements in our capabilities, resulting in 

enforcement benefits across each of our other critical missions, as 

well, from our enhanced capacity to identifying and interdicting inadmissible persons to our ability to detect and interdict smaller 

and better-concealed contraband to our trade enforcement and agriculture protection efforts. 

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss any of these mission 

areas in greater detail. 

In addition to improving our ability to identify and mitigate potentially high-risk trade and travel, CBP remains focused on identifying ways to facilitate the growing volume of people and goods entering the United States. 

We have seen marked facilitation improvements to the development of a series of transformative initiatives that increases speed 
15 

of our processing including the expansion of trusted traveler and 

trader programs, the elimination of paper forms, and the increased 

use of technology in our process. 

We will continue to aggressively pursue these strategies which 

will both increase security and streamline the process for people 

and goods crossing the border. 

The state of border security continues to improve at our ports of 

entry. We have made tremendous progress and are well-postured 

against terrorist threats having pushed our security measures beyond our immediate borders. 

We have focused our agricultural protection efforts against the 

highest-risk, pest, and diseases and are maintaining historic levels 

of interceptions of products and pests, and we are pursuing a robust strategy to optimize our current business processes. 

In short, we have maintained and increased our mission effectiveness while facing increasing demands from growing passenger 

and trade volume and we continue to seek ways to improve. 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look 

forward to taking your questions. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Borkowski for his testimony and welcomes him back to the committee as well. 

STATEMENT OF MARK BORKOWSKI, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ACQUISITION, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Thank you, Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the committee. It 

is a pleasure to be here and talk about this what is frankly an extremely challenging topic. 

I think it is important because we have talked a little bit about 

how the Border Patrol measures, what the Border Patrol does, and 

that is important, and we need to continue to do that. 

Assistant Commissioner McAleenan just talked a great deal 

about how he knows whether he is doing well or poorly and it is 

important that we do that, but in some of the discussions and even 

here, we have asked—but holistically, how are we doing? 

So to start, I think we need to kind of reframe that. As I deal 

with this question, and I have done a lot of research on it as you 

might imagine, I have to constantly remind myself that this is a 

bigger problem than even just CBP. 

This is a holistic question of what the state of the border is and 

CBP is a part of that, is a part of the contribution, but is not the 

entire contribution. 

I know we have all heard the Secretary for example emphasize 

the importance of internal enforcement. So you are the panel here 

from Customs and Border Protection, which is very much focused 

on the at-the-border contribution to border security. You just heard 

about the Border Patrol domain and you have heard about the Office of Field Operations domain, but what about—how do you put 

all that together? 
16 

I think, Chairwoman Miller, it goes to something you said in 

your statement about how do we simplify this. 

Because frankly we are very comfortable with the kinds of measures that our experts are proposing, but it is very difficult to use 

those in this kind of a forum to discuss the state of border security. 

That is actually what has gotten us to some of the opportunities, 

the options, the things that we have been investigating as perhaps 

ways of depicting that story in a simpler form, and that is what 

the BCI is intended to do. 

So let me briefly describe the BCI. You probably remember that 

we have gone through several iterations of ways of attempting to 

explain the state of the border and one of the more recent ones was 

apprehensions; the decline in apprehensions. 

We often said and continue to say that the decline in apprehensions is a good indicator that the border is more secure. Now when 

we said that, frankly we said that because as you might have gathered from some of the things that the chief said, we look at a lot 

more than that. 

We look at a great deal of data that helps us validate what those 

apprehensions mean, but for the simplicity of presentation to the 

public, we used the apprehensions as a surrogate for all of that information. The Secretary asked us about that at one point because 

she got criticized, frankly, for using apprehensions; what about the 

things that you don’t know? 

Well actually, there is a lot more we know but it was that dilemma of being simple in explanation that was the problem. So we 

went back to the Secretary and described the kinds of things that 

you just heard from AC McAleenan and from Chief Fisher, and the 

Secretary said that is great and I get that, but is there any way 

that you can consolidate that into something a little simpler? 

Something that stands for all of that without necessarily being all 

of that; and that is what the concept of the Border Condition Index 

is. 

So we have been going and researching datum looking at what 

is available, looking—is there some set of—some subset of this that 

is an indicator, that is indicative of what all of the data says? 

Although I think there is a perception that we have not worked 

with the operators, in fact, we have. We started with the operators. 

We have reiterated with the operators, but partly that reconciliation between what Chief Fisher is doing in his kind of tactical 

operational level and at the big picture message, that takes time. 

That is one of the challenges. We had to do that very carefully and 

very deliberately. 

So that is what the BCI is intended to do. I would be happy to 

talk about where we are in that. We have looked at a number of 

options, but I would also caution you that it is an indicator. It is 

not a perfect number, but it has attempted to depict what all of 

this other stuff when you look at it holistically tells us, and so the 

question is: What should be in there? What does that mean it to 

be holistic? That is what we are dealing with the BCI. 

The only other thing I think I would like to highlight briefly because I think, Chairwoman Miller, you raised it, and I just want 

to make this point. We agree that it is not appropriate to measure 
17 

inputs standing alone as measures of border security. What is an 

input? 

Number of Border Patrol agents, amount of technology, miles of 

fence, those are resources we apply to a problem, and we agree it 

is not correct to say we have just spent a lot of money and therefore, we are better. We need to link that to outcomes, but one of 

the challenges is that when you design plans, you design them with 

an expectation of an outcome. 

So what I want to assure you of is that when we talk about plans 

for technology or for personnel, we have done that, advised by, for 

example, in the case of the Border Patrol, the Border Patrol’s expectation of what that will produce in terms of an outcome. 

So when we measure our progress against for example amount 

of technology procured, it is important to measure that, but I want 

to assure you that we measure that in the context of the reason 

we are doing it is because it is designed to produce an outcome that 

the Border Patrol has requested. 

So that is kind of our overall thinking. That is what the BCI is 

designed to do and I wouldn’t throw away measures of inputs, but 

I would always remember that those measures—those inputs were 

designed to produce an outcome. 

I look forward to the committee’s questions. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Judge Escobar for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF VERONICA ESCOBAR, EL PASO COUNTY 

JUDGE, EL PASO, TEXAS 

Judge ESCOBAR. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Miller and 

Ranking Member Jackson Lee. I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here with all of you this morning. 

I am Veronica Escobar, the county judge for El Paso, Texas. As 

one of your colleagues and my own Member of Congress has undoubtedly informed you many times, El Paso is the safest city of 

its size in the Nation. 

In fact, for the last 3 years in a row, that has been our ranking 

and for at least a decade preceding that, we have been among the 

top three safest cities of the Nation, and that predated the walls, 

the drones, and the quadrupling of Border Patrol agents. 

We are dealing today with this question of how to measure security because border security was mandated to be achieved before 

immigration reform would be enacted. 

We were told by our policymakers that our pursuit would be enforcement first, but it quickly became enforcement only to the detriment of any thoughtful policy considerations or reform. 

Those of us who have been engaged in this issue have long said 

that immigration reform should come first, that approaching enforcement first or only is a backward way to deal with the flow of 

people and goods across our borders. 

In 2007, when the Federal Government erected the wall that 

scars my community, I took a tour of it with Border Patrol agents 

who told me that 85 percent of their apprehensions at the border 

were of non-criminal offenders. 
18 

That meant only 15 percent or fewer of the apprehensions made 

were for criminal aliens. It is important to note that the definition 

of criminal aliens is broad and includes people who do not necessarily represent a security threat to the United States. 

The more important fact is that the 85 percent and even some 

of the 15 percent of undocumented crossers are risking jail time 

and even their lives to be in this country to find work, perhaps establish a safer and better life, or reunite with their families. 

In 2008, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar wrote that, ‘‘90 percent of the illegal aliens we arrest are drawn to this country for 

socioeconomic reasons,’’ but our Nation has spent enormous resources trying to secure our borders from these migrants. 

Had we dealt with those crossers at the policy level, creating for 

example legal guest-worker programs for migrant farm workers or 

more humane family reunification programs, which are especially 

relevant for border communities like mine, then fewer resources 

would have been needed for security, which costs taxpayers $18 billion in fiscal year 2012 alone, and more importantly, those resources could have been aimed at targeting true threats, the 

threats described by those seated at this table. 

With this in mind, how do we as a Nation put together metrics 

that will define success and security? How do we apply that to a 

border where the geography, environments, and populations are so 

different as the Ranking Member pointed out in her opening statements? 

Furthermore, if we are to look at what security is, we should also 

identify what we know it should not be. It should not be long, 

idling wait times at our ports of entry, and it should not be unnecessary, expensive, ugly fencing that can easily be defeated with 

tunnels and ladders. 

Since we are talking about metrics today, one of the metrics El 

Paso and other communities have asked about for years now has 

been staffing statistics at each of our ports of entry. It is very difficult to fully understand how to address the lack of personnel at 

the ports when the statistics about the specific number of CBP personnel at each port isn’t available to local leaders or even the Members of Congress who represent us in the District of Columbia. 

This secrecy will be problematic if and when communities like El 

Paso are allowed to begin reimbursable fee, public/private partnerships such as those described in S. 178 and its companion bill, H.R. 

1108, the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2013. 

I know there are co-sponsors on this committee and even the 

Chairman of the committee. I define security by our ability to protect our vital interests; our port—excuse me—our people, our economy, and our infrastructure among them. 

Security for example should be measured by how quickly we can 

move people and goods safely across our ports. Is international 

trade that boosts our economy a vital interest of the United States 

and therefore an important measure of our security? 

Absolutely. In another vein, security also should be measured by 

the transparency that helps us address shortages in personnel and 

inadequacies in technology and infrastructure. 

Finally, it should be measured by those of us who live in the 

communities that bear the brunt of the measures enacted by Con-
19 

1 Aguilar, David V. Frontline U.S. Customs and Border Protection Magazine. ‘‘Protecting the 

Southern Border,’’ Spring 2008, p. 10. 

gress and should be based on close collaboration with local leaders 

and law enforcement. 

I submit to you that once we deal with immigration reform first, 

finally, and thoughtfully, a more meaningful and less complex debate over security and outcomes can easily be resolved. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I look forward to the 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Escobar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERONICA ESCOBAR

MARCH 20, 2013 

Good morning, my name is Veronica Escobar and I am the county judge of El 

Paso, Texas. I thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today to discuss 

‘‘Measuring Outcomes to Understand the State of Border Security.’’ 

As one of your colleagues (and my Congressman from Texas’s 16th Congressional 

District), Representative Beto O’Rourke has said many times, El Paso, a border 

community, is among the safest in the Nation. In fact, the last 3 years in a row, 

we’ve been ranked the safest city of our size, and have consistently ranked among 

the top three safest cities for over a decade. This achievement, just like the safety 

enjoyed by other communities along the U.S.-Mexico border, predated the walls, 

drones, and quadrupling of Border Patrol personnel. So I appreciate that I can share 

with you a local perspective about security on the border. 

We’re dealing with this question of how to measure security because border security was mandated to be achieved before immigration reform would be enacted. We 

were told by our policy-makers that our pursuit would be ‘‘enforcement first,’’ but 

it quickly became ‘‘enforcement only,’’ to the detriment of any thoughtful policy considerations or reform. 

Those of us who have been engaged in this issue have long said that immigration 

reform should come first—that approaching enforcement first (or only) is a backward way to deal with the flow of people and goods across our borders. 

In 2007 when the Federal Government erected the wall that scars my community, 

I took a tour of it with Border Patrol agents, who told me that 85% of apprehensions 

at the border were of non-criminal offenders. That meant only 15% or fewer of the 

apprehensions made were for ‘‘criminal aliens.’’ It’s important to note that the definition of ‘‘criminal aliens,’’ is broad and includes people who do not necessarily represent a security threat to the United States. The more important fact is that 85% 

(and even some of the 15%) of undocumented crossers are risking jail time and even 

their lives to be in this country to find work, perhaps establish a safer and better 

life, or reunite with their families. In 2008, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar wrote 

that ‘‘90 percent of the illegal aliens we arrest are drawn to this country for socioeconomic reasons.’’1

But our Nation has spent enormous resources trying to ‘‘secure’’ our borders from 

these migrants. Had we dealt with those crossers at the policy level—creating, for 

example, legal guest worker programs for migrant farm workers or more humane 

family reunification programs (especially relevant for border communities like 

mine), then fewer resources would have been needed for security, which cost taxpayers $18 billion in fiscal year 2012 alone. In El Paso, for example, if it were easier 

for Mexicans to go back and forth, fewer would try to live here permanently—with 

stricter controls, crossers have an incentive to try to live here rather than risk recrossing the border. 

With this in mind, how do we as a Nation put together metrics that will define 

success and security? How do we apply that to a border where the geography, environments, and populations are so different? 

While our Southern Border cities have commonalities among them, clearly we are 

not all alike. El Paso is an urban community, a vibrant county of over 800,000 people with five international ports of entry in our sector that move people and goods 

back and forth. We are across from the massive, sprawling metropolis of Ciudad 

Jua ́ rez. Obviously, we are unlike rural border towns that are situated across from 

rural Mexican communities. But, we all share a common theme: The vast majority 

of the people coming across our border want to be a part of us, not harm us. 
20 

And before evaluating metrics for success, how do we even define ‘‘security’’? That 

is a definition that depends on whom you ask. Some think that security means not 

allowing a single human being to enter our country without permission—an impossible standard. Absolute security can never be achieved. And even if it could, absolute security is incompatible with a free society. Security may mean something different to local law enforcement, or to those in the intelligence community, or to 

those who are part of a neighborhood watch program. History has shown us that 

the Southern Border does not present a security threat. 

If what this country is trying to achieve is having more control over who comes 

back and forth across our borders and knowing who those people are and what 

they’re bringing in, I will repeat that we’ve approached the situation in a completely 

backward way. 

It’s not too late to revisit that approach even though the question before everyone 

now is how to measure border security. The key is to reform immigration first and 

then deal with those who are truly a threat to U.S. National security. We need to 

stop using precious resources on those whose purpose in coming to the United 

States presents no threat and who can be dealt with through policy changes. 

Furthermore, if we are to look at what security is, we should also identify what 

we know it should not be: It should not be long idling wait times at our ports of 

entry and it should not be unnecessary, expensive, ugly fencing that can be easily 

defeated with tunnels and ladders. 

Those border wait times are expected to worsen if we do nothing. I recently toured 

some of the maquiladoras in Ciudad Jua ́ rez, which produce the cell phones we use 

as well as a number of different products that this Nation’s economy and people depend on. Each maquiladora is expanding and their exports are growing. That means 

more commerce moving across El Paso’s ports (last year it was worth $80 billion). 

These job- and economy-growing companies all shared a common concern and complaint: Long border wait times. 

Since we’re talking about metrics today, one of the metrics El Paso and other communities have asked about for years now has been staffing statistics at each of our 

ports. It’s very difficult to fully understand how to address the lack of personnel at 

the ports when the statistics about the specific number of CBP personnel at each 

port isn’t available to local leaders or even the Members of Congress who represent 

us in the District of Columbia. I understand the need to secure certain data from 

the human- and drug-smuggling organizations that CBP and ICE contend with on 

a daily basis. However, keeping these statistics secret from policy makers such as 

Members of Congress is excessive and counter-productive. 

This secrecy will be problematic if and when communities like El Paso are allowed 

to begin reimbursable fee public-private partnerships such as those described in S. 

178 and its companion bill in the house, H.R. 1108, the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2013. The Chairman of this committee is even a co-sponsor of this 

legislation. If we as local partners are encouraged to supplement personnel at our 

ports but we aren’t allowed to know what current staffing levels are, how will we 

know what the supplement should be? These are the types of metrics we should be 

focused on. 

I define security by our ability to protect our vital interests: Our people, our economy, and our infrastructure among them. Security, for example, should be measured 

by how quickly we can move people safely across our ports. Is international trade 

that boosts our economy, a vital interest of the United States and, therefore an important measure of our security? Absolutely. In another vein, security also should 

be measured by the transparency that helps us address shortages in personnel and 

inadequacies in technology and infrastructure. And finally, it should be measured 

by those of us who live in the communities that bear the brunt of the measures enacted by Congress, and should be based on close collaboration with local leaders and 

law enforcement. 

I submit to you that once we deal with immigration reform—first, finally, and 

thoughtfully—a more meaningful and less complex debate over security can easily 

be resolved. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Judge. 

Again, I appreciate all the panel being here. 

This hearing really in my mind has been called at a very critical 

juncture in the National debate about comprehensive immigration 

reform or however we want to categorize it. 

I think we have an opportunity as a country to actually get 

something done on this very important issue this year perhaps. 
21 

You look at the—in the Senate with the ‘‘Gang of Eight’’ whatever they are calling themselves. I had an opportunity to chat a bit 

with one of the members of that committee, that group—it is not 

a committee, but a working group, earlier this week and felt very 

optimistic that they were moving along and we would be seeing 

some sort of a work product shortly. 

I think that has been pretty widely reported as well and here in 

the House, we have a similar group, bipartisan, just as it is in the 

Senate, working on these critical issues. 

But, a component of that and something that is going to be asked 

by every member of the House or the Senate that may be voting 

on any bill eventually, that comes to the Senate or the House, will 

be the same question that the American people are going to ask; 

and that is whether or not we have a high degree of comfort or confidence in whether or not our borders are secured, so that we, as 

I say, do not continue to have this same conversation over and over 

without some way to measure that. One of you said—the Secretary 

asked you to come up with that this formula because it wasn’t— 

to put it in simple terms that the American people could understand. 

I think we are all asking the same question that Secretary 

Napolitano asked of all of her staff; how we can put it in terms that 

we can understand it and feel good about it, whether it is—whether 

the results are good or bad, at least that we understand what is 

happening. 

The first thing we don’t want to do is mislead ourselves about 

what is going on at the border, whether it is secure or not secure. 

You may have one, you know, one person that has a very different 

opinion of—than another of what border security looks like and 

whether or not the border is secure. 

I would also say this. We—you know, one of the things that I 

think we certainly learned from the 9/11 Commission recommendations that I look at all the time and I have it in my prism as I ask 

questions or certainly my service on this committee is, we had to 

go from the need-to-know information to the need-to-share information; and that had to cross all ground-floor stakeholders that we 

share information with—various agencies certainly within the Department of Homeland Security, that we share with our local law 

enforcement, you know, force multipliers throughout the entire 

chain, et cetera. 

This BCI asking for this 2 years ago and we still don’t have it, 

and, you know, as the Secretary has said, operational control is an 

antiquated term, not to be used. 

So we are sort of sitting here as a Congress asking the Department as you are developing this BCI, are you know, let’s not make 

the same mistakes for instance that were made, many people have 

said by SBInet and when we developed that—by not really getting 

good input and asking the people in the field whether or not—you 

know, what they thought to help them develop this. 

So I know, Mr. Borkowski, you said that you have had good conversations. I am not sure that—I guess I am not sure that that is 

exactly so, that you have had as much conversation as you have 

need to or input or suggestions from the people in the field about 

that. So I would just say that I guess I would like to flush that out 
22 

a bit. Do you think you are asking for instance, the Chief and Mr. 

McAleenan and others, the kinds of questions that you need to, and 

at what point will you be able to give us something that we can 

use as a measure? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. First of all, I don’t believe that we intend, at 

least at this point, that the BCI would be a tool for the measurement that you are suggesting. So let’s—I need to start there. 

The BCI is part of a set of information that advises us on where 

we are and most importantly, what the trends are and that is what 

it is designed for. 

So it is not our intent, at least not immediately, that it would 

be the measure you are talking about. We do think it would be a 

very useful tool to show why we believe that the trend is one way 

or another and to show the components of that trend. So that is 

the first thing. 

In terms of interaction with the operators, we have actually had 

extensive interaction. Now I would agree with your statement that 

we need more and that is part of the issue. That has to go back 

and forth until it converges, but in the initial considerations of 

what might be included, we have asked the operators what they 

had. 

So some of the things that AC McAleenan described to you, some 

of the things that Chief Fisher described to you, those are candidate elements underneath of the build-up of the BCI. 

After we had some notional constructs—oh, by the way, in addition to that, we went out to the communities mostly in Arizona, but 

to NGOs, law enforcement, ranchers, academics; asked them what 

was important to them. 

So there was a lot of homework done in what should we include, 

not just our own operators, but other stakeholders. After we had 

some notional constructs, we fed those back to this operational 

community and by the way, to a panel of academic experts who 

commented on it and made some suggestions for changes. 

We, as recently as last week, got together with the staffs in both 

Chief Fisher and AC McAleenan’s office to go through this again 

because again, what they are concerned about is the kinds of 

things that Chief Fisher described to you are the kinds of things 

he is going to continue to use. 

What he needs to be comfortable with is whether or not those 

things in total reconcile with the kinds of things that are coming 

out of the BCI, and we continue to do that. So—— 

Mrs. MILLER. So you met with them last week, you mentioned— 

of course you knew that this hearing had been noticed by then— 

I am just asking. So you have been meeting with them on a very 

regular basis? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Absolutely. 

Mrs. MILLER. To get all of their input? Et cetera, et cetera? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Absolutely. Now, I would—— 

Mrs. MILLER. You know, I would—— 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Sorry. 

Mrs. MILLER. Excuse me—I am—I don’t have that much time. 

But the—if we are not to use operational control, and again, I even 

said in my opening statement, I am open to the suggestion that 

that is an antiquated term and perhaps this is not the best meas-
23 

urement, and I appreciate—believe me I do—how complicated it is; 

a layered approach at the border, how very complicated it is to get 

some sort of an accurate measurement, but we have been told—at 

least I have been under the—operating under the assumption for 

the last several years that this BCI would be taking the place of 

operational control, that it would be something that whether the 

GAO, et cetera anybody, any other agency vetting this would be 

using as a measurement. 

Now you are saying that it has never really been intended to be 

used as a measurement. So I am just trying to let this all digest 

here. 

If that is so, I guess I would ask the chief if I could, you mentioned certainly, you know, as far as the threats you would want 

to talk about that in a classified setting. I appreciate that, of 

course, but some of the outcomes certainly can be in an unclassified 

setting like a hearing like this so that we can explain to the American people what is going on. 

You mentioned—I was taking some notes while you were talking, 

Chief—the effectiveness ratio is essentially the measurement that 

you are currently utilizing. Do you feel comfortable that that is a— 

I guess I am just trying to understand this—a component of the 

BCI or what is your thought about the BCI? Do you agree that it 

shouldn’t be used as a measurement? 

Chief FISHER. Initially, with Mark and as we were discussing 

this, as we were developing our strategy and looking at outcomes 

3 years ago, we started understanding how valuable effectiveness 

was as a replacement to stand-alone apprehensions only as we 

have been maturing process; which gets us to some of the things— 

we had offered that up to Mark on some of the different measures 

that we were collecting under the—our new strategic plan. 

So in that regard, we have shared with Mark everything that we 

collect, whether they are being incorporated or not or the extent to 

which one or the other is, I don’t know, but we are still moving 

down in terms of how we within, as Mark framed, our domain, 

right. 

So we understand what is happening because it is not just measures, it helps us at the tactical level deploy and redeploy resources 

to those areas where we are now differentiating between high- and 

low-risk areas. So it is very valuable to us independent on whether 

it gets absorbed into a broader Border Condition Index. 

Mrs. MILLER. I appreciate that. 

I didn’t want to cut you off, Mr. Borkowski, if you have anything 

else to add to that. 

The reason I am focusing on this obviously—look, we all understand we are dealing with a constrained fiscal environment here. 

At the same time we are asking you, can you tell us exactly how 

you are doing? 

It is a very difficult question to be asked and to answer it correctly. I am not trying to gotcha, kind-of thing. But I am telling 

you, at this moment in time, where we have an opportunity to do 

comprehensive immigration reform, if we just say well, we can’t 

really—you know, we can’t use operational control and the BCI is 

not really a good thing and it is not the correct—it is a component 

of the important scenario there and you really don’t have a matrix 
24 

that we can utilize that could be a component of our failure to pass 

something that I think is very important for our country. 

So there is a lot of interest and just trying to get a handle on, 

you know, we look at some of the lessons learned, certainly since 

9/11 with various kinds of technology that we have deployed along 

the border that has not worked particularly well but has cost a ton 

of money, and the American people are going to be making sure 

their representatives ask these questions. 

Any other comment there? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. I would just say that obviously we have had the 

discussion with the chief, and one concept for at least part of this 

BCI is to take the effectiveness ratio and somehow bound it by how 

confident should we be in that number. 

That is the challenge, right? How do you take what is a very 

good number, a well-calculated number, and then add to that some 

level of confidence you have in it because the effectiveness ratio 

also is based on what we know. How do I augment that with the 

uncertainty in the knowledge? That is the kind of thing that the 

BCI is struggling with. 

Mrs. MILLER. I appreciate that. 

I recognize the Ranking Member for any questions you may 

have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chairwoman, thank you. 

The line of questioning, I think, is enormously important on a 

very important policy journey that this country is making. 

So gentlemen and lady, this committee is making, I think, a very 

sound effort as I work with the Chairwoman on establishing a 

bracket of which we can stand on. 

I am very glad that the leadership on this committee has shown 

an openness to the idea of a policy decision being made about comprehensive immigration reform. 

Speaking for myself, I will say that I embrace it totally and believe that it is a long-overdue policy and legislative initiative that 

should be passed, and I recognize, as the Chairwoman has indicated and I think we have said it together; No. 1, this committee 

should be an intimate part of the border security aspect, but at the 

same time, facts are really the oil to the engine and I would say 

to the Department you have got to get in the game. What I am 

hearing here is not really a definitive game strategy. 

When I say that, this is the second hearing, this is a hearing 

based upon an assessment, and I am not getting, I think, what 

could be not where you tie yourself to what you believe you could 

not tie yourself to, but where you can give confidence that the 

trends are leading to the kind of security that we need. 

So let me just cite again the December 2012 Government Accountability Office report that was drawn through the request of 

Ranking Member Thompson and Mr. Barber, which I associate myself with the request now in this position, and to note that some 

of the data indicated that eight of the nine Border Patrol sectors 

on the Southwest Border improved from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, 

and that GAO also found that the recidivism rate across dropped 

to 36 percent in fiscal year 2011, down from 42 percent. 

So those are some indicia that one can cite, but maybe what you 

should indicate as we have put to the side operational control that 
25 

the security of the border is a continuum, that it is a challenge and 

a responsibility that is on-going, that you have confidence that the 

maximum level of ability the border is secure, but that collaboration with State and local officials and information gathering is a 

continuing challenge along with technology. 

Now Members of Congress should be able to understand that if 

that is asserted in an affirmative manner. So let me proceed with 

my questions to say that at some point, we are going to have to 

have DHS work with us more concretely about the confidence of 

the security of the border, and I would add to that I recognize that 

we have a distinctive topography along the border. 

Mr. Barber needs help. He will speak for himself, but he has an 

Arizona desert border that we need to be assured that we can work 

with, and I believe we can, but you got to own up to it. I don’t believe that we should hold up comprehensive immigration reform because as Judge Escobar said, that will contribute to your being able 

to do a better job. 

Let me raise these questions. I would like to go where the Chairwoman has gone. I would like to give us the meat and potatoes 

that we need. 

First of all, I want to ask: Are we using the Z Portal system? I 

understand that new technology has been given a lot of awards, 

and how is that effectively securing the ports of entry? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Lee. 

Yes, we are using the Z Portal. We, with the support of Mr. 

Borkowski’s office and our Office of Information Technology, we 

have purchased a number of Z Portals and a similar technology 

called ZBBs that operate more quickly at a lower level of radiation 

and allow us to scan many more vehicles and actually Z Portal on 

the Southwest Border we have several bus portals as well. 

This has been a tremendously effective tool for us in identifying 

and seizing additional illicit drugs. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My question is: Do you continue to get the 

technology as it improves and increases and about how many of 

your ports of entry do you know that you are using that Z Portal? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. We have NII lay down at all of our ports of 

entry that take cargo and we use it to inspect that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Give me how many. 

Mr. MCALEENAN. I can give you the numbers on the ZBBs and 

Z Portals in a follow-up if that is okay. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are continually improving that technology? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. Absolutely. We use the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act to purchase a number of very effective systems 

that we are applying. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you suggest that that is helping provide security at the border or giving an answer to those who are 

trying to hear do we have—I know that is not the newest technology, but is that part of the security that you are talking about? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. Our non-intrusive inspection technology is absolutely a critical tool that we are using to increase security. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay, now I asked this, but I need to hear it 

again. So how are you moving up on the ladder of technology as 

it relates to that kind of technology? Are you constantly being able 
26 

to upgrade it to your satisfaction? Do you believe the present technology is satisfactory? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. Well, we have been upgrading of the last several years the Z Portals and the ZBBs that we just talked about 

are more efficient because they work faster and they have a lower 

energy level that allows us to put more vehicles through them. So 

yes, we have been able to benefit from an improving continual technology. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Borkowski, let me, because you are the 

center point of intellect around this issue and seemingly have been 

given the responsibility of sort of holding on to the BCI, and I assume that you use a lot of analytics to be able to give it some substance, you heard what I said. 

You all have got to rise to the occasion. If we are not using operational control, then you have got to tell me that Northern Border, 

here is how we assess and we can tell you that we are making 

progress. The GAO report gave some numbers. I don’t know if 

under the GAO report it is a weak economy that saw those numbers go down, and DHS needs to be able to tell us that. 

Secondarily, the border that raises a lot of concern is the Southern Border, so what are the concrete measures that you would say 

could definitively be interpreted to have us in a continuum of securing the border? 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. If you are talking about for example between 

the ports of entry, so I won’t talk holistically unless you would like 

me to, but if you are talking about between the ports of entry, I 

think what is important there is whether or not we have got the 

capability to deal with the threat that the chief of the Border Patrol perceives. 

So chief of the Border Patrol can measure that not quantitatively, but in a very disciplined way, and compare that to the 

capabilities we have. 

If you add to that the information he has about effectiveness, I 

think that is a very important metric. So if you take and you assess 

whether the Border—chief of the Border Patrol has the capability 

he thinks he needs to have to watch a border and he has a good 

effectiveness ratio, I would say that is a pretty good indicator that 

the border is secure in that area. That is between the ports of 

entry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, okay. Let me just stop here. If I could 

just, Madam Chairwoman, just get my last two questions very 

quickly. 

I will take that, and some others may pursue that. 

Let me just say to Judge Escobar. In a testimony in the Senate, 

one of the witnesses indicated that Dr. Shirk of the Transborder 

Institute of the University of San Diego indicated that what we are 

seeing in actuality with migrants coming across is that the enforcement has actually caused more deaths, 400 I think in one of the 

years that he was speaking of, in our enforcement process and 

these are only individuals that are trying to work. 

You somewhat commented on that. I would appreciate it if you 

would. I would just throw this very quick question out so then I 

can get the answers from the other three gentlemen, but: Utilization of drones, how much of it and whether you have seen that 
27 

have any impact. Let me go to Judge Escobar very quickly, please, 

on this idea that migrants—that you have seen deaths because of 

the enforcement as opposed to finding an immigration reform process for that. 

Judge ESCOBAR. Thank you very much, Ranking Member. You 

are absolutely correct. 

What happens when the United States puts up the walls that we 

have put up in our Southern Border, it does not stop necessarily 

the flow of people who are trying to find work in our country and 

also some of the bad folks who are trying to smuggle drugs and the 

coyotes who move those people across our borders. 

It just pushes that movement into more treacherous territory, 

terrain that is more challenging for these families trying to reunify 

with their families or trying to get work. So if we deal with those 

people who can be addressed through policy changes, through reform, it will do what former Border Patrol Chief Aguilar said, 

which is de-clutter the environment for law enforcement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. I will wait on that 

other answer. 

Mrs. MILLER. We may be able to go to a second round. We will 

see how we do. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mrs. MILLER. I would just appreciate the gentlelady’s questioning. I thought one thing she said that was very significant is 

when she asked the Department to get in the game, and I think 

that is a very good way to put it. 

You do not want the Department of Homeland Security to be the 

stumbling block to comprehensive immigration reform for this 

country and it could happen. So get in the game. I absolutely would 

agree with that. 

At this time, the Chairwoman would recognize the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Judge Escobar, in your testimony you talk about the need for reforming our immigration system before we spend enormous resources trying to secure our borders from migrants who are looking 

for a better life specific to El Paso. 

You argue that if it were easier for Mexicans to go back and forth 

that they would be less likely to want to live here permanently. 

However, many of the 11 million illegal immigrants came in 

through our international airports, whether it is El Paso International Airport or Philadelphia International Airport in my home 

State, I believe anywhere where there is an international airport 

you are a border State. 

In my home city in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, it is estimated that 

10 percent of our population is there illegally. We are 2,000 miles 

away from the nearest Southern Border. 

Judge, are you aware that 40 percent of the people who enter the 

country illegally didn’t sneak across the border, but entered legally 

and overstayed their visa? 

Judge ESCOBAR. Yes, sir, I am. I—the perspective that I bring to 

you and that I am trying to share with you this morning is the perspective of a Southern Border community that has ports of entry. 
28 

You are absolutely correct in that visa overstays need to be 

tracked, and in fact, that is where some of the threats are coming 

from, which actually goes to my point that if we enact immigration 

reform that deals with people who want easier access along my 

Southern Border to come in and visit family or to reunify with family or to work in construction jobs that American companies give 

them or to work in agriculture, which are jobs given to them by 

American farmers. If there is a mechanism and there is a mechanism through policy to address those individuals then it becomes 

easier—I would submit—it becomes easier to track those visa 

overstays because we are utilizing resources to deal with a smaller 

population of immigrants. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You know, the question is, you had stated that 90 

percent just come for work, they are not involved in any criminal 

activity. How do you separate salt from sugar? How do you separate—how do the men and women who are protecting our borders 

separate the 90 percent from the 10 percent who will do us harm? 

In 1986, Congress promised the American people that if they 

gave amnesty to 1.5 million illegal aliens—turned out to be 3 million; it doubled as soon as we waived the carrot of American citizenship—that they would give amnesty—this would be a one-time 

deal—we would secure our borders and we would never deal with 

this again. 

Now here we are years later, 11 million estimated which I believe will be more again because we are now doing the exact same 

thing. History has taught us nothing. What makes the promise of 

this Congress, the Gang of Eight in the House or the Senate or the 

President—what makes—what makes this promise to the American 

people any different than the one in 1986? 

Judge ESCOBAR. You know, I think the challenge for Congress is 

when it puts the decisions off over the years then and you are not 

dealing with them on an annual basis, then you are going to end 

up in situations like we are in today in this Nation when we are 

having to deal with 11 million people who, as the saying, the cliche ́

goes, are living in the shadows. So it should not be a one-time fix. 

Policy and reform should be on-going. You can’t just do it every 

20 years. Immigration, the flow of people, the reasons why they 

come across, the reasons why businesses want certain types of 

workers, that is going to change year after year after year. 

So I would encourage the Congress not to think of this as a onetime fix that we are never going to have to address going into the 

future, but instead, as an on-going long-term challenge that, as the 

Ranking Member described it or maybe it was the Chairwoman, as 

a journey that the Congress is going to need to address every year 

through its budgets and through policy reform. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You know, also, you talk about the need for reforming our guest-worker program. As you remember, 1993 World 

Trade Center bomber, Mahmud Abouhalima, overstayed a tourist 

visa and was in the country illegally. He received amnesty in 1986 

by falsely claiming to be a seasonal agricultural worker even 

though he was a cabdriver. 

You argue that most migrant workers pose no threat, but one of 

these agricultural workers was actually an Islamic terrorist who 

perpetrated one of the deadliest attacks in American history. 
29 

If you could prevent just one terrorist from being granted legal 

status, wouldn’t you agree that it is worth the wait? 

Judge ESCOBAR. I think one of the things that is difficult is to 

define security because security may mean something very different for you than it does for me. 

You may be talking about absolute security saying that if we 

want to be secure, then we have to somehow someway maybe seal 

the borders or do everything possible to achieve absolute security. 

That is not an achievable goal. It is not possible to have absolute 

security. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But my question is if you could stop one terrorist—— 

Judge ESCOBAR. Well, the answer is, of course. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Okay. 

Judge ESCOBAR. But—I am sorry. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You also testified that history has shown that the 

Southern Border does not present a security threat. If most of the 

illegal immigrants who are sneaking across our land borders or 

ports or overstaying their visas are just looking for work, then I 

would argue with you that they do present a threat. 

They present a threat to the millions, millions of Americans who 

are out of work and looking for a job. Our immigration laws are 

meant for two reasons; protect the American worker and to protect 

our National security. 

How can you support policies to allow businesses to hire cheap 

labor at the expense of our Nation’s workers, American workers, 

when your own town of El Paso has a higher unemployment rate 

than the National average? 

Judge ESCOBAR. I would submit to you that if those workers were 

given legalized status, they would be adding to the tax base and 

they would be contributing to our economy in a way—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, there was just a study that proves that that 

is not true. That if we grant amnesty to the 11 million illegal 

aliens, the Heritage Foundation completed a study that it will cost 

us $2.6 trillion over the next 20 years. 

This is after all the tax revenue is realized. This is a time when 

we are trying to balance our budget. We are trying to find more 

money for the men and women who protect us, but by granting amnesty, this plan of pathway to citizenship will actually cost us $2.6 

trillion after taxes. 

Judge ESCOBAR. Well, I have read studies to the contrary and so, 

really when you talk to economists, they are a great guide for some 

of our most challenging policy decisions. Economists generally will 

agree that adding those folks into our country in a way that they 

can make contributions, it certainly does contribute to our economy. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Could you identify any of those economists? 

Judge ESCOBAR. You know, I am sorry, I apologize. I did not 

bring the list with me. I would be happy to forward studies and 

names through my Member of Congress who serves on this committee. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I trust the Heritage Foundation. Thank you. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman very much. 

At this time, the Chairman recognizes Mr. O’Rourke, from Texas. 
30 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. 

I want to commend the Chairwoman for her focus on this question of how we define border security, and as she said earlier, I 

think it is one of the most important questions that we as a subcommittee, a full committee, a Congress, and a country answer because—you know, the fate of comprehensive immigration reform 

hinges on this. I think the fate of communities like El Paso, other 

border communities, and our National economy depend on our ability to answer this in a thoughtful, intelligent, rational way. 

So I appreciate her leadership and I also want to thank her and 

Ranking Member Jackson Lee for giving us the opportunity to hear 

from our county judge who is able to bring her experience and perspective to bear on an issue that I would argue disproportionately 

affects her constituents in the community of which she presides 

over as county judge. 

Judge Escobar, I wanted to ask you a question about an opportunity that might become available in the near future. 

Chairman McCaul of the full committee, Congressman Cuellar, 

and others including on the Senate side, Senator Cornyn are introducing legislation that will allow communities like ours to partner 

with the Federal Government to provide necessary resources to 

speed the flow of this legitimate trade that Acting Commissioner 

McAleenan talked about—the 99.5 percent of the flow coming 

through our ports of entry that is completely legitimate that has 

the appropriate documentation. 

What do you as an El Pasoan, as a county judge, as somebody 

who might ask one of the poorest communities in the country to 

pony up additional resources to speed this flow, what do you need 

to know before you can advocate for this kind of partnership and 

ask your constituents to dig in a little deeper to help us solve this 

problem? 

Judge ESCOBAR. Well, thank you very much Representative 

O’Rourke, and I appreciate that you are one of the co-sponsors of 

that bill, a bill that could help communities like El Paso provide 

adequate resources to easing that flow back and forth. 

The challenge as I briefly mentioned in my comments this morning is that if we don’t have the metrics, we are talking about 

metrics today, if we don’t have the specific number of personnel 

shortages at the ports of entry—so if we don’t have the statistics 

that tell us how many individuals, how many CBP officers are at 

the ports, how many lanes are closed due to personnel shortages. 

If we don’t know that and we are asked or we are saying that 

we are willing to put up money and participate in this partnership, 

we cannot know nor can we guarantee to the public and the local 

property taxpayer that it is actually going to plug those holes and 

to address those gaps. 

So that is a critical component of the metrics I would argue that 

you all should demand from your agencies. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Let me ask, Acting Commissioner McAleenan, 

there is this a very legitimate concern that we not supplant Federal resources that should be obligated to border communities like 

ours, and instead, if we are going to contribute, it is a supplement 

to what you are already doing. 
31 

Without your willingness to share that data that the judge and 

others in our community are asking for, how can we make that informed decision and ask our citizens to contribute in this way? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. Thank you, Congressman. I think it is a reasonable point and a couple thoughts in response. First, if we had 

this legislation and we were able to enter into those public/private 

partnerships that were deemed to be in the economic interest of the 

local communities, that would be a partnership situation where 

there would be commitments to increase service levels based on 

that augmentation. So I would make that commitment very clearly 

right now. 

In terms of the overall availability of data on exact staffing and 

specific ports of entry, that is something that we are working towards with our workload staffing model. That is something we intend to deliver and have a robust conversation about with this committee and with the Congress more broadly this year. 

I think that will help us share data about where we are and 

where we think we need to be, and would really provide a good 

foundation for pursuing legislation like you have offered or other 

agreements of the similar type. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. But when—I want to make sure I understand 

your answer. We can expect to have that specific staffing information and the larger set of data that you are talking about this year? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. That is CBP’s intent and my understanding it 

is the administration’s effort. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Okay. I appreciate that. Then in the brief time 

I have left, the judge brought up an important point I think that 

you know, the prevailing wisdom right now is that prior to comprehensive immigration reform, we need to secure the borders. 

You and Acting Commissioner McAleenan have said our borders 

have never been more secure and the judge is saying after comprehensive immigration reform I think we can look forward to even 

greater security because of your ability to focus on your top priorities in terms of threats and those are of course terrorists, people 

who want to do our country harm, the weapons that they might be 

trying to bring across to do that. 

Can you respond to that and talk about how that might allow 

you to free up resources or better prioritize the resources that you 

have right now? Chief Fisher. Sorry. 

Chief FISHER. Certainly, Congressman. I just—a point of clarification from my perspective. I generally don’t like to—or broadly 

characterize the border in its entirety one way or the other, right. 

So I can tell you at any point in time that there are areas along 

the border that are of higher risk, more activity level, problematic, 

higher rates of assaults against my Border Patrol agents, and there 

are other areas to the contrary. 

That is part of this risk assessment piece. I will also state that 

when we are talking broadly about threats, generally folks outside 

of the organization look at the individuals and the groups of individuals that come into this country after we know a lot about them. 

But what I would ask to also take into consideration is the Border Patrol agent who last night perhaps in an area in the Nogales 

area in the mountains, or perhaps the Border Patrol agent who is 
32 

working south of the Otay Mountain, or another Border Patrol 

agent who was working the river last night. 

Each one of those agents in various different circumstances is 

being approached by individuals; many times those agents are 

alone. Sometimes it is a group of two; sometimes it is a group of 

10. Those Border Patrol agents do not know who those people are, 

nor do they know what those individuals intend to do once they are 

encountered by the Border Patrol agent. 

Therein lies what we qualify as a risky situation. All right? Not 

everywhere. What we do find out and post arrest based on biometrics and bio graphics, we then try to set who these people are, 

what they intend to do. Then there is a whole series of consequences. There is a whole series of dispositions that would fall 

either in the administrative or in the criminal context. 

But what generally happens; people then take a look at an overarching population of people that we apprehend, it may be a 3- 

month period, it may be a year period, and then try to qualify the 

risk that we are trying to define after that risk has been adjudicated. 

So it is really important that we frame that. It is not all-or-nothing proposition when it comes to security. It is graduated based a 

lot more on what we do and what we don’t know and it is our continued ability to learn to get better to be able to provide those Border Patrol agents in those scenarios that I just described with advanced information, the right training, the right equipment, the integrated operational approaches like our strategy is going to do 

along with our ability to rapidly get into areas so that it puts them 

in a better position to reduce risk for themselves and for the citizens in which we serve. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I am out of time, but I would like in the future 

perhaps directly from you or in writing, a direct response to the 

proposition made by the county judge that with CIR you can better 

prioritize resources and look forward to even better security along 

our border than we have today. 

So, thank you and thank you, Chairwoman. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, 

Mr. Barber. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you very much for letting me sit in on this 

hearing. I am not a Member of this subcommittee, but this hearing 

is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here to meet the witnesses and to ask some questions. 

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for coming today. 

Some very, I think, helpful testimony. 

You know, the men and women of the Border Patrol who I work 

with a great deal face incredible dangers every single day and you 

put your finger on it, Chief Fisher, when you talked about the incidents: Rockings, rip crews that are trying to steal drugs from other 

smugglers put people in jeopardy. Brian Terry as you know was 

killed possibly by a rip crew. 

So what they are going through every single day is not fully appreciated by the American people. Sometimes when I stop at the 

checkpoint coming back to Tucson I say as I am leaving, ‘‘Thank 

you for your service,’’ and they look at me with a startled look on 
33 

their face like, ‘‘You are thanking me? No one does that,’’ or not 

enough people do. 

So I just want to say up front that what your men and women 

do is absolutely amazing, heroic, and very important to our country’s security. 

I think that what we need to do is make sure that they have the 

resources they need to get the job done. I am very concerned about 

sequester. Of the 35 to 40 percent cut in salaries that the Border 

Patrol agents will face, with a loss of furlough, with the loss of 

overtime and furloughs, we cannot step back and move backwards 

from the improvement that we have made in border security. 

If we do, as the Chairwoman has said, many issues relate to this. 

The future of comprehensive immigration reform depends on our 

continued efforts to secure the border. Whatever that means, 

Judge, I agree with you on that. 

That is part of the problem. The central question really is: How 

do you define border security? We have been talking about it for 

decades and more recently in the last 6 years we have put a lot 

of billions of dollars of resources into it. 

When I talked to ranchers for example and they tell me that they 

are unsafe on their land and that they can’t go to town without 

taking their children with them and that they go to the clothes-line 

armed or they go on their land fully-armed to inspect their water 

lines, then we are not secure from their perspective because they 

are not safe. 

If you go to Nogales or Douglas where the build-up is significant, 

people feel differently about it. So it is a matter of where you are 

and what you are facing. So we have to come to terms with this 

definition of border security and we have to plug the holes that 

exist. 

In my district alone, 50 percent in terms of poundage of the 

drugs seized in this country are seized right in my district; the 

most porous area of the country. We have to do better and I know, 

Chief Fisher, you want to do more and hopefully we can continue 

to plug those holes. 

But when it comes to measuring border security, the issue in 

front of us today, we really are, I think, not doing as good service 

to ourselves, to the Department, or to the country when we cannot 

have what the people would consider credible and reliable metrics 

to define success. 

I am alarmed to say the least by the most recent jail report 

which was referred to by the Ranking Member that came out and 

pointed out that the Border Patrol rolled out last May a new strategy that didn’t have goals, it didn’t have metrics, it didn’t have a 

process for evaluation. 

That is not really a plan, is it? Now obviously the Department 

has to do something. So I guess I want to go to that point specifically, Chief Fisher, you know, I have the highest admiration for 

what you do and it is good to see you again and what your men 

and women do, but we have to give them consistent ways of measuring success. 

So can you ask or can you tell us where we are in the process 

of developing those metrics that will fill the big holes in that plan? 
34 

Where are we right now? The Department promised it would be 

done by November. Could you give us an update on where we are? 

Chief FISHER. Sure can, Congressman. First of all, it is good to 

see you again, sir, and thank you for those kind comments. It certainly gives me great pride to serve those Border Patrol agents 

here in Washington, and when I go through the checkpoints, I do 

make sure that I think them as well. So thank you for doing that. 

We do have metrics. Matter of fact, unfortunately, part of my 

opening statement that I would like to share with you really labeled just four or five as examples. 

When the GAO did that report, they did so—we worked with Rebecca Gambler and her team—provided an array of metrics and 

measures of things that we were looking at as it related to our new 

strategy. 

Part of their analysis interestingly enough was they went back 

about 2006 to 2011, and as you recall, we just recently over the 

past year just-released the strategic plan. 

Many of those measures over the past 3 years we have been 

gathering some of which we have been just analyzing differently, 

some of which we created whole new different sets of data, things 

like the consequence delivery system, things I had mentioned earlier; just quickly, the recidivism rate, the average rate of—the average apprehension per recidivist. 

We take a look at unique subjects. We look at deflection and how 

that is differentiated between displacement. I would welcome the 

opportunity to sit down with you or members of your staff to go 

through those in detail, sir. 

Mr. BARBER. Madam Chairwoman, could I just ask one more 

question? I know my time is up. 

It is really important that the Department when it devises these 

new metrics that are going to be now completed by November, that 

the stakeholders are involved in helping you define what success 

is. 

I am talking about the business people, the residents, the ranchers, the Border Patrol agents themselves. I talk with those men 

and women all the time. They have got incredible insights about 

what goes on as you well know because they are there. The ranchers are on their land every single day. 

What process can you tell us about it that will include input from 

those vital stakeholders before we actually finalize and submit 

these metrics? 

Chief FISHER. Well, Congressman, when I am out in the field and 

talk with them, the things that are brought to my attention are, 

well Chief, can you tell us a little bit about your ability to see 

things through broader situational awareness although they don’t 

use those terms necessarily, but what they are talking about is our 

ability for broader situational awareness. 

How can you tell me, either its technology or whether it is 

through intelligence or agent deployments, can you tell me what is 

happening around my area? Because when my dog barks at night, 

my wife is scared. 

I understand that perception, right. Each area of the border, I 

am glad you brought that uniqueness out, is very different, right. 
35 

So what we are training the organization to do, understanding 

the direction where we are going and defining this risk-based approach versus a resource-based approach because you are right and 

Chairwoman Miller really set the stage. 

I can’t go to those ranchers and say, ‘‘Hey, you should be—you 

should feel safer because we have an integrated fixed tower 5 miles 

down the road and I just doubled the size of the Border Patrol station in Douglas over the last 3 years.’’ 

That doesn’t change the fact that the perception, whether it is 

real or not, depending upon what the activity is. 

Our approach with the field leadership is, to the extent that we 

are able to with information, is to explain to them what we have 

in terms of information. What we know is happening there so they 

understand not just, ‘‘Hey, would you call us when you see something suspicious?’’ We want to be able to tell them what that is. 

The second thing is we want them to know to the extent that we 

are able to, what we are doing about it and in some cases it may 

be deployments. It may be, hey, we are going to have Border Patrol 

agents in the area tonight. You are not going to be able to necessarily see them because they are going to be working in these 

general areas. We want you to call them because they are going to 

have the ability to respond if you see them. 

Or we are working some technology you may be aware of; I am 

out in the East County and the Douglas area and I would be happy 

to go into further detail outside of this hearing to do that. 

Mr. BARBER. I want to thank the Chairwoman, and I would repeat what you and the Ranking Member said. Please get in this 

game fully. We need it in order to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. We will not get there without your help. 

So thank you Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman, and I thank him for joining 

the subcommittee today as well. 

At this time, we are going to go to a second round of questions, 

but in the interest of time, we will keep it to 5 minutes. With that, 

I would recognize the Ranking Member. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much. 

I am in a meeting interestingly enough with leaders of commercial airports in the anteroom here and so I wanted to quickly get 

some additional inquiry in. But first what I would like to do is to 

say that on behalf of all of the Members, we thank all of the men 

and women for their service and we thank Congressman Barber for 

his initial comment. But this appreciation of service goes along 

with inquiry, and Chief Fisher I think that the detailed presentation that you made to the question of the Congressman from Arizona is the framework that myself and the Chairwoman who have 

committed to working together. This is a, sort of, inquiry that we 

are making together and the framework is one that we are making 

together. 

That detailed, nonclassified response is the kind of package that 

we are going to need, if you will, as we move forward in a parallel 

structure to have extra tools for you through comprehensive immigration reform and then of course the tools that you necessarily 

need at the distinctive borders. 
36 

Let me pose right to Mr. McAleenan quickly, and if I can get a 

sequester answer from all three that is just a yes or no. 

Chief Fisher, is sequester impacting you negatively, prospectively? 

Chief FISHER. We do have reduced capability as of March 1. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sorry? 

Chief FISHER. We do have reduced capability as of March 1. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. McAleenan. 

Mr. MCALEENAN. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Borkowski, you are obviously, but—— 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. 

If I can bring to your attention and for us to get back together, 

JFK airport is experiencing through a message to me from Congresswoman Clarke, we are very concerned and Bush Intercontinental Airport is of great concern and let me just give an example 

of one besides the—and if you could just give a quick answer—besides the idea of sequester which you have already said. However, 

we have Air China possibly bringing in about $400 million, wanting to leave Bush Intercontinental Airport at 1:30 a.m. and your 

staffing and again, this is not a pointed blame, it is how can we 

resolve this, is indicating they have no leverage, staffing, et cetera 

after 12 a.m. 

That is a very difficult challenge and are you familiar with this 

quandary that we are in? Can you provide us a report back? You 

want to mix that in with your sequester issue? They will start— 

this is going to start, I think, in—you are—look like you are starting some decreases in April, and this is going to start soon thereafter. 

Mr. MCALEENAN. Quick response now and I would be happy to 

follow up in greater detail. 

The challenges that you outlined at our major international gateway airports are certainly present. We have seen tremendous 

growth in your environment. 

JFK you mentioned, 14 percent over the last 3 years and about 

5 percent so far this year. Houston, we have seen 23 percent over 

the last 3 years, continued growth this year and we have got a robust strategy to try to address that with our existing resources of 

both our scheduling, our collaboration with the airports. 

Houston you know, you are familiar with our Express Connect; 

our one stop—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. 

Mr. MCALEENAN [continuing]. Trying to move those passengers 

is—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I work with you on those specific issues? 

I am going to cut you off just because I need to get these other— 

this other question in. Can I work with you on those specific 

issues? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. We would love to do that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Thank you. 

Let me just ask this question. Tell me the utilization of drones— 

what is—how much—that is nonclassified—who uses it and, Chief, 

I guess I would go to you and Mr. Borkowski, very quickly. 
37 

Chief FISHER. Yes, it provides us a critical capability in terms of 

broadening our situational awareness and adding to the suite of 

technology that we and this particular committee have supported 

graciously by the way for our ability to secure this country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Borkowski. 

Mr. BORKOWSKI. It does two key things for us. No. 1, it can get 

to areas that it is very difficult to put ground-based technology and 

get up over them and it can move into them as the Border Patrol 

needs. 

The second thing it provides us is kind of strategic information. 

It is one thing to have information that is real-time, the camera 

that I am going to ask the Border Patrol go respond to what this 

camera sees. The predator also allows us to get an idea of whether 

or not things are changing on the border. 

So where we think some things are not happening, we can go 

check and confirm that it is not happening or learn that that has 

changed and then the Border Patrol can adapt to it. So those two 

key things are important to us. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chairperson, let me thank you very 

much for allowing this, and I would just ask on the record that we 

possibly have—well, let me just say—and I want to possibly have 

that we have a classified briefing on the utilization of drones because I want to be both consistent with the Constitution as well as 

looking at that as a resource that these gentlemen are using. I 

really would appreciate—I think it would be important for this 

committee to have a classified briefing on the drone utilization. 

Let me thank you all for your testimony. Thank you for the second capacity to ask questions. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. 

At this time, the Chairwoman recognizes Mr. Barletta, from 

Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and again I 

would like to thank you for this important hearing. I believe it is 

very important that we educate Members of Congress before we 

make public policy that will affect our Nation as some of the proposals that we are hearing about will. 

My question is to Chief Fisher and Mr. McAleenan. You know, 

as I mentioned before, we could build fences across the entire country, north and south. We can protect our coastlines east and west, 

but almost half of the people that are in this country illegally didn’t 

come in that way. 

It is important that I keep repeating this because I believe that 

it is a missing piece to how we determine whether our borders are 

secure. 

So I think it is very important for everyone to accept the fact 

that visa overstays are just as important as protecting our borders 

North and South. A person that sneaks across the Southern Border 

into El Paso and takes an American job is no different than somebody who overstays a visa and takes an American job. 

It is no different if someone crosses the border into Arizona and 

plants a bomb somewhere or someone who overstays a visa and 

plants a bomb. So I think there is a missing piece to this when we 

talk about whether our borders are secure. 
38 

So even if Secretary Napolitano would declare that our borders 

are secure, I would argue that our borders are not secure, are not 

secure until we also deal with the fact that visa overstays are part 

of our National security responsibilities. 

So my question to Mr. Fisher and Mr. McAleenan; how do we fix 

this? We are talking a lot about how do we protect our borders and 

are you coordinating with ICE and how do we—what are some 

ideas that we might be able to impose to solve that problem? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. Thank you, Congressman. It is an important 

issue and I think from the Secretary on down, it is an important 

focus for the Department of Homeland Security and certainly for 

CBP. 

We are absolutely coordinating with ICE and with the Department of State to really address this from the early origination of 

the problem from when people are applying for visas, when people 

are applying as visa waiver country travelers to come to the United 

States, assessing those applications for risk at our international 

processing center to gather with State and ICE who are joining us 

to look at the same data with the best intelligence in our advanced 

techniques. 

So we are starting now much earlier in the process at the outset. 

I think the Secretary and others have defined the security process 

as critical at each juncture before the visa is issued, at the port of 

entry, assessing admissibility, following up, identifying and following up if there are overstays and of course, enforcing the laws 

on employers who put people to work who are here out of status. 

I agree we have to do all of those things. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Do you agree though that that should be included 

when we assess whether or not our borders are secure, that we also 

include whether or not we can track people in and out of the country when they overstay their visas? 

Mr. MCALEENAN. I believe it is included, yes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman. 

I would also, just to mention on this visa overstays quickly, it is 

something that this subcommittee has had a lot of conversations 

about even during the last Congress and you are spot on, Mr. 

Barletta, about the high percentage, in the 40 percentile of everybody who is here illegally came here on a visa overstays as you 

mentioned, the 9/11 hijackers, several of them were here on a visa 

overstay. 

Since the committee really had very focused oversight on that, 

the Department of State has focused much more on trying to develop a robust exit system. We do pretty well getting them here, 

but not tracking when they leave and developing a robust exit system in dealing with what several hundred thousand backlog of visa 

overstays. 

I am not quite sure where they are at this time, but there has 

been quite a bit of progress but the largest room is a room for improvement. That certainly is true. 

With that, the Chairwoman recognizes Mr. Barber. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. 
39 

Two or three quick questions. I want to go back for a moment 

if I could, Chief Fisher, to the question of getting input before these 

metrics are finalized. 

I think it is critical that it not only be done, but it be seen to 

be done and I would really urge you to convene public meetings 

where people who live and work along the border and back from 

the border can give you their sense of what it would mean when 

they say, ‘‘The border is secure.’’ 

Because I think when we measure—when I look at it, I look at 

it anecdotally and I look at it empirically. The empirical data unfortunately is mixed. The GAO report showed that we have different ways of measuring or using data across the sectors; that is 

not helpful, but I do think the credibility of the metrics will be enhanced dramatically if we can have public input and it is seen to 

be done. 

So I urge you to really consider that as you go forward. Specifically now I want to ask a question about tools that can be useful. 

I have talked a lot about the area east of Douglas all the way to 

the New Mexico line which is wide-open territory, as you know, to 

mountains coming in from Mexico. 

The drug traffic into those communities across the ranchland and 

put people at risk. We have, I think at least for now, saved the 

Aerostat Program which was going to be taken down operated by 

the Air Force at least through this fiscal year. Hopefully it will be 

picked up by DHS next fiscal year. 

The Aerostat Program is our blimps basically that both have a 

visible deterrent as well as a very important tool for detecting incursions. 

Chief Fisher, you might want to take this under advisement, but 

I really think that if we can get another Aerostat, another blimp 

over the ranch area that I have talked about east of Douglas between there and New Mexico, it would have a great benefit because 

part of the problem is the cartel is coming through it the mountains and canyons are hard to see. 

So you may want to comment on whether that is feasible or 

whether that would be helpful and then the last question has to 

do also with increased resources. 

The Senate is sending us hopefully a CR that will increase the 

budget for CBP. Could you comment on if that passes, and it is 

going to be in the range of $250 million, how that could be used 

to offset the impact of furloughs and over time? 

So I posed a lot of questions to you at once: The stakeholder 

issue, the Aerostat, and the CBP increase hopefully that is coming. 

Chief FISHER. To your first comment and question, I would not 

disagree with you, Congressman. We will take that—and matterof-fact, it is being done in some locations will make sure that the 

leadership within your area is involved as well. 

To the second, I will tell you briefly, we are always changing and 

our requirements for detection capability and perhaps Mark can 

talk a little bit broadly as it relates to whether it is a tethered Aerostat or other similar technology that is meeting our requirements. 

Third, once we settle with the numbers we certainly—the direction that I have given my staff here at headquarters and the commanders in the field is basically two principles. 
40 

First and foremost, preserve to the extent that we are able to, 

our priority mission sets. 

Second, make sure that we can reduce, to the extent that we are 

able, to the impact on the agents, the employees, and their families. Within that construct, we intend to do just that, sir. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. MILLER. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me just say sincerely how much I again appreciate all of your 

service to the country and it has been said here already by other 

Members, certainly all of us certainly appreciate, so very, very sincerely the bravery and the heroism and the courage and the dedication 24/7 by those who are out in the field and serve our country 

so very, very well in helping to secure our border. 

Easy for us to sit here in Washington, you are probably thinking, 

asking you all of these questions, right, when you see what is going 

on in the field and I guess I just make that comment because I do 

want you to know that we do think about that and we see it and 

we do thank you so much for your service. 

But that being said, I think you can also understand and you see 

here that there is an increased focus here about trying to get to 

some sort of a measurement because I think many of us from the 

profession that we are all involved in, in elective capacity here see 

an opportune time in our country, a sort of a pivotal time, a historic pivot perhaps, to get some sort of immigration reform done. 

Perhaps. Perhaps not, but that conversation will not be being 

had with Members of Congress or the American people without 

asking this critical question of is the border secure and how can we 

measure it and do we, as I said, do we feel confident that the measurement that we are using, whatever it is, is something that is— 

that we can understand—and believe me, I know that sounds so 

simplistic. 

You are probably thinking, well geez, there is all these various 

components in it, but that is a question that we have to ask ourselves. 

Just as you say, how do you define success, right, in theater or 

in any kind of engagement and that is a question that we are trying to get to. So I think we are all very open on trying to ask the 

right question and understanding the components that go into the 

construct of an answer. 

So again, we will leave the hearing record open for 10 days and 

if any other Members have any questions of you, we would ask that 

you respond in writing, but we appreciate your service and we look 

forward to continuing to work with you as we do secure our Nation’s border and move forward to serve the American people. 

Thank you all very, very much. 

Subcommittee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(41) 

* Congressional Budget Estimate has been retained in committee files and is available at 

www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/72xx/doc7208/s2611.pdf. The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform by Rau ́l Hinojosa-Ojeda has been retained in committee files and is available at http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-12.pdf. 

A P P E N D I X 

LETTER FROM VERONICA ESCOBAR TO CHAIRWOMAN MILLER

MARCH 27, 2013. 

The Honorable CANDICE MILLER, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, H2–176 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRWOMAN MILLER, Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Border and Maritime Subcommittee on March 20, 2013. I enjoyed presenting the Members with the perspective of an active border community, El Paso, Texas. Ensuring 

safe and effective borders is a critical issue for our National and economic security. 

During the question-and-answer segment of the hearing, Rep. Barletta asked me 

to provide him with copies of some of the economic studies I referenced regarding 

the tax and economic growth benefits of an improved immigration system, including 

a path to citizenship for those currently residing in our country. I have forwarded 

those documents to his office along with all Members of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, but I would also like to ask that they be included with 

my testimony as part of the hearing record. The documents are attached.* 

Thanks for your leadership on this important topic. I look forward to working 

with you and the committee in the future. Please do not hesitate to contact me if 

you have any questions or concerns. 

Sincerely, 

VERONICA ESCOBAR, 

El Paso County Judge. 

ARTICLE, CQ WEEKLY

THE ECONOMICS OF IMMIGRATION

By David Harrison, CQ Staff, Nov. 26, 2012—Page 2376. 

The immigration debate has a new argument. 

For the past few years, those who favor allowing illegal immigrants a path to 

legal residence and eventual citizenship have based their campaign on moral 

grounds, that it is only fair and humane to bring the millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows, where they often are mistreated and underpaid. 

Those who oppose such a path to legality have countered with a more politically 

powerful assertion, that illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans and, in their 

millions, threaten to ruin the country and its economy. 
42 

Now, though, at the moment when President Barack Obama’s re-election has 

highlighted the growing voting power of Hispanic, Asian, and other foreign-born 

Americans, pro-immigration groups have begun to make an economic argument of 

their own. 

What’s been mostly lost in the political back and forth in recent years is the considerable body of evidence that liberalizing immigration policies would, in fact, improve the U.S. economy. Experts and academics have run computer models of various legalization scenarios and found that they would all help brighten the Nation’s 

economic prospects as it continues to struggle out of a recession. 

‘‘Putting these young people to work is good for the economy and creates jobs, just 

the opposite of what many people have argued,’’ says Sen. Richard J. Durbin, the 

Illinois Democrat who is one of the most outspoken advocates of the DREAM Act, 

which would grant citizenship to many illegal immigrants brought to the country 

as children. 

‘‘Bringing these people out of the shadows who are undocumented,’’ Durbin says, 

‘‘having them pay taxes, having them pay for the protection of basic laws, these 

things are good for the economy.’’ 

Most economists agree that a mass legalization program would have a net positive 

long-term effect on the economy, and that agreement includes even Harvard’s 

George J. Borjas, whose studies of immigration and falling wages have long been 

cited by those who oppose more liberal immigration policies. 

The macroeconomic effects of an immigration bill, it seems, are not in question. 

The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act, which gave a 

path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who had been in the country before 1982, 

had the effect of raising the wages of formerly undocumented workers by 15.1 percent within 4 or 5 years, according to one study commissioned by the Labor Department. That, in turn, boosted consumption and tax revenue. 

‘‘The economics is really clear,’’ says Jeremy Robbins, director of the Partnership 

for a New American Economy, a coalition of mayors and corporate CEOs that was 

co-founded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to seek more liberal immigration 
43 

policies. ‘‘If you get talented people here who want to work, the economy is going 

to grow. We don’t have a zero-sum economy. And the same is true at the low-skilled 

end.’’ 

That doesn’t mean that every American’s life would be improved overnight. As 

with any significant policy shift, an immigration overhaul would create winners and 

losers, at least in the short term. Academics disagree over the details, in particular 

the question of whether the new influx of legal low-skilled labor causes wages for 

native-born low-skilled workers to drop. 

And that is part of what worries immigration opponents such as Lamar Smith, 

the Texas Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. 

‘‘Jobs are scarce and families are worried,’’ Smith said at a hearing last year. 

‘‘Seven million people are working in the U.S. illegally. These jobs should go to legal 

workers.’’ 

Nevertheless, even some Republicans are starting to probe a new path on the immigration debate, given the results of this month’s election. Sen. Marco Rubio, the 

Florida Republican and Cuban-American who undoubtedly will play an important 

role on immigration within his party, noted during a Nov. 15 event at the Newseum 

in Washington that illegal immigrants fill a need in the economy that they could 

just as easily be filling as legal workers. 

‘‘If your economy is demanding 2 million people a year to fill 2 million new jobs 

at a certain level, but you’re only allowing a million people to come in,’’ Rubio said, 

‘‘you have a supply-and-demand problem, and that supply of folks that need a job 

in Mexico or anywhere else in the world is going to meet that demand.’’ 

An Uncertain Pathway 

When President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 immigration law, he set in motion a process that would eventually put 2.7 million formerly illegal immigrants on 

the road to citizenship. First, the law granted them permanent residency visas— 

known as green cards—which also allowed them to bring immediate family to the 

United States. Over time, many of those green-card holders became naturalized citizens, woven into the fabric of the country. 

Thanks to the law, immigrants were able to bargain for higher wages, pay taxes, 

build up their credit histories and apply for loans. Knowing that they were safe from 

deportation also made them more likely to learn English, get an education, buy 

houses and start businesses. They eventually settled down to raise thoroughly 

American children weaned on sugary cereals and Saturday morning cartoons. 
44 

‘‘All around, it generated a burst in consumption as wages increased, but also in 

productivity, which is the economist’s dream,’’ says Rau ́l Hinojosa-Ojeda, a Chicano 

studies professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an influential 

pro-immigration voice. ‘‘When you create a wage increase for a lot of people in the 

economy, they start spending a lot more. And we are all people that sell to them, 

so our economic activity goes up.’’ 

In a paper earlier this year for the free-market Cato Institute, which backed a 

more liberalized immigration system, Hinojosa-Ojeda estimated that a new immigration law similar to the 1986 overhaul would add $1.5 trillion to the country’s 

gross domestic product—roughly 0.84 percent—over 10 years. 

A less-expansive change that would simply create a guest-worker program, rather 

than legalize all 11 million undocumented people living here, would only create $792 

billion in added growth, while a mass-deportation plan would reduce GDP by $2.6 

trillion, Hinojosa-Ojeda found. 

Another Cato Institute study in 2009 found similar results. Restrictionist policies 

would harm the economy, while legalization combined with a visa tax assessed on 

immigrants would add $180 billion to the economy each year. And a report last 

month from the Center for American Progress—which was founded by President Bill 

Clinton’s chief of staff, John Podesta—reached a similar conclusion when looking at 

the DREAM Act, a more narrowly written immigration bill that would only grant 

a pathway to citizenship to the roughly 2 million young people brought to the 

United States illegally as children. The study estimated that passing the DREAM 

Act would generate $329 billion into the economy by 2030. 

Many of those studies point to the 1986 law as evidence. 

Cost to Consumers 

Higher wages for a large swath of immigrants would also probably increase prices 

for consumers, making things like restaurant meals and lawn care services more expensive. 

For instance, today, roughly 70 percent of farm workers are illegal immigrants, 

largely because American workers refuse to take farm jobs. If government policy 

grants the undocumented workers legal status, they will eventually look for better 

jobs in other industries. That means the farm industry will either have to raise 

wages and prices or continue to hire illegal immigrants. Neither of those is a good 

option. 

Hinojosa-Ojeda says that although that may be true in the short term, over time, 

newly legalized workers would become more productive, which would offset the impact of their higher wages so that consumers would not notice much of a price 

change. 

Other researchers say the economy’s need for a large pool of low-skilled, low-wage 

workers is the reason why any mass legalization proposal should include a revamped guest-worker program that would allow workers more say over their employment and working conditions. 

‘‘Because of our border with Mexico, you really have to accommodate the demand 

for that type of labor with legal pathways,’’ says Pia M. Orrenius, a senior economist 

at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a former adviser to the George W. Bush 

administration. ‘‘Those can be set up to work for the benefit of both countries. It’s 

not that difficult to set up working programs.’’ 

‘‘A lot of people don’t want to stay permanently,’’ she adds. An improved temporary-worker program would simply ‘‘reinforce the circular migration that was 

there for many decades.’’ 

Needs of the Market 

But guest-worker programs have traditionally been one of the thorniest parts of 

immigration policy. In 2006–07, when Congress last debated immigration legislation, labor unions opposed the guest-worker provision in the bill, saying the program 

would not be responsive to the needs of the labor market and would create a class 

of second-class workers with no rights and no hope of staying in the country. 
45 

‘‘There has to be a rational, data-based way to determine when there’s a labor 

shortage,’’ says Ana Avendan ̃ o, the AFL–CIO’s immigration director. ‘‘And when 

that’s determined, employers should bring in workers to deal with those labor shortages. Those foreign workers should come in with full rights.’’ 

Avendan ̃ o says she would favor a government commission that would use stateof-the-art labor market data to determine where the shortages are at any given 

point. 

Recent immigration overhauls introduced by two Democrats, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez of Illinois, included such provisions, 

Avendan ̃ o says. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, also has 

cited the Menendez bill as a possible starting point for next year’s immigration debate. That makes Avendan ̃ o optimistic. 

Despite its net positive effects overall, legalizing the status of millions of undocumented immigrants would not benefit everyone equally, at least not right away. 

Low-skilled American workers, in particular, who have been hardest hit by the current downturn, could find themselves competing with millions of new job applicants. 

‘‘The official unemployment rate for native-born Americans without a high school 

degree is well over 20 percent, and their underemployment rate exceeds 32 percent. 

That’s also a third of that entire class of workers,’’ Rep. Elton Gallegly, a California 

Republican, said during a hearing last year by the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration that he chaired. 

‘‘And yet at the same time, millions of illegal immigrants hold jobs,’’ added Gallegly, an outspoken critic of loosening immigration rules. ‘‘Even when low-skilled 

Americans can find jobs, their wages are depressed by illegals and other low-skilled 

immigrants.’’ 

Gallegly and other conservatives often cite the work of Borjas, the Harvard economist who favors more restrictions on immigration. One of his most-cited studies 

found a link between an influx of immigrant workers and falling wages. 

Between 1980 and 2000, Borjas has written, immigrants expanded the supply of 

working men by about 11 percent. That brought about a 3.2 percent drop in the 

wages of the average American worker. The effect was strongest among high-school 

dropouts, who saw their wages decline by 8.9 percent. 
46 

Borjas’ results have been challenged by other economists, notably Giovanni Peri 

at the University of California, Davis. According to Peri, though immigrant workers 

may have some small negative impact on native workers in the short term, they actually lead to higher wages for Americans over time. That’s because immigrants, 

many of whom do not speak English well, tend to take different jobs than nativeborn workers do. Immigrants will cluster in trades like construction, for instance, 

whereas low-skilled Americans will get jobs in manufacturing, he says. 

That means immigrant workers and native-born workers complement each other 

rather than compete against each other. In a post for the Federal Reserve Bank of 

San Francisco, Peri provides an example: ‘‘As young immigrants with low schooling 

levels take manually intensive construction jobs, the construction companies that 

employ them have opportunities to expand. This increases the demand for construction supervisors, coordinators, designers and so on. Those are occupations with 

greater communication intensity and are typically staffed by U.S.-born workers who 

have moved away from manual construction jobs.’’ 

Over time, many of those who would earn legal status would move up the economic ladder and compete with native-born workers for higher-skilled jobs, but at 

that point they would blend into the American workforce and make it more productive, Orrenius says. 

‘‘Is that really a negative? I don’t think we should call that a negative,’’ she says. 

‘‘That productivity increase is part of economic growth, and that’s something that’s 

desirable. There was a time when they didn’t want women in the labor force because 

they didn’t want them to compete with men.’’ 

Is There a Cost to Society? 

Opponents of legalization contend that legalizing millions of low-income immigrants would drain social services. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has been particularly vocal on this point 

and has called for changing welfare rules so that less is spent on benefits to immigrants. 

‘‘One of the bedrock legal principles of immigration is that those coming to America should not be reliant on federal assistance,’’ Sessions said in a statement this 

month. ‘‘That principle has been steadily eroded.’’ 

During the 2006–07 immigration debate, the Congressional Budget Office found 

that the added costs of the legislation, especially its Medicare and Social Security 

costs, would outweigh the new tax revenue generated by the change. CBO reported 

that the 2006 immigration bill would have increased mandatory spending by $54 

billion between 2007 and 2016, largely because of immigrants’ becoming eligible for 

entitlement programs. Discretionary spending also would rise by $25 billion from 

2007 to 2011, while tax revenues would rise by $66 billion by 2016, which is not 

enough to offset the added costs. 

But CBO acknowledged that its analysis did not take into account the possible 

economic growth that could occur after legalizing so many undocumented workers. 

That growth, the agency said, could boost tax revenues by anywhere from $80 billion to $160 billion between 2007 and 2016, which would compensate for the increased government costs. 

There is another reason to believe that the increased use of entitlement programs 

would not put a substantial strain on the Treasury, Orrenius says. That’s because 

any immigration overhaul that makes it through Congress almost certainly would 

include more visas for high-tech workers, a change that has wide bipartisan support. 

Those workers are more likely to earn higher wages, which means they’ll contribute more in taxes than the value of the social services they will receive. ‘‘Highskilled immigration is a big fiscal boon,’’ Orrenius says. ‘‘That balances out what is 

a fiscal cost on the low-wage, low-education side.’’ 

So if a sweeping immigration overhaul is such a good idea from an economic point 

of view, why have advocates been so silent in making that case until now? The main 

reason seems to be that it is a nuanced argument that doesn’t play well in bumper 

stickers. 

‘‘The argument for low-skilled immigration is a longer-term argument,’’ says Robbins, of the Partnership for a New American Economy. ‘‘It’s a harder argument to 

make in a sound-bite context.’’ 

Since the election, however, some Democrats have started relying more on the 

economic case. And they have been joined by some Republicans hoping to strike a 

deal that could make the GOP more palatable to Hispanic voters, a fast-growing voting block. 

‘‘People that are here, even those who are here illegally, if they’d like to work, 

we ought to figure out a way to let them work,’’ Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Repub-
47 

lican, said on the Fox Business Network on Nov. 15. ‘‘I think immigrants are an 

asset, not a liability.’’ 

Any grand bargain on immigration remains a long way off. But if members of 

both parties can agree on the macroeconomic merits of an immigration overhaul, 

they may find it easier to convince skeptical colleagues and the public at large. 

FOR FURTHER READING: Path to citizenship, p. 2363; Immigration and employment, 2009 CQ Weekly, p. 2860; Bush-era overhaul effort, 2007 Almanac, p. 15–9; 

2006 Almanac, p. 14–3; 1986 overhaul, 1986 Almanac, p. 61. 

Æ