DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

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

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

KEN CALVERT, California 

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

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

STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, JIM HOLM, 

KARYN KENDALL, WILL PAINTER, and MIKE BIRSIC, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 3 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

CBP—Balancing Security With Legitimate Trade and 

Travel ...................................................................................... 1 

FY 2011 Budget Hearing for United States 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement ........................ 223 

CIS—FY 2011 Budget Hearing .............................................. 691 

Update on Southwest Border: The Challenges That 

DHS Continues to Face ....................................................... 837 

DHS Air and Marine Operations and Investments: 

Customs and Border Protection and Coast Guard ..... 967 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
PART 3—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
CIS 

ICE 

CBP 

SW Border 

Air & Marine 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

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

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

KEN CALVERT, California 

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

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

STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, JIM HOLM, 

KARYN KENDALL, WILL PAINTER, and MIKE BIRSIC, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 3 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

CBP—Balancing Security With Legitimate Trade and 

Travel ...................................................................................... 1 

FY 2011 Budget Hearing for United States 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement ........................ 223 

CIS—FY 2011 Budget Hearing .............................................. 691 

Update on Southwest Border: The Challenges That 

DHS Continues to Face ....................................................... 837 

DHS Air and Marine Operations and Investments: 

Customs and Border Protection and Coast Guard ..... 967 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

61–840 WASHINGTON : 2010 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

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

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, 

New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010. 

CBP—BALANCING SECURITY WITH LEGITIMATE TRADE 

AND TRAVEL 

WITNESS 

DAVID AGUILAR, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

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

We are happy today to welcome David Aguilar, the Acting Deputy Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as we 

focus on how CBP polices our borders while at the same time expediting legitimate travel and commerce. We also would like an update on SBInet in light of the Secretary’s plan to reallocate Recovery Act funding, but I will say we will have a chance to get into 

that in more detail during our Southwest border hearing scheduled 

for April 14th. 

Trade and travel are essential to our economy and to the economy’s recovery. There is broad, bipartisan agreement on the need to 

insulate trade and travel from disruption, either from attack or ineffective and costly security measures. That is not to say that everyone agrees on exactly how to do this. It is simple to endorse a 

strategy that is risk-based and that emphasizes defense in depth 

but then to gloss over the devilish details, which can be hard to 

measure and implement, especially when one must rely on the cooperation of the private sector and often work with foreign governments. 

Secretary Napolitano testified that CBP will not be able to implement the 9/11 Act mandate to scan 100 percent of U.S.-bound cargo 

by 2012, which has been characterized as unrealistic and 

unaffordable. She says that the Department will rely instead on 

other ‘‘risk-reduction’’ measures for screening cargo originating in 

foreign ports and headed for the U.S. Now, I am sympathetic to 

taking a realistic approach to scanning cargo overseas. I have said 

that repeatedly. But we do need the Department’s strategy and we 

have not yet received the Department’s strategy to achieve meaningful and effective cargo and supply chain security as required by 

the fiscal 2010 Appropriations Act. 

The 2010 budget proposal dramatically cuts the Secure Freight 

and Container Security Initiatives, it replaces CBP’s overseas presVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
2 

ence with a virtual one in many cases, and it reduces the C-TPAT 

trusted shipper program by 15 percent. 

Commissioner, we visited seaports. We know that implementing 

cargo security is complicated. But the Department simply must 

spell out its vision with a plan to achieve it if we are to understand 

how these cuts affect U.S. security and trade objectives. 

Another critical element to trade and security is CBP personnel, 

whether at or between ports of entry. As we all know, this Subcommittee has led efforts to support the recruitment and retention 

of CBP’s critical workforce, most recently by authorizing and funding law enforcement officer retirement benefits for CBP officers. 

And I want to commend the Department for funding its journeyman pay initiative in the fiscal 2011 budget, although I am disappointed to learn that budget pressures have forced CBP to postpone implementing that initiative this year and that postponement 

has reportedly damaged morale considerably. 

Beyond the journeyman pay issue are fundamental staffing budget challenges for CBP. I am concerned we may lack the CBP Officers and agriculture specialists we need. While we doubled the 

number of Border Patrol agents since 2002, the number of CBP Officers has not grown accordingly and is projected to decrease by 

about 500 positions this year, despite increased appropriations. Yet 

ports of entry are where most narcotics and other contraband 

enter. Seizures are rising there where most travelers, legitimate or 

otherwise, cross; and we continue to hear of long wait times at land 

ports of entry. 

Your request includes $70 million to address what you call ‘‘systemic salary shortfalls’’ and $45 million for 389 CBP officers to 

‘‘maintain staffing for critical positions’’. These have the appearance of stopgap actions. The problem is, user fee collections, which 

fund over a third of CBP officers, are falling. 

Clearly, CBP has big structural budgetary dilemmas. Minor 

economies like cutting foreign language incentive pay or management efficiencies are not real solutions. They may, in some instances, be counterproductive. So we need to focus on CBP’s strategy to fix these problems in a more sustained way. 

In addition to personnel, technology has been a cornerstone of 

CBP efforts to detect radioactive and nuclear material, drugs, 

weapons, and other dangerous contraband, with over $1 billion appropriated over the past 5 years. Yet there remain significant challenges. For example, the next generation of radiation portal monitors has yet to be certified, and cargo scanning at seaports remains consistent, particularly those served only by rail. We would 

like to hear about CBP plans to do more operational testing of possible technologies. 

We also want to hear CBP’s overall strategy for modernizing 

nonintrusive inspection systems to streamline the inspection process. Targeting, screening, and inspecting international travelers is, 

of course, a CBP mission, with tools such as the Electronic System 

for Travel Authorization, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and the traditional screening of inbound and now outbound 

travelers. In light of the December 25th incident of last year, how 

is CBP improving its capacity to target, screen, and process travVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
3 

elers, to document arrivals and departures, and to enhance security 

while expediting low-risk travelers? 

So, Commissioner, this is a full plate. We look forward to a lively 

dialogue on these issues. 

We, as is our custom, will put your full written statement into 

the record and ask you to limit your oral remarks to a 5-minute 

presentation so we can get on with an exchange with you. 

Before we recognize you, I want to turn to our distinguished 

ranking member, Hal Rogers, for his comments. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
4 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 61840A.001
5 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 61840A.002
6 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 61840A.003
7 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER HAROLD ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome back, Chief Aguilar. 

With all due respect to you, Chief, I find it very disappointing 

that we are here today, nearly 14 months after the administration 

was sworn in, and an agency as vital as CBP is still without confirmed leadership. CBP is the critical filter in our homeland security arsenal, allowing legitimate travel and trade in and doing all 

it can to keep terrorists, criminals, and contraband out. So, given 

the fact that our witness is a career Border Patrol agent with more 

than 31 years of service, I find it regrettable that he is being asked 

to defend the administration’s curious and potentially harmful decision to substantially cut border and cargo security. 

But considering last week’s seemingly haphazard announcement 

on SBInet, I think we need to at least clarify a few questions that 

are long overdue for answers, like when are we going to secure the 

border, how are we going to do it, and how much is it going to cost? 

This Subcommittee has been asking these questions since its inception. And since the launch of the Secure Border Initiative in November of 2005, I have been asking what is to stop S–B–I from 

being just another three-letter acronym for failure? 

So, as troubled as I am about the funding and direction of 

SBInet, I am far more concerned about achieving and sustaining 

meaningful control of our borders. In the midst of an escalating 

and murderous drug war, now is certainly not the time to retreat 

from our strategic goals and blink in the face of the cartels’ senseless violence there. 

So, today, I want to learn how CBP is getting its mission right. 

I want to learn where the administration is headed with cargo security while proposing what amounts to a 37.7 percent cut in the 

Container Security Initiative and an 18.4 percent cut in C–TPAT 

for fiscal 2011. I want to understand why, in the wake of the 

Christmas Day terrorist attack, the fiscal year 2011 budget proposes no enhancements to CBP’s overseas presence to screen U.S.- 

bound foreign travelers. And, perhaps most importantly, I want to 

get straightforward answers on our border security efforts, especially when the fiscal 2011 budget is proposing to slash funding for 

the fencing, infrastructure, and technology appropriation by $225 

million, 28 percent below the current year. 

Chief, I know you understand the need for robust security along 

our border and our ports. We have watched your career over many 

years now. I also know that you are being put in an unfortunate 

situation in having to carry the administration’s water on what appears to be significantly detrimental reductions to many of our 

most vital security programs, programs we have spent years building up. So I appreciate you being with us today. Thank you in advance for your candor in helping us understand CBP’s budget request for fiscal 2011. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Commissioner, please proceed. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
8 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 61840A.004
9 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 61840A.005
10 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 61840A.006
11 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF DAVID AGUILAR

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you, and good morning. Chairman Price, 

Ranking Member Rogers and members of the Subcommittee, good 

morning. It is an honor to be today to discuss the work of Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP). 

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to the Committee for 

the strong, continued support that you have provided since the creation of Homeland Security. 

CBP relies on a balanced mix of professional enforcement personnel, advanced technologies and modernized facilities and infrastructure both at and between the ports of entry. Over the years, 

this Committee has made significant investments in all of these 

areas, and every investment you have made has helped to protect 

this country against historical and evolving threats and 

vulnerabilities. 

CBP, as you know, is the largest uniformed federal law enforcement agency in the country. Our purview spans more than 5,000 

miles of border with Canada and more than 1,900 miles of border 

with Mexico. We now have more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents 

operating between the ports of entry and more than 20,000 CBP officers at the ports of entry. These forces are supplemented with 

more than 1,100 air and marine agents and more than 2,300 agricultural specialists and other professionals. 

In Fiscal Year 2009 alone, CBP processed more than 360 million 

pedestrians and passengers and 109 million conveyances, apprehended more than 556,000 illegal aliens crossing between the ports 

of entry, encountered more than 224,000 inadmissible aliens at the 

ports of entry and seized more than 5.2 million pounds of narcotics. 

Every day, CBP processes more than 1 million travelers seeking to 

enter the United States by land, air or sea. 

While considering the successes in our day-to-day activities, we 

must continually strive to improve our capabilities, capacities and 

abilities to keep terrorists from doing harm to our Nation and its 

commercial supply chains, basically, to our way of life. 

Through our efforts and this Committee’s support, I believe our 

Nation is safer and more prepared today than ever before to face 

the threats and challenges that impact our Nation’s borders. However, the attempted attack on Northwest Flight 253 on December 

25th was a very powerful reminder that terrorists will go to great 

lengths to defeat the security measures that have been put in place 

since September 11, 2001. 

As Secretary Napolitano has testified in recent hearings regarding the attempted attack, this Administration is determined to 

thwart terrorist plots and disrupt, dismantle and defeat terrorist 

networks. This is an effort that involves not just CBP but, very importantly, components across the Department of Homeland Security, as well as other federal, state, local, tribal and private sector 

and international partners—the entire Homeland Security enterprise. 

Working with our partners, our strategy is to secure the Nation’s 

border by employing and enhancing our layers of defense throughout the continuum that impacts our borders, starting at the point 

of origination, transit, arrival, entry, egress into the country and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
12 

final destination within the country. This strategy relies upon increased intelligence and risk management strategies regarding 

both the movement and flow of travelers, trade and means of transportation. 

Our organization, our agents and officers recognize we can never 

become complacent. We must continually reevaluate and improve 

the effectiveness of every layer of our strategy to adapt to an everchanging threat environment. 

CBP remains committed to being progressively proactive, not just 

reactive. When it comes to the security of our borders and the safeguarding of our way of life, this is absolutely critical. 

Over the past few years, we have seen an escalation of drug-trafficking-related violence in Mexico. We are responding to the challenges and threats this poses to our Nation. As part of the Southwest Border Initiative announced by Secretary Napolitano in 

March 2009, CBP launched new initiatives and strengthened existing strategies to address this concern. 

We are continuing to enhance and build on our robust partnerships with our Western Hemisphere neighbors, Mexico and Canada. We have built successful programs to facilitate legitimate 

trade and travel, and we will continue to build upon those efforts. 

For instance, we successfully implemented the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative on June 1st for land and sea travel. The 

Global Entry Trusted Traveler Pilot Program, which began at three 

airports in 2008, now operates in 20 airports, with more than 

40,000 members enrolled. And, finally, we will utilize advanced targeting, screening and intelligence capabilities to quickly identify 

persons or cargo that warrant additional scrutiny without unduly 

impeding the traveling public or commerce. 

This budget recognizes that our people remain our greatest asset. 

It funds the journeyman-level increase for its front-line CBP officers, Border Patrol agents and agricultural specialists from the 

GS–11 to the GS–12 level. The jobs of our front-line personnel have 

become more complex since 9/11, and this upgrade reflects the increase in those responsibilities. 

Over the past 5 years, CBP has experienced substantial growth 

in its resources and capabilities and was supported by a near doubling of our annual budget during that time span. However, our 

Nation is still experiencing the effects of a deep and lasting recession, which has had some direct impact on our budget. As a result 

of this tough economic reality, our agency has seen a decrease of 

approximately 8 percent in user fees. However, this does not translate to a corresponding decrease in inspection requirements or 

workload in the enforcement area. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning and for your continued support of CBP. We are continuing to 

make real strides in the balance between effective and secure border management and streamlined and efficient trade policy. Thank 

you, and I look forward to any questions that you might have of 

me, sir. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
13 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 61840A.007
14 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 61840A.008
15 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 61840A.009
16 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 61840A.010
17 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 61840A.011
18 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 61840A.012
19 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 61840A.013
20 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 61840A.014
21 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 61840A.015
22 

SCANNING U.S. BOUND CARGO WAIVER

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony, and we 

will proceed to those questions. 

I want to focus on the scanning issue, the scanning of cargo 

headed for U.S. shores in overseas ports, both the Secure Freight 

Initiative and the Container Security Initiative, and whatever 

other approaches or plans that the administration will be developing. 

The Secretary has said she will likely waive the 9/11 Act requirements to scan 100 percent of U.S.-bound cargo by 2012, although 

we understand that DHS will consider the impact of any significant 

changes such as improved scanning technology before finalizing 

that waiver and sending it to Congress. For a long time now I, and 

I think this subcommittee, have expressed some understanding of 

the difficulties involved in that authorization requirement and have 

urged on the Department candor, straightforwardness in working 

with us to figure out what is realistic but also for the long run 

what is desirable, what is the optimal solution here. 

Let me first, though, focus on the waiver at hand—or the likely 

waiver at hand. To what extent is this decision one caused by inadequate technology, and how much of it is due to other aspects, perhaps aspects not as easily fixed—although technology is difficult 

enough—burdens of diplomacy, of logistics, of cost, of administration? How would you assess the likely waiver and the reasons behind it? And, of course, this isn’t the first time we have dealt with 

this. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. And thank you for that question because 

it gives us an opportunity, in the interest of candor, to basically describe the situation that we are facing. 

It is a very complex situation that we are facing. You touched on 

some of the most important points. Technology, obviously, is going 

to be critical in order to accomplish that 100 percent scanning at 

any given location. But, in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, we also 

have the situation of logistics—the host country being able to host 

us, wanting to host us, having the desire to host us at that host 

country. 

In addition to that, we have the layout, the schematic, if you will, 

of the existing ports of entry. A new term that I learned, for example, is a gateway port, where it is much easier to deploy technology 

because, basically, the containerized cargo goes through one gateway into the port. There are other layouts that basically are transitional ports, where there are a multitude of avenues into the ports 

and a multitude of requirements in order to get us to that kind of 

a situation. 

In addition to that, there are the financial costs and burdens that 

they play, not necessarily on the country but on the trade, the industry and so forth. 

So it is a combination of all of those things that make the waiver 

a very real situation. Needless to say, though, we are not going to 

continue in the outyears to look at the potential and that possibility. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
23 

CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Mr. PRICE. Well, let me go a little further with this. 

The 2010 appropriations bill directed CBP to report on its strategy to, quote, achieve meaningful and effective cargo and supply 

chain security. Now, we don’t have that report. We can infer probably some elements of your strategy, though, from the budget; and 

that is what I want to ask you to help us do here this morning. 

One striking aspect at the outset is a cut of $16.5 million from 

the Secure Freight Initiative. Now, the Secure Freight Initiative is 

the pilot project which attempts to establish comprehensive scanning, 100 percent scanning, of cargo at a foreign port before that 

cargo heads to our shores. Now, the plan, as I understand it, is to 

sustain the SFI project through remote operations only at the ports 

of Qasim in Pakistan and Salalah in Oman. Other sites, including 

the port of Hong Kong, would remain part of the Security Initiative, which we will come to in a moment. That Container Security 

Initiative does use CBP officers at foreign ports in partnership with 

host nation authorities, and it seeks to identify high-risk cargo to 

be screened and cleared before loaded onto U.S.-bound ships. 

Now, your budget says you will establish an SFI port in Karachi, 

but you request no new funding for that. So let me ask you, as a 

practical matter, are we really looking at the end of the Secure 

Freight Initiative? Is the 100 percent global scanning requirement 

feasible in any reasonable timeframe? And, if not, what will scanning and screening look like at foreign ports? 

As I said, we will later talk about the CSI as one possible model. 

There are no doubt others under consideration. Are we talking 

about really questioning or maybe eliminating the chance for widespread overseas scanning? There is certainly not going to be any 

momentum or incentive for foreign government or private sector 

implementation without U.S. leadership. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. Fair questions, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, we are undertaking a full assessment of just how we 

bring security to the supply chain, including a combination of scanning, screening by way of physical and virtual presence and bringing all of those together. 

Let me begin with the Container Security Initiative (CSI) portion 

of this. Our intent is to continue taking a look at very strategic locations where the physical presence will benefit our interest in continuing to secure the supply chain. That will continue. 

You mentioned—— 

Mr. PRICE. Excuse me. Could you just for the record indicate how 

many CSI ports are there at this moment? 

Mr. AGUILAR. We are operating in 32 countries, 58 ports, through 

which more than 80 percent of cargo that either originates at, or 

transits through, comes into the United States. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. So the CSI approach is actually quite widespread? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Please proceed. 

Mr. AGUILAR. In addition to that, we talk about securing the supply chain. It is through a transformation of both physical scanning 

and screening. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
24 

One of the things that I think we should be very proud of is the 

fact that, through a combination of CSI, the Secured Flight Initiative (SFI) and the virtual capabilities that we have through our national targeting center that resides domestically, we literally screen 

and target by way of risk management more than 98 percent of all 

containerized cargo leaving foreign parts coming toward the United 

States. 

Now, again, the way that we take a look at the supply chain is 

in the following fashion: What can we do at the point of origin, 

point of transit, point of arrival, point of entry and even continuing 

beyond that? 

So, at the point of origin, we have the CSI, SFI, virtual capabilities. We have the 10+2 rule that has now engaged and, thus, gives 

us an even higher degree of scanning and targeting, locating exactly where the cargo has been stuffed into the actual ships, things 

of this nature. Upon transit, we continue doing that risk-based 

analysis. Upon arrival at the ports of entry in the United States, 

we now are, in fact, scanning approximately 96 to 98 percent of all 

containers before they leave those ports of entry. 

Mr. PRICE. Whether or not they have received attention overseas? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. And we certainly take that into consideration. 

Now—and, again, you did mention that we are going to be keeping Salalah and a couple of the other ports open. And again, very 

importantly, it is going to be the strategical approach that we take 

into the future at applying our either virtual or physical presence 

under CSI. 

And, of course, very importantly, sir, something I didn’t mention, 

but I think it is critical to mention, is our Customs and Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C–TPAT) program, which is our voluntary industry program that has had a tremendous amount of 

support from the industry. We right now have more than 9,700 

member companies of that program, which basically at the point of 

origin and throughout the transit chain also ensures that the companies are doing everything that they can to ensure the security of 

trade, industry and containers moving toward the United States. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. This is helpful, but it does, you probably 

would agree, raise about as many questions as it answers in terms 

of the Department’s long-term plans. I am going to go on to the 

next round to raise questions about the future of CSI in this budget. Because, as you know, the budget raises questions about whether that is the preferred approach going forward. 

But let me at this point turn to Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Aguilar, we really appreciate the service that you and your 

officers put your lives on the line for us every day and genuinely 

appreciate your dedication and admire you guys immensely. I have 

had the privilege of working with you and your sector chiefs and 

visiting many, many parts of the border. You and your officers exhibit extraordinary bravery and we are really proud of you guys. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you, sir. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
25 

SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE

Mr. CULBERSON. I want to ask, if I could, Chief, in this first 

round about the Secure Border Initiative, which, as you know, was 

kicked off about 5 years ago with an estimated cost of about $8 billion to $10 billion; and we have as a Nation so far I believe spent 

over $1 billion in the program. The SBInet program is a combination of technology, of course, using part pedestrian and fencing and 

vehicular fencing and technology. It was supposed to be like a virtual fence in more remote areas. 

Last week, Secretary Napolitano announced that the Department 

of Homeland Security would redeploy $50 million of money that 

had been provided to the Department under the stimulus bill and 

that it would be used for SBInet, as she said, for the purchase of, 

quote, commercially available security technology along the Southwest border. Now, she also announced that DHS would be freezing 

all SBInet funding beyond the block one initial deployment to the 

Tucson and Ajo sectors until the assessment she ordered in January was completed. 

Now, the stimulus plan required a detailed expenditure plan for 

all funds that were provided. So far, the plan has not been provided to the Congress to demonstrate exactly what commercially 

available security technology she was referring to and that has 

been purchased, and we don’t have a timeline or scope of SBI. 

So far, about $6 billion—$6,000 million—has been appropriated 

for fencing, infrastructure, and technology, Chief. And, as I say, 

there has been $1 billion invested so far specifically in the virtual 

fence, about $1 billion in CBP’s air and marine resources. Looking 

at the numbers, I see the Border Patrol has estimated that in October of 2005 you had 241 miles of our 2,000 mile long border, southern border, under effective control. And the most recent numbers 

that I have been able to get access to show that about 697 miles 

are under effective control as of March of 2009. That is about 35 

percent of the southern border. 

I wanted to ask, Chief, if you could, to talk to us about when, 

in your opinion, we will have the southern border under effective 

control and how we will do it and how much it is going to cost. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Tough questions. Sir, I will begin there. Tough 

questions, because I am not sure that anybody could give you an 

answer to that, but I will attempt to take you through where we 

are going. 

First, let me begin with the SBInet situation that we are facing. 

There is nobody that is more frustrated with the situation that we 

have faced with SBInet since it began than those of us who have 

actually patrolled and worked that border because we identified a 

requirement that basically has, to date, not necessarily been met. 

We are making headway. But because of the situation that we find 

ourselves in, $50 million has been pulled of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding toward SBInet. 

In addition to that—this is the best way I can explain where we 

find ourselves now; Tucson 1, 23 miles of capability, Ajo 1, 30 miles 

of capability, for a total of 53 miles, are basically going forth. They 

will be in the hands of the Border Patrol for operational testing 

and evaluation by the end of this calendar year. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
26 

Mr. CULBERSON. How many miles in Ajo? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Ajo is 30; 23 in Tucson 1, sir. What we are seeing 

so far, Tucson 1 is now operationally being tested and is showing 

good signs. It is giving us a capability that basically we have never 

had before. But that is why we are taking a measured and judicious approach to make sure that any further investments that are 

made under SBInet gets the agents on the ground which is exactly 

what we need. 

What we need is to have situational awareness. People call it a 

virtual fence. Actually, what it gives us is situational awareness of 

what is happening along our Nation’s borders, not with a single 

focus but for an environmental landscape focus, if you will. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I want to stress it is the safety of your officers, 

too. This is, above all, first and foremost, for you and the senior 

command the safety of your men and women in the field is at risk. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. And that is the criticality of it, yes, sir. 

And that is why we are taking this approach. 

I agree with this approach to do an assessment, to take a step 

back. That is not to say that we are going to slow down by any 

means at all. The redirection of the ARRA funding, for example, is 

going to give us capabilities, not system capabilities, but it will give 

us technological force enhancer capabilities that we, frankly, don’t 

have right now. One of the systems we are looking forward to getting additional units of is going to be the Mobile Surveillance System (MSS). 

Mr. CULBERSON. Out of the $50 million? 

MOBILE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

Mr. AGUILAR. Out of the $50 million, yes, sir. About $32 million 

of that is what we are looking at directing toward that MSS capability. Each one of those systems basically has the capability to give 

us an environmental look, landscape look, of anywhere from between 8 to 12 miles of the border. 

Mr. CULBERSON. If you would describe the Mobile Surveillance 

System. 

Mr. AGUILAR. It is a combination of ground surveillance radar, 

Doppler radar, infrared day/night capability and targeting and 

tracking capability all in one package that covers an area of anywhere from 8 to 12 miles. We have used it. We own about 40 to 

42 of those right now. That capability has worked tremendously. So 

we are going to continue to add on it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thirty-two of the 50. And what about the other 

remaining? 

Mr. AGUILAR. It is spread out, sir, over capabilities for some of 

our air assets, some of our pedestrian capabilities (we are looking 

for our foot officers to basically carry night vision capability), 

things of that nature. So it is spread out over capability requirements our officers have identified. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So you have got a good idea, you have already got the equipment lined up, and you know how the $50 million is 

going to be spent. 

EXPENDITURE PLAN

Mr. AGUILAR. We have an expenditure plan, yes, sir. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
27 

Mr. CULBERSON. If I could, that is required by law to be provided 

to Congress. What happened? And when are we going to have it? 

We probably ought to get that right away. 

Mr. AGUILAR. The only thing I can tell you, sir, is it is going 

through the review process right now. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You have done your part. Border Patrol has 

submitted it. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is something we heard yesterday, Mr. 

Chairman. It seems like we have got a real choke-point somewhere 

in the bureaucracy up there. It would be nice to make a requirement that somebody doesn’t get anymore money for whatever office 

they are running if they don’t provide statutorily required reports, 

would be good. 

If you could, Chief, the Tucson sector I want to ask about is a 

continuing problem. The latest numbers we have show that in the 

Tucson sector, the estimates we have heard is—and I want you to 

confirm this—that you all are apprehending about one in ten people that cross the border in the Tucson sector. Does that sound 

about right? 

TUCSON SECTOR APPREHENSION RATE

Mr. AGUILAR. No, sir. No, it doesn’t, but I am afraid we can’t give 

you an exact number of apprehensions. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Your best estimate. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I wouldn’t want to guess now. And the reason is 

that in those areas where we now have the capability to have good, 

solid knowledge of what is happening, for example, in Tucson 1, we 

are operating for about 16 hours per day. That gives us an exact 

footprint of what is happening. And basically we get pretty close 

to telling you how many are crossing and how many of those we 

are catching. We can give you an approximate there. I don’t have 

that number there. I can get it for you. More than 16 hours. 

For the remainder of the sector, where we don’t have that kind 

of capability but are trying to build it, it is a best guess. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Let’s say for that 16 miles, what do you estimate you are catching; two out of ten, three out of ten for that sector? 

Mr. AGUILAR. It would be higher than that, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. I will ask some follow-up questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mrs. Lowey. 

SCREENING INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and welcome. 

Frankly, I brought this subject up quite a few times, and it is astonishing to me that we can’t get this changed now. It was outrageous. And I am sure we would all agree that Abdulmutallab was 

a known threat, should have been stopped from boarding, the plane 

had CBP, had more time to review the passenger list. 

Now, during a hearing last March with CBP Commissioner 

Ahern, I asked him whether airlines should provide passenger lists 

24 hours in advance of international flights arriving in the United 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
28 

States, as incoming sea vessels are required to do. He replied, absolutely not. 

Further, when Secretary Napolitano testified here last month, 

she said DHS was in the process of evaluating all of its rules and 

procedures. 

It is so obvious to me that 30 minutes is not enough time for 

CBP officers to screen hundreds of passengers. Twenty-four hours 

should be the new standard. 

In the months since Secretary Napolitano appeared before this 

Subcommittee, has the status of the DHS review of screening international passengers changed and is it still the position of CBP that 

30 minutes is plenty of time to get the visas, review the history, 

make a decision as to whether that person shouldn’t be aboard the 

plane? Can you respond? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, ma’am, I will be glad to. 

December 25th changed the way that we take a look at every one 

of our programs, and we are currently in a reassessment mode for 

everything. 

Mrs. LOWEY. How long do you have to reassess? I know you are 

reassessing. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, it takes into account what the new known 

threat is. The threat that we faced with Mr. Abdulmutallab was an 

unknown threat, and now we are looking at what gaps existed then 

so that we can close those gaps. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Can you tell me if you can do this in 30 minutes? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Given the—well—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. Can you review the visas, check any background? 

In 30 minutes you can make a determination that someone can get 

aboard a flight and we don’t have to worry about them? 

Mr. AGUILAR. If we have the known information to match it up 

to, yes, ma’am. 

But the real problem that we have is not against the known; it 

is against the unknown. And if you would allow me, please, because Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) is not the 

sole dependency that we have for checking against our watch lists. 

We start out with Passenger Name Record (PNR). That starts coming at us at 72 hours before, at 24 hours again, at 8 hours and 1 

hour before boarding. 

In addition to that—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. May I just ask, the 72 hours, do you have their visa 

information as well? 

Mr. AGUILAR. No, we do not have the visa information, nor do we 

have it with the 30 minutes before APIS checking. We have names, 

we have biographical information that we then take and match up 

against the known watchlists, the Terrorist Screening Databases 

that we have. 

Now, we are working toward revetting against visas as we speak. 

This is one of these gaps that we are looking to close. That is being 

worked on basically almost as we speak here. 

Mrs. LOWEY. May I ask you, you said that this is a gap that you 

know you should close. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes ma’am. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
29 

Mrs. LOWEY. I have been talking about this for probably more 

than a year. What is taking so long to make that decision? What 

is so difficult? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, it is not any one agency that does all of this. 

First of all, let me take you to PNR. PNR is information that is 

given to us by the industry based on requirements that they have, 

not requirements that we have. We are taking an existing amount 

of data set in a certain way that we are basically getting from 

them. 

Mrs. LOWEY. From the airlines. 

Mr. AGUILAR. From the airlines. The data set will include the 

name, might include the date of birth, might include the way that 

the ticket was purchased, might include traveling partners, but it 

is inconsistent throughout. Now, we are working very closely with 

the industry to bring some consistency to the elements that we 

need under PNR. 

Mrs. LOWEY. May I just follow up, because I know my time is 

limited. Is it very difficult for you, just you, to make a determination as to whether you should get the visa, you should get this additional information? What is so difficult about this process and 

this decision making? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, you asked two questions, ma’am. Identifying 

the requirements, absolutely not. We have the requirements. As officers, as the boots on the ground that our people are, we understand; we know the requirements. The difficulty is how we reach 

that. Again, we are working with the industry right now. If that 

industry effort does not work out, we may very well be coming to 

you and saying we need help here. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Look, I am a New Yorker. I was down at the World 

Trade Center. I have been out with our distinguished Chairman to 

JFK. We met with the police. The threat is still there. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I don’t know why it is taking you so long to make 

this decision, and I would like to have an answer in writing as to 

why you can’t determine that at least 24 hours—you say you get 

the name 72 hours. Why can’t you get the visa and all background 

information? I mean, to me this is astonishing. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: Air carriers must transmit Advance Passenger Information System 

(APIS) data no later than 30 minutes prior to securing the aircraft doors for a batch 

transmission of passenger data or up to the time of securing the aircraft doors for 

interactive Automated Quick Query (AQQ) submissions of individual passenger 

data. CBP does require commercial air carriers to provide access to available Passenger Name Record (PNR) data starting at 72 hours before departure. 

Many reservations contain incomplete information which limits CBP’s ability to 

conduct terrorist watchlist screening, however; this will change with the implementation of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA’s) Secure Flight program. Under Secure Flight, carriers will be required to collect and provide passenger information including full name, date of birth and gender to TSA for security 

screening starting at 72 hours prior to departure. CBP will also receive this more 

complete passenger information through the PNR data requirement resulting in enhanced screening capabilities for CBP. Secure Flight is expected to be fully deployed 

for international air carriers by December 31, 2010. 

Requiring additional passenger information and additional time for screening, beyond current APIS and PNR requirements, would necessitate changes to existing 

processes. Requiring travelers to formalize plans to travel to or from the United 

States at least 24 hours before departure would also preclude all last-minute travel. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
30 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

ILLICIT SHIPPING

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Welcome Mr. Aguilar. 

Last December, I was joined by Mr. Farr and several of my colleagues from California in sending your predecessor a letter urging 

the crackdown on Chinese shippers that intentionally mislabeled 

consignments of steel tubing to avoid paying import duties. Without these duties, the Chinese tubing is significantly less expensive 

than its American counterpart. This illicit shipping, as you well 

know, robs our Treasury of essential revenue; and, more importantly, it puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage 

resulting in the loss of American manufacturing jobs. 

Now, while I understand that some aspects of your current efforts are in fact confidential, can you please describe CBP’s overall 

strategy for preventing Chinese steel tubing and other imports 

from illegally entering the U.S. market? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes ma’am. I will speak to the degree that I am 

knowledgeable now about things such as countervailing and antidumping efforts that are ongoing. 

Just this past week, I was in Los Angeles with our district officers relating to import specialties and things of this nature, and, 

basically, that is one of the challenges that we are facing—continuing to staff up to the point where thorough review audits can 

continue to be done and then taking the appropriate tariff tax and 

duty actions against these individuals. We are dealing, as an example—and for obvious reasons I can’t go into names right now—but 

we are dealing with several instances of like situations, not steel, 

but other products that have basically been skirting our duties. 

But I can assure you that CBP and DHS are taking very aggressive actions, both from the staffing technological standpoint and 

the focus standpoint, to ensure that we take the appropriate actions against these individual companies that are trying to skirt 

these duties that create an unfair competition field for our own domestic products. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. So I can look forward to—or at least the 

companies that are in my district that are suffering from this, we 

can look forward to the fact that that is in fact going to change? 

Mr. AGUILAR. We are taking, yes, very aggressive actions on that. 

I am not familiar with the company that you are referring to, 

ma’am, but if you can give us specific information, we will give you 

whatever we can on it, yes, ma’am. 

CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you. 

Last year, I asked your predecessor, Mr. Ahern, about CBP’s relationship with its foreign counterparts through the Container Security Initiative; and it was really disturbing to learn that several 

of our largest trading partners, including China, do not allow U.S. 

Customs officials stationed overseas to actually witness the inspections of suspicious shipments bound for the United States. Does 

that practice continue today, and what is being done to ensure that 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
31 

these inspections are being conducted properly, and if there is still 

a problem that it, in fact, is being reported? 

Mr. AGUILAR. We, in fact, are working very aggressively with 

places and locations such as China, the one that you described, to 

ensure that the validation process as we deem necessary and appropriate gets carried out by our officers. Without having to go into 

much detail, I think all of us recognize the challenges that we have 

with China. But that does not mean that we are letting up. We, 

in fact, are continuing to work it. I just sat down with the new ambassador to China from the United States about a month and a 

half ago, and this was one of our main topics. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. So at this point U.S. inspectors are still 

prevented from observing? 

Mr. AGUILAR. We have our challenges, yes ma’am. To what degree we are being prevented, I don’t have the exact count. I can get 

some of that for you, if you would like. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. I would appreciate it. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes ma’am. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The CSI program currently has CBP officers stationed in Shanghai 

and Shenzhen. High risk shipments are referred to China Customs for examination. 

China Customs will perform examination using non-intrusive inspection technology 

comparable to that which is used in the U.S. In FY 09, China Customs conducted 

examination on 19.9% of U.S. requests. By comparison, CSI requests for examination are conducted 93% of the time program wide. China Customs performs the lowest level of requested examinations in the CSI program. 

Over the past year CSI has requested assistance from the CBP Attache at the embassy in Beijing and the consulate in Shanghai. China Customs says that by the 

time they get the referrals for exams by CSI, the containers are already laden on 

the vessel. Formal letters were written and meetings held with China Customs requesting that China Customs Officers be available to perform exams on weekends 

and after hours and China Customs indicated the Declaration of Principles signed 

with CSI does not stipulate that they are required to work after hours or weekends. 

CSI and the CBP Attache in Beijing continue to engage China Customs to resolve 

the low exam rate. 

C–TPAT PROGRAM

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. And, finally, as you know, through the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, shippers 

agree to implement stronger security measures in return for less 

scrutiny from Customs officials at major ports of entry. According 

to recent news reports, Mexican drug cartels have begun to take 

advantage of this arrangement, targeting the trucks and containers 

of C–TPAT-certified companies and using them to smuggle narcotics into the United States. These stories are made especially 

troubling by the fact that more than half of all U.S. imports now 

come from shippers enrolled in that program. What steps are being 

taken to prevent the cartels from exploiting a C–TPAT, how successful have your efforts been, and what challenges still remain? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The C–TPAT program, ma’am—first of all, let me 

begin here—is one of our great success stories because of the fact 

that it brings in industry as a critically important partner to help 

us secure the supply chain from an enterprise perspective. More 

than 9,700 companies are now members of C–TPAT. 

The reason I mention that is because just last Thursday, I gave 

a keynote address to more than 1,200 C–TPAT members in Los Angeles, CA. One of the main focuses of my address and of the classes 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
32 

that were being given and the training that was being given was 

just what you speak to: the vulnerabilities that exist, the things 

that we must recognize in this partnership and the things that we 

must do to overcome them. One is increasing the security, the vigilance of the companies themselves, the validation process that we 

take them through. And then, critical to understand, because they 

are members of C–TPAT does not mean that they have a free ride. 

There is still ongoing samplings taken of these companies. 

But I am elated to tell you that, from the perspective—I met 

Chief Executive Officers or vice presidents from Shell company and 

Swift and other companies, General Motors, that were there, and 

the level of interest in protecting and ensuring the security of the 

supply chain is very, very high. 

I also had the opportunity to meet with one of the under secretaries for Mexico on the same issue. They are working jointly with 

us right now toward a C–TPAT-like program, and we are offering 

capacity building and lessons learned to them also to strengthen 

that supply chain. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. And once they enter the program is there 

a continuous review? Or do they enter and then they are just sort 

of forgotten? 

Mr. AGUILAR. No ma’am. There is an ongoing, continuous review. 

And the validation process—I will share with you that, when I 

first heard about it, I was pleasantly surprised. The revalidation 

process can take anywhere from a month to a year, depending on 

what our import specialists find. So it is a very, very strong program, I believe. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you. My time is up. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. 

INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS

Chief, thank you very much for your leadership. And I want to 

personally thank you for your hard work in defending our country. 

I know that you have been—in terms of boots on the ground, you 

have been there. So I want to thank you for your direct knowledge 

of the things that are needed out there. 

I wanted to ask you—and I know we have beefed up on border 

patrol. We are now close to 20,000. One of the areas that we continue to get reports, not only from the Border Coalition but from 

other groups, about the need for Customs on the bridges and the 

problems that we continue to have with commerce there, as well 

as security. And no one knows that better than you, that you can 

secure the areas—and they are being well secured in most areas 

between the bridges—but if you don’t have the personnel on the 

bridge it is going to either bottle up or we are going to have some 

problems there. Your budget recommends about 380 additional people when all indications are that there is a need for some 5,000. 

From your perspective, where are we at on that and when are we 

going to come to grips with that issue? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, first of all, thank you for asking that question because it gives us an opportunity to speak to something that 

too often we don’t get an opportunity to speak to. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
33 

The concerns, the frustrations, are in fact very real when those 

bottlenecks occur, when that stymieing, if you will, of trade occurs. 

The officers, the Customs and Border Protection officers and the ag 

specialists are absolutely critical to maintaining the efficiency and 

the effectiveness. But they are constrained, also—and we must recognize this—they are constrained by the infrastructure that exists 

at these ports of entry. 

Congressman, one of the things that we have taken into consideration and we must take into consideration and we do look at very 

closely is whether it is a good thing to put more officers into a port 

of entry that, regardless of how many officers you put in there, because of the infrastructure constraints, can’t bring any more capacity? 

Personal experience. Nuevo, Laredo, the infrastructure from an 

ingress into the port of entry from Mexico, is a bottleneck way before it gets to the port of entry. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And I understand that problem. But other situations, and you have seen it yourself, where we go to communities 

and we have opened up additional lanes, but they are closed because they don’t have the personnel. Especially during times when 

staff want to take off, like Christmas, Easter, you know, and that 

is when you need them the most. 

So I understand in terms of infrastructure. And no one got more 

upset than when the stimulus money came out and it all went to 

Arizona, and Texas got nothing, than me. 

PERSONAL CONSTRAINTS

But, having said that, I know that we need to beef up, but we 

also need to beef up on personnel. So, based on the 380, it is not 

going to get us there in terms of—you know, we just opened up another bridge Ansandua. Those 380 were probably just going to go 

there, yet we are still looking at other possibilities. 

So I would hope that we start looking at how we beef up on Customs. If nothing else, there has got to be a program there with the 

number of border patrols that we have that at some point in time— 

I know that it might be difficult—but for them to also be able to 

have a transition where some of them go on the actual ports of 

entry and help out. So give that some thought during especially 

those heavy times when we need them. 

I can tell you communities of San Marcos in Texas where 40 percent of their sales is to Mexicans coming over purchasing stuff. And 

if they don’t show up, my God, we are going to be in trouble. Others, it is 80 percent of their sales. But ensuring the security. And 

I agree with you in terms of the infrastructure, because that is another issue. 

BIG BEND BORDER CROSSINGS

The Secretary of the Interior was with me, Secretary Salazar, in 

the Big Bend. We had an opportunity to visit that area. We talked 

about the possibility of the dialogue that has taken place since the 

1930s and 1940s about an international park and the importance 

of that. 

There is three crossings that were closed in the Big Bend, and 

the possibilities of opening those crosses in especially like 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
34 

Boquillas, which it just makes more sense for us to have direct contact, a little more in terms of what is happening on the other side 

versus bringing closure completely and then not have any contact 

whatsoever with a community. I would ask in terms of where are 

we at on looking at—because I had more than three closures of 

bridges after 9/11—and so to seeing how we might, if nothing else, 

for tourist purposes of those three crosses. Can I get your comments on that? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. I believe the ports of entry that you are 

talking about, or what used to be ports of entry class B, which were 

done away with in 1986, are La Linda and Boquillas. And we did, 

in fact decide, because of the field commander’s determination right 

after 2001, that those needed to be closed because of the situation 

we were facing. We are in the process of reassessing, taking a look 

at what the situation is currently, to see what it is that can be 

done. But, of course, with that comes additional resource requirements. 

Mr. Chairman and Congressman, just one other thing. Because 

of the criticality of the importance as to how we look at our ports 

of entry, the congestion and things of that nature—again, I am 

going to repeat—the CBP officers are absolutely critical. But we 

are looking at not only that but also other things that we can do 

(bringing other capabilities to those ports of entry that will help us 

segment, sort, target and triage, expedite the flow through)—things 

such as our Trusted Traveller Programs that will help us segment 

and sort the people that we trust and the WHTI effort that we 

have undertaken, again another tremendous success story that has 

taken real hold. 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE (WHTI)

WHTI right now, of those that are actually queried on the southern border, approximately more than 94 percent of them hold a 

card that is one of a minimal amount that can be used, as opposed 

to more than 8,000 that could be used before. So that facilitates, 

that expedites. 

So, again, I would just repeat that officers are key, but the other 

actions that we have actually put in place are absolutely critical 

also. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If you can help me with Del Rio and Eagle Pass, 

on those passages, they have to go all the way to Laredo to get that 

card, and not only does it cost them $150 or so but also, in addition 

to the travel, those individuals, we need to get them in some of 

those other communities. They have been asking me. There are 

thousands of them. That would also help expedite for the people in 

Acuna and the people in Piedras Negras also that would have to 

travel all the way down there. 

One additional question? 

C–TPAT BUDGET REDUCTION

Mr. PRICE. If you don’t mind, wait until the next round. Your 

time has expired. 

I do want to follow up on Ms. Roybal-Allard’s line of questioning. 

An important program, C–TPAT, and we appreciate basically your 

positive assessment of that program and its future. I would like to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
35 

ask you, though, to put a little finer point on that, and you can do 

this for the record if you prefer. But there is a $12 million cut of 

this program in this budget, and that does raise obvious questions, 

doesn’t it, about the number of current C–TPAT participants who 

can be revalidated, and also the capacity to add new participants. 

It just seems to me that is a basic question that this Committee 

needs to address, and you need to help us do so. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I will do that, and I will address a short portion 

of it and take the rest of it, which I think will demand more detail 

as an insert for the record (IFR). 

But the reduction, if you will, does not necessarily mean the reduction in capacity of the program, especially as it relates to realignment of the revalidation inspectors and things of that nature. 

I believe, at the present time, we have about 200 of those import 

specialists that actually perform those revalidations. 

I spoke to the group from Miami last week, and I asked them 

specifically, how many companies do you each carry in your portfolio? It varies. I asked them if we were basically at the peak, and 

they said no, but we will be getting there pretty fast. So expansion 

capabilities are still inherent within the program by way of realignment. 

Now, we will take a look specifically at the import specialists as 

to what it is we need to carry out that very important part of C– 

TPAT. The rest I will take for IFR. 

Mr. PRICE. If you can assure us those basic capacities are not 

compromised in that budget request, then please tell us where 

those cuts do occur; what would account for the savings that you 

think can be absorbed? 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The current funding profile for the C–TPAT program was developed 

during the start up and expansion phase. The program is now mature, and $12 million can be eliminated from its budget with no impact on operations. Based on projected workload, as well as on program efficiencies, the operational capability cut 

will not impact CBP’s supply chain security mission. The program has aggressively 

worked to identify and successfully implement travel and validation procedures 

aimed at maximizing program resources. 

C–TPAT will reduce the number of contractors (software programmers and testers) assigned to the Office of Information Technology to develop the program’s Automated Web-Based Portal System from 8 to 2 programmers in equal increments from 

FY 2010–2012. The Portal is the primary interface with the C–TPAT trade members 

and has approximately 20,000 designed users. It warehouses information pertinent 

to the validation process and is critical to effective and efficient administration of 

the program. A phased down approach will give the program the opportunity to 

make needed functional enhancements over an extended time period. 

The reduction to funds supporting the Automated Web-Based Portal System will 

have minimal impacts because CBP will use a phased approach in which necessary 

enhancements will still be made, over an extended time period. The reduction to 

support funds, including equipment, services and supplies, will not impact the program’s ability to meet current mission goals. The C–TPAT program will meet all 

timelines as mandated by the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 

2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109–347. 

CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Let me return to overseas scanning and screening and the Cargo 

Security Initiative, which, as you said, is a much more widespread 

initiative at overseas ports to examine as much cargo as possible 

headed for the U.S. before it reaches our shores. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
36 

Fifty-eight ports around the world now implement CSI, covering, 

as you said, 80 percent of the shipments headed to the U.S. In answering my question about the 100 percent screening and about 

the future of the Secure Freight Initiative, which is a pilot designed to determine the feasibility of 100 percent screening, and I 

think it is fair to say, from what you said and what we know, that 

that pilot has not been terribly reassuring. There have been some 

good operations set up, some good cooperation, but still it is a formidable goal and one that we are asking you to be candid about 

in terms of its feasibility. 

Now, CSI is a more targeted approach. There have been implications in past discussions that maybe this was the model for overseas screening. Yet your budget cuts this by $50 million. And as 

I read your budget presentation, you are going to reduce the physical CBP presence to four ports, relying a great deal more on what 

you call virtual inspection, targeting, and possible reciprocal inspection agreements with foreign governments. 

Mr. AGUILAR. That is right. 

Mr. PRICE. Now, that really raises a great many questions, I 

think, especially in light of the quite understandable reservations 

you have raised about the 100 percent goal. Why have you decided 

to pull back from the overseas-based CSI? 

The fundamental question about the pulling back that occurs, 

can domestic operations equal or surpass CBP’s capacity to gather 

information and screen overseas shipments that is currently made 

possible by having a physical presence at these overseas ports? 

Your budget calls for reliance on domestic-based targeting and 

analysis. Where is that going to be? How is that going to work? 

You don’t propose increased staffing or capacity at the National 

Targeting Center, and CBP officer staffing levels are declining. So 

within the terms of your own budget, we don’t understand where 

this capacity is going to come from. 

But as you can tell, I have a more fundamental question about 

how this is going to work, scaling back the actual presence of your 

officers overseas in the way this budget anticipates. And I guess 

the question I started with, then, looms over all of this: Is CSI the 

model of the future in terms of overseas scanning, or are we really 

talking about pulling back on that whole endeavor and simply 

adopting another less ambitious model, or maybe pulling back on 

the goal of doing much of this work overseas altogether? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Let me begin with the following, Mr. Chairman, 

because I think it is critical that we do a couple of things. 

One is that we recognize that doing as much as we can before— 

the pre-departure, before these containers are coming at us—is absolutely critical. I think all of us are in agreement on that. 

Two is that we revisit where we started CSI in 2002. It started 

because of a vulnerability that was quickly recognized after 9/11. 

At that point, the only way, the only means we had to start this 

initiative was to actually have the physical presence of CBP officers 

on foreign ground doing the screening, doing the targeting, the risk 

assessment and any needed assessment. That was the only way we 

could do it. 

Since then, in the effort of transforming what we do, we have 

now gained tremendous capabilities, thanks to this group right 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
37 

here, on building up our technological, our virtual capabilities. The 

National Targeting Center—Cargo began in partnership with our 

National Partnership Center—Passenger. It has now been split out. 

We have our own component, which specifically targets cargo. 

CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE CONT. 

Before 9/11, we had no advanced automatic targeting. We have 

it today. We had limited personnel overseas. We now have about 

27 reps, attaches, throughout these locations. We have much better-established international relationships. We also have the 1,400 

Radiation Portal Monitors deployed. We have something that is 

very critical—the do not load authority—which did not exist before. 

So it is a combination of the virtual capability to screen, of which 

we are doing close to 100 percent, and the do not load authority 

that we have. It is the transformation of—again I would remind us 

that it is not just the CSI, but it is CSI, C–TPAT, SFI, 10 + 2, 24 

Hour Rule, all coming together in this transformational interest to 

ensure that we push at our borders as much as possible. Then at 

the end, domestically, we have more than 98 percent scanning capability of those containers once they are in country. 

So it is that combination, it is that comprehensive approach, it 

is not any one silver bullet that is going to get us to where I think 

we need to get. Managing the risk, assessing, targeting, segmenting, sorting, triaging as far away from our border as we can, 

is exactly the intent that we have. 

One hundred percent scanning foreign is a very real challenge for 

some of the reasons we spoke about earlier, some within our control, others that we have no control over. How were the ports designed many, many years ago? Is the host country willing to accept 

our desires and sometimes demands? So it is all of these things 

that we take into consideration, sir. 

VIRTUAL SCREENING

Mr. PRICE. Well, the virtual screening, the capacity you are talking about to do a lot of this stateside and to not have that physical 

presence, where in this budget should we expect to see that enhanced capacity reflected? 

Mr. AGUILAR. One of the things occurring right now—and I believe it is three. Right now, I can only remember one location. But 

in New Zealand and Israel, for example, we are working with 

them, and they actually do the scanning at our request, virtually 

send us the image. Our officers here domestically review the imaging, and depending on what they find—— 

Mr. PRICE. Where are those officers located? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Here domestically, sir. We will provide that information to you. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The officers are located at the National Targeting Center—Cargo, in 

Herndon, Virginia. 

Mr. PRICE. Is there going to be a lot more of that going on? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. Then the question is, what kind of enhanced capacity 

is it going to require stateside? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
38 

Mr. AGUILAR. Again, this is what we are assessing right now. 

This is basically a pilot program that is ongoing right now for that, 

virtual imaging, and the budgets will reflect what our needs are 

going to be, taking into consideration that it is that plus everything 

else we are doing, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. I want to turn to Mr. Culberson. I must say that the 

impression one gets on visiting these ports, and I remember very 

well a visit to an SFI port, Salalah, and a CSI port, Alexandria, 

Egypt, the impression one gets is that the presence of our people 

on the ground is quite important. In fact, we were struck by the 

almost diplomatic quality of the job they were required to do, the 

daily interactions with people on the ground in those ports and just 

making certain that the promised examination was taking place. I 

have to confess, it is hard for me to envision pulling all that back 

and not having that physical presence in these ports. 

But you are saying CSI, as it has been developed, can operate 

under the conditions projected in this budget? 

Mr. AGUILAR. CSI, plus everything else that supports it. 

Mr. PRICE. CSI, as enhanced by C–TPAT and other programs. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. That is going to require some very careful scrutiny. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Culberson. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say for the 

record, while my good friend Ciro Rodriguez is here, how much I 

have enjoyed working with Ciro. We were elected together in 1986 

to the Texas House, have been good friends ever since. Our daughters—your daughter is a little older than mine, but we were roommates in that first session. 

And we have with great success, Chief, worked, as you know, in 

the Del Rio sector; Ciro, in the Laredo sector. You guys have done 

a magnificent job with the help of the local prosecutors, the judges, 

the marshals, the sheriffs, in implementing the zero tolerance program, Operation Streamline, with the support of the local community. 

I note that the crime rate has just plummeted, Ciro, and Del Rio 

is much safer. Public safety is enhanced in Del Rio and in Laredo. 

I wanted to ask you, I know you are continuing to work on rolling that out down to Brownsville. I wanted to make sure Operation 

Streamline is secure. It has got the full support of headquarters 

and your office; is that right, sir? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And you are working to expand it down to the 

Rio Grande Valley sector and get it further expanded in Laredo? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Let me qualify the answer I am going to give because what we want to ensure is that every chief on the ground has 

Streamline as a tool in his or her tool box to apply at the appropriate time, in the fashion that they feel is right. That is what we 

are working toward. The expansion is actually up to the chiefs on 

the ground, sir. It is important that we give them that capability, 

yes. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
39 

Mr. CULBERSON. They have the capability, for example, in the 

rest of the Laredo sector, that ability is there, and in the Brownsville sector? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. Yes. Working with their partners. 

Mr. CULBERSON. We can work on that, Ciro, with our good 

friends, with Solomon. Henry has, I think, the Laredo sector; Solomon—and who else has got the piece of Brownsville? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Hinojosa. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes. It is working beautifully. We look forward 

to helping you with that. In my opinion, there may be some areas 

you need a fence, maybe in urban areas. You want to make sure 

the local community has some input on that. 

But the best solution, Mr. Chairman, we have seen, Ciro and I 

have seen it and the Chief has proven it, is boots on the ground; 

effective law enforcement by officers, using their heads and their 

hearts and their good judgment with the support of local prosecutors. In fact, Chief, I understand that the Val Verde County Jail, 

Ciro, even has vacancies. It is working so well, the illegal crossings 

in Del Rio have plummeted, and you have been leasing beds from 

the Del Rio County Jail, and there is even room for more customers. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. There is room at the inn. This system works 

beautifully, and we are going to work together to get that implemented in the rest of the Rio Grande Valley and in Laredo. 

SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE

Let me ask you about SBI. It is scheduled to be tested and, I 

think, undergo system acceptance testing by as late as September. 

Mr. AGUILAR. September of this year; yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. How long will that testing take and what criteria are you using to either accept or reject SBI? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The criteria I won’t go into because I am not that 

familiar with it. I am dependent on our executive director, Mr. 

Mark Borkowski, to carry that out. And I have to say I have full 

faith and confidence that he is trying to get us what we need. 

Mr. CULBERSON. What is the time frame? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, it will begin sometime in September; that is 

what we are being told at the present time. I can’t give you an 

exact time. It will probably be 30 to 45 days, and then it is going 

into what is known as operational testing and evaluation. That is 

when it gets into the hands of the Border Patrol in a quasi-formal 

fashion to actually jerk it around, throw it down, get it dirty, utilize it as Border Patrol agents will. And then it will go to acceptance, full acceptance. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Your officers will do that review? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. In fact, our officers are working with the 

system right now, Tucson-1, for about 14–16 hours per day to kind 

of begin that testing process. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Would you be sure and ask, from your end and 

we push from our end, to get headquarters to release the spending 

plan on that $50 million? You have done that part. It sounds like 

you guys have done your job. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir; we will find out where it is. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
40 

COST TO SECURE THE SOUTHERN BORDER

Mr. CULBERSON. And push to get it to us. 

I want to follow on with a very important question that I know 

all Americans are concerned about, is when will the—particularly 

the southern border—the northern border is a problem, but we 

have a full-scale war going on across the border in Mexico—when 

will the southern border be secure and how long is it going to take? 

It looks like about 697 miles are currently secure, according to 

your own reports. Your report that you have effective control is the 

term I was looking for of 697 miles. I know that there is a different 

level of operational control. But in terms of effective control, I ran 

the math, and if the southern border is 2,000 miles and you had 

241 miles of effective control in October 2005, 697 miles in March 

2009, it looks like you were securing about 11 miles a month; and 

with 1,300 miles left, that means we got about 10 years at that 

pace to get effective control of the southern border. And we have 

already spent, just doing the math, $6 billion over 5 years on fencing and infrastructure, $1 billion for air and marina sets, and 

about $5 billion—$3 billion a year for CBP, so $15 billion over 5 

years. 

So, doing the math, $22 billion over 5 years, and we have 697 

miles of effective control, it looks like 10 years and $40 billion before the entire southern border would be under effective control. 

Does that sound about right? 

Mr. AGUILAR. No, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Let’s hope it is a lot sooner and less expensive. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I have to qualify that I can’t give you a figure, and 

I won’t give you a time for the following reasons. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Just ballpark. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Let me put it in this fashion first because I think 

it is foundational. The effective control miles are a means by which 

we, the Border Patrol, measure a certain level of control along the 

southwest border. There is effective control, there is monitored control, there is less monitored control and then there is an unknown. 

The unknown is the smallest group. Each one of those varies in the 

levels of control. The most critical sections of our border, especially 

as it relates to the southern border, are the ones that are under 

operational control right now. 

What that translates to is the following, and this is critically important: that there are places like El Paso, which is the third safest 

large city in the Nation, third largest safest city in the Nation. You 

go to San Diego, crime has plummeted; Laredo, crime has plummeted; the Rio Grande Valley, plummeted; Del Rio, vacancies in 

the Val Verde County Jail. These are things we hadn’t seen before. 

So it is those critical areas where our strategy has worked. 

That is not to say we are ignoring the other areas. In those other 

border areas where we have a different level of control, we are 

monitoring it so that at the most appropriate time, we can start 

over, we can shift, we can request. 

But having said that, the Border Patrol has doubled in size over 

the last 7–8 years. We are going through a very good maturation 

period. We now have six unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) that 

we are flying. We didn’t have those in the past. We are getting a 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
41 

more mature program. We now have more than 280 aerial platforms. As recently as 2003, the Border Patrol only owned about 90– 

95 platforms. We have 500 pilots right now. Things we never had 

in the past. 

Then, because I think you hit on something that is absolutely 

critical, we have a real homeland security enterprise approach to 

the border. We have operations such as the Alliance to Combat 

Transnational Crime in Arizona that have taken hold where more 

than 65 different agencies are supporting the Border Patrol. We 

have Operation Stonegarden. 

So it is all of these things that are maturing that should not cost 

us the same that it costs us to put them in place. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You know how strongly this Subcommittee and 

the Congress supports your work and admires what you do. What 

I am driving at is just trying to give us, because it is so critical 

for our planning purposes in funding and looking into the future— 

for you to give us even a ballpark estimate, it is just critical, of 

when and how much is it going to cost to secure the southern border. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I can’t give you that answer, sir. I can tell you that 

we have a commitment to move forward as quickly as possible. I 

can tell you that every dollar that is being appropriated is working 

toward that. A lot of actions that are being looked at by this body, 

for example, will have an impact on what happens in Mexico, 

things of this nature. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Maybe what I could suggest, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for being gracious with the time. Sam just got here. 

Let me say what we found, Mr. Chairman, to be really tremendously effective, is Ciro and Henry and I, just literally just going 

down and visiting with your sector chiefs, talking to the judges, the 

marshals, firsthand— what are your problems, what do you need— 

the sheriffs. 

Each of us individually, Mr. Chairman, can have a tremendous 

impact on helping these good men and women do their job, because 

the officers are risking their lives and doing what they need to do. 

But it is a team effort. We have to make sure the marshals and 

prosecutors are there. 

So I would encourage each one of us to get involved, Sam, in the 

California sector. It is astonishing what we can individually do as 

a member of the Appropriations Committee and this Subcommittee 

just by being here and seeing and hearing what you need. We can 

move mountains. That was really how we got Streamline done in 

Texas, wasn’t it? A team effort and your local Congressmen getting 

down there and getting involved. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Chairman, I would just add the following, if 

you would allow me, please. It is critical to understand that we 

need to do more. I am not saying we are finished or anywhere close 

to it. We are moving in that direction. But we also need to recognize that the tragic situation of border violence is on the south 

side. It is not spilling over to any great degree. 

We are seeing some spillover. If fact, one of the areas is against 

our officers. We have about a 45 percent increase in violent assaults against our officers just this year, more than 300 assaults. 

But we are stemming it. We are keeping it south, and, at the same 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
42 

time, working with our partners in Mexico to do everything we can 

to reduce it even on that side. So, again, I just want to put that 

in context. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I have a few more in the next round. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me follow up on the—I had six bridges, or 

six points, not bridges, points of entry that were closed, a lot of 

them during 9/11. I asked to see if you can do an assessment for 

us, especially the three within the big bend area, and see in terms 

of what it would cost to look at the possibility of reopening. Because I think it would be even more cost-effective for us from a security perspective to have that communication back and forth and 

to see what it would cost, number one. 

DRUG KINGPINS

Number two, there was some dialogue regarding the efforts being 

done in terms of going after the drug kingpins and the cartels. And 

I was wondering if you have any knowledge, or you engage in, after 

someone is captured. I know on the Federal side, on this side, you 

get caught, your property is taken away and all that. I know that 

there is a push now to look at people on the Mexican side that are 

related that might have visas, how many of those visas have we 

confiscated, do you know? 

Mr. AGUILAR. What you are referring to, sir, is a new program 

we have undertaken probably within the last 4 or 5 months. I don’t 

have the exact number with me right now. I can get that for the 

record. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Number one, I want to congratulate you on that 

program. I think if anyone gets caught with drugs, their visas need 

to be confiscated and we need to do whatever we can there to follow 

through on that. If you can get us a report later on, on that, I 

would also appreciate it. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: CBP officers do not confiscate visas. An individual’s visa may be canceled because the individual was deemed inadmissible by the CBP officer. The critical function of the CBP officer is to determine admission. Our records are designed 

to capture and preserve the inadmissibility determination for future reference not 

to record the status of a document. 

BUSINESS VISAS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The other thing I wanted to hear is the number 

of visas that have come in in terms of businesses. Because I know 

we have had, based on commerce, you know, we have had some difficulty on the border there with Customs and commerce. I know 

you are involved with the security, but you are also involved in 

making sure those packages come through that are appropriate. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We have also a good number of people that are 

starting businesses on this side. Do you have those numbers? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I can get them for you, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would appreciate that, because I know we have 

had a huge number in Del Rio, Eagle Pass, San Antonio, Austin, 

El Paso, and we welcome that investment. I just want to get a feel 

in terms of the number that is coming across. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
43 

[The information follows:] 

REPONSE: CBP does not compile, mantain, or report on foreign-based or foreignowned businesses located in the United States. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Some of them, there is no doubt, are fleeing the 

cartels. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And so then at a later time, I want to see if we 

might be able to follow up on, maybe with the appropriate people. 

I am not sure, I apologize, Chief, whether you are the best one for 

those visas to get a good grip in terms of what is occurring. Okay. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So you will get back with me on the possible cost 

on the Customs? 

Mr. AGUILAR. On the visas, yes, sir; and any kind of costs associated with it, yes, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I still go back to we haven’t beefed up on Customs. We have beefed up on Border Patrol, but we really haven’t 

beefed up on Customs. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. There is a real need to kind of look at that. 

Those are the ones right on the border. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN ARIZONA

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. My friend had talks about effective control. You 

are doing a pretty effective job in our area. Arizona, let me know, 

isn’t it all fenced in already, all of Arizona? 

Mr. AGUILAR. All the fence that we—all the tactical infrastructure that we needed to put in place in Arizona is just about done, 

with very few pieces that are lacking. 

PRESIDIO REPROCESSING

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In spite of that, that is where the majority are 

coming in. You had a program where they came in, you started it 

before Christmas, and you were taking them to Presidio in my district and unloading a couple of busloads a day. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Do we know how many we did like that? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I will get you the exact number, sir, but I believe 

it was about 98, 95 to 98 per day. I don’t know the exact count. 

It was very successful. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: In FY 2010 to date, 3,314 aliens were repatriated through the Presidio OE under ATEP. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You ran it for about 2 or 3 months. You stopped 

it and you started it again; is that correct? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The program is ongoing. We are not going into Presidio at the present time because we are still working with the 

Government of Mexico. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Are you going into any other city in my district? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I don’t know at this point. I will get that answer 

for you because we are alternating. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Please let me know. That is a good idea. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
44 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: Aside from Presidio, there are no other cities or towns in TX–23 congressional district where ATEP is being run. 

Mr. CULBERSON. If the gentleman would yield, Ciro, if I could, 

Mr. Chairman, just to clarify. They are bringing them from Arizona 

to release them in your district? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, not in my district. Across the border. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Not in his district. In Mexico. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I wanted to make sure I understood. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. But I want you to know, I asked for the statistics. Based on the statistics, none of them return back, with the exception of one that came in through Laredo. And none of them 

came in, and this is the beauty of it, none of them came through 

our area. They went back to Arizona, the majority of them, and a 

few went to Brownsville. But none of them came through our sector. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Because of Streamline. 

Mr. AGUILAR. The recidivism rate, Mr. Chairman, and this is an 

important point here, of those people that were put in the Alien 

Transfer And Exit Program was very, very low. I think it was like 

3 or 4 percent, compared to a regular recidivism rate of up to 28– 

30 percent. So it was a very successful program. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

ELECTRONIC SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much for being here. I enjoyed the 

evening we had in Tucson when the Chairman led a codel. We did 

actually travel, frankly, all the way from Tucson to San Diego, the 

entire border, and stopping along the way. We couldn’t have done 

it without helicopter support. But I learned more about that border 

than I ever imagined. 

I want to shift a moment, because one of my sidebar things here 

is chair of the Travel and Tourism Caucus. You have got a tough 

job. You have the busiest border in the world. You have got the 

border with the contrast of the richest and the poorest in the world. 

You have the most movement of people legitimately, commerce of 

legitimate human beings and legitimate traffic commerce. And also 

probably the biggest pressures for illegitimate trafficking of both 

goods and persons. It is a tough job. 

Part of the things we are trying to do is to make America a nice 

place to come to. Obama just signed the Travel Promotion Act. It 

established a $10 fee by incoming, and directed the Department to 

establish a $10 fee for use of Electronic System for Travel Authorization, ESTA, in order to fund the travel promotion program. And 

everybody in the industry is interested in gearing this up. 

I was wondering, the collection of this fee is going to be fundamental to its success because we can’t do the promotion without 

the money. I understand that CBP is responsible for implementing 

ESTA. I wondered how long it is going to take to get that up and 

running, and do you foresee hurdles in completing this responsibility? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
45 

Mr. AGUILAR. We are looking at getting it up and running as 

quickly as possible, sir. I will take that for the record, if you don’t 

mind, because I just do not—it is brand new, as you know, so I am 

not that up to speed. 

Mr. FARR. If you are not the one, I am keen on seeing how fast 

we can get that implemented. 

Mr. AGUILAR. It will be my responsibility to get it to you from 

my folks, from my experts. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: Any change to the ESTA regulations to require a fee collection as 

mandated under the Travel Promotion Act (P.L. 111–145) requires that CBP follow 

the rulemaking process. CBP is currently reviewing the statute and drafting the 

rulemaking package. The rulemaking package must be approved by OMB and published in the Federal Register. The timeline for fee collection has not yet been established. 

GLOBAL ENTRY PROGRAM

Mr. FARR. Thank you. I also—I really appreciate in your testimony that you highlighted the Global Entry program. I think this 

is a great example of another success that you had. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. The Global Entry program is running at the top 20 

airports dealing with inbound international travelers, and it has 

reduced the wait times for participants. It currently has around 

40,000 participants. 

I wonder, how can we make it even a bigger success? How does 

the Global Entry enrollment numbers compare to other programs 

like Nexus and Sentry? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Unfortunately, the growth rate is not as robust as 

some of the others. But one of the things that is absolutely critical 

is our outreach, our outreach to that pool, if you will, of international partners. We are working very closely with some of the 

major international traveling locations, if you will. Japan. Canada, 

of course, have very, very high records on that. But in my visit to 

Los Angeles airport last week, I asked that very same question because of the obvious benefits to efficiency. And it is the outreach. 

Mr. FARR. Can we grow that program outside of the airports 

themselves? Outside the airport environment, so they can grow the 

enrollment? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The actual enrollment process, that is exactly one 

of the questions I asked. In fact, there are some pilot tests going 

on right now specific to that. For example, the question that I 

asked last week was if we could go to a company that has 200, 300, 

400 international travelers instead of expecting them to come to 

us? And the answer is, we are actually testing some of those efforts. 

Mr. FARR. Good. I appreciate that. I would like to know about 

that. 

Mr. AGUILAR. We recognize it as something that is critical to 

making more efficient use of our limited resources at our ports of 

entry. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
46 

IMMIGRATION LAWS

Mr. FARR. Let me just ask you sort of the big question here. In 

September 2009, Secretary Napolitano said, Over the past 10 

months we have worked to improve immigration enforcement and 

border security within the current legal framework. But the more 

work we do, the more it becomes clear that the laws themselves 

need to be reformed. 

How true is this statement for the CBP and what changes in our 

immigration laws do you need in order to do your job as effectively 

as possible? 

We are starting to deal with immigration reform. If that immigration reform, if we don’t deal with it, I guess, the other question 

is how will that impact on your Agency’s ability to do its job? When 

we did that border visit, it was very clear by the officers who are 

trying to enforce this law and just saying, You know, we need law 

changes. We cannot do this. 

We cannot just continue—of course, the economy was very high 

and the interest in coming over was just at an all-time high. That 

has changed with the slump. But I think it is very incumbent for 

us facing this is to get from the officers on the ground how important it is for us to make our laws right. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Laws play an absolutely critical part in our ability 

and capabilities to bring security to the border, both at the ports 

and between the ports and actually from foreign locations also. 

Having said that, there is limited input that I can give because of 

my position. I am a career officer. 

RECIDIVISM PERCENTAGE

Mr. FARR. How about what is the percentage of people that are 

coming back who have come to the United States, are living here, 

working illegally, but working. I live in Salinas Valley in Monterey 

County. We probably have the largest number of undocumented 

workers in the United States. You couldn’t get a salad in this country without those workers. Agriculture is trying—they are paying 

them good wages. It isn’t like that because they are undocumented 

that they are getting treated poorly. They actually get a lot of benefits as they work. Some of these families have been around for decades. They came over in the old Bracero program. They are really 

keen on finding legitimacy. 

So how much do you think of the traffic coming over is people 

returning back to their families, going home for Navidad, for the 

Christmas season, coming back? Because you talked about the recidivism. That is the ones you catch. Has anybody looked at the 

percentage of just people living in the United States who are trying 

to get back to the United States? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I don’t have that number, sir. I don’t know if anybody has actually taken a look at it. But you asked a very specific 

question that I can give you an anecdotal answer to. 

I have been in the Border Patrol now for going on 32 years. It 

used to be a cyclical return to Mexico because they could. And because they could, they would cause—the chaotic situation of the inflow would be such that criminal organizations would take advanVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
47 

tage of that and exploit the flow, the chaotic situation, in smuggling people, narcotics, and other bad things into this country. 

Because of what this body has done (given us the resources and 

given us the capabilities and capacities), that no longer happens. 

People are no longer going back for Christmas or Easter because 

they can’t come back. 

Mr. FARR. They won’t go back for funerals or for anything. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Funerals, I would think they are going to try more 

than for Christmas. But it is no longer easy to get back in this 

country illegally, whether it is at the ports or between the ports of 

entry. 

In 1999, my first year as a Chief in Tucson, AZ, we apprehended 

more than 600,000 people crossing illegally at the ports of entry, 

most of which occurred within about a 12-to-18-mile area. Last 

year, in its entirety, along the 2,000 miles of the border with Mexico, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 565,000. The drop has 

been dramatic. 

Now, the good news is that apprehension of narcotics is going up 

because we are now able to pay attention to the other illegal activity going on—that chaotic flow of people coming into the country. 

So it is no longer easy for people crossing illegally between the 

ports of entry or at the ports of entry. We have, in fact, increased 

the security of our borders. 

Now, that has not come without anticipated costs. As we speak, 

we are seeing the boats going up on the Pacific Coast, going as far 

north toward Los Angeles, 40–45 miles, because they can no longer 

go between the ports of entry. But we are working with the Coast 

Guard on that. We are catching people. We are apprehending narcotics. We are apprehending smuggled goods. So that cycle has 

been broken. 

Mr. PRICE. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank you. 

We will undertake a brief final round, Mr. Commissioner, if that 

is all right. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

SECURE FREIGHT INITIATIVE

Mr. PRICE. I want to shift topics in terms of my own questioning, 

except I do want to say that on this extended discussion we have 

had over international cargo screening, I hope the message is clear. 

We have, for certainly a number of years, encouraged on the part 

of the Department a straightforward, candid, approach with us 

about the authorization mandate you face and the extent to which 

that is feasible at any reasonable cost. That is, of course, related 

to the judgments you have made and that are reflected in your 

budget about the Secure Freight Initiative pilots overseas. We continue to encourage that candor and that kind of realistic long-term 

projection of the approach that you propose that the country take. 

At the same time, we do need to have a long-term plan that addresses the security needs and that mirrors the commitment you 

have articulated here again this morning to do as much of this 

work overseas as we feasibly can do, understanding fully the benefits of that. 

Frankly, the justification we have of the CSI plans and the cuts 

that are included there doesn’t fill the bill in terms of giving us 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
48 

that longer-term perspective and, of course, we need that report. 

We need the report mandated by the fiscal 2010 appropriations bill, 

which presumably will do this, and more, in terms of giving us 

some basis on which to see where we are headed and to make these 

budget decisions for the next fiscal year. 

So I hope that all aspects of this message are clear coming out 

of this hearing today. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

CBP OFFICERS FUNDED BY USER FEES

Mr. PRICE. Let me turn to the staffing issues and your declining 

fee revenues. That is a matter, I know, of considerable importance. 

CBP officer and agricultural specialist staffing, of course, is critical 

to enforcement of our laws at the ports of entry to detecting and 

stopping the smuggling of people, weapons or contraband, to ensuring that commerce is free of dangerous or unhealthy threats, and 

efficiently collecting tariffs and duties. In all these functions, the 

staffing is critical. 

On the positive side, good, adequate, professional staffing is key 

to speeding goods and people through our ports. And we get a lot 

of reports that think CBP is still shorthanded. You are hearing this 

from Mr. Rodriguez and lots of other sources. 

Nonetheless, you are going to experience a net reduction of 500 

CBP officers this year. The personnel levels are down 300 from last 

September. That is a result of budget austerity and declining fee 

collections. Almost 10,000 CBP employees and a third of CBP officers are funded by user fees. That is the nub of the problem. That 

is what we want to get at here. I understand that. 

In fiscal 2000, CBP expected a 3 percent increase in fees, but 

they declined instead. And this looks to be a trend for this year and 

next, unless you can give us some information to the contrary. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I wish I could. 

Mr. PRICE. Hence, my questions. What impact are declining fee 

collections going to have on staffing in fiscal year 2011? Assuming 

that is an adverse impact, how are you going to deal with it? How 

are you going to reverse it; to what degree are you going to propose 

to reverse it? 

Secondly, will your realignment of funds and your restoration of 

CBP officer positions be able to prevent reduction in CBP officers 

at the ports? Even in the short-term, what are you going to be able 

to do? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. And, again, I thank you for asking that 

question because, as you stated, Mr. Chairman, the way that 37 

percent of our CBP officers and agriculture specialists are funded 

is a real concern. Funding from that perspective does not lend itself 

to a Homeland Security way of doing business. We cannot be dependent on economic fluctuations to drive our ability to pay our 

people. So I state that for the record because it is a real concern 

as to how that portion of our workforce is funded. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: From FY 2008 to FY 2009 there was a decrease of $105 million in 

user fee collections and continued global economic weakness could result in a further decrease of $20–$50M from FY 2009 to FY 2010. This creates a total from FY 

2008 to FY 2010 of $125–$155 million. In FY 2010, the user fees were planned to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
49 

support 9,684 positions. The decline of $125–$155 million would equate to about 870 

to 1080 of those positions, as well as related non-salary support costs. 

While Users Fees are impacted by the economy, enforcement activities are not. 

A decline in the numbers of inspections performed does not correlate with the number of enforcement activities performed at ports of entry, These enforcement activities are seizures, penalties, and arrests related to trade compliance in addition to 

secondary inspections of non-compliant passengers. In many cases, CBP enforcement activities have grown, not declined. Across the wide variety of enforcement activities, CBP has experienced a nearly 7% increase in enforcement activities from 

FY 2008 to FY 2009. Approximately 37% of the CBP officer’s salaries have been historically funded from user fees, and with this decline in user fee collections, CBP 

has reduced travel, training, other operational support, and enhancements to existing capabilities in enforcement, travel, and trade facilitation. 

Last year we fell by 8 percent on the user fee account. That translates to about $100 million. In Fiscal Year 2011, we are going 

to take about $46 million of appropriated funds and apply it toward 

CBP officers, which translates to about 318–320 full-time equivalents. So that will occur. 

In addition to that, we have looked at the situation on exemption 

for Canada, Mexico and most of the Caribbean. If that exemption 

went away, that would actually add another $100 million to $125 

million per year into user fee, if we continue with user fee. So those 

are all of these things we are looking at. 

So will it be a full reversal? Probably not. But taking the appropriated funds that we can afford to take and applying them toward 

this is going to be one of the actions that we take. 

The realignment costs, I am not going to try to fool anybody, they 

are going to have to come from somewhere. It is going to cost somewhere else. Those are some of the things we are looking at now. 

As to just exactly what it is, we have been very careful and very 

measured in realigning those costs to ensure that the impacts 

would be minimal. But the real problem here is the way that we 

fund 37 percent of our workforce, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, I appreciate the straightforwardness of that 

statement. It is a problem we share. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. But we are going to have to deal with this near-term 

decrease in fees and the kind of implications they have for the 

budget. We have got it right. So to the extent you wish to furnish 

further updates or elaborate on the answer you have just given me, 

we will—— 

Mr. AGUILAR. I would welcome that opportunity. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Culberson. 

CUTS TO AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, you correctly pointed out the effectiveness of the work that 

you are doing, your officers, the infrastructure, the money Congress 

has sent you, the work you are doing. In many areas of the border, 

you have got effective control, you are seeing a drop in crossings 

and pushing people into other sectors. 

I wanted to ask you, if I could, to comment and tell us in your 

opinion the effect of the proposed cuts to the Coast Guard and to 

CBP’s Air and Marine operations. We see the budget for fiscal year 

2011 proposes cutting Border Patrol’s Air and Marine personnel by 

3.6 percent. It looks like that would result in the loss of, we estiVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
50 

mate, 68 pilots. You would lose 20 marine interdiction agents, 56 

support personnel. These are positions that were actually requested 

by the administration in the last budget. 

This year’s budget proposed by the White House would cut operational personnel of the Coast Guard by more than 1,100, which is 

a real concern, and deactivate 19 operational components. They 

propose to cut funding for your Air and Marine procurement by 3.2 

percent. They are trying to give you a $2.6 million cut in logistics 

and maintenance; cutting Coast Guard acquisitions by 10 percent, 

more than 10 percent; and yet increase information technology positions by 950 in the Coast Guard civilian workforce by 349. 

How would those funding and personnel reductions impact the 

work that you do, and what sort of effect would you see along the 

borders as a result of what the budget proposes? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, let me begin by stating that I would not feel 

comfortable nor would I propose to answer for Commandant Thad 

Allen on the Coast Guard issues. I would say, with the Coast 

Guard, we have a very, very positive working relationship. Everywhere that we can work together, we do, whether it is on the Canadian border, eastern coast, western coast, San Diego, Rio Grande 

Valley, in all of these areas, we work very, very closely. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, what effect would cuts like those have, in 

your opinion? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I don’t know because I don’t know what those cuts 

translate to or where they translate to, sir. But I will say on the 

issue of Air and Marine, I want—I am sorry? 

Mr. CULBERSON. If you have fewer assets out there, the concern 

is, of course, you are going to see an increase in drug smuggling, 

because you are pushing them out to sea. And the Coast Guard, 

they propose to cut Coast Guard. That logically means you are 

going to see an increase in smuggling in Coast Guard jurisdictions. 

Mr. AGUILAR. In Coast Guard jurisdictions, we will see an uptick, 

as we are already seeing. That does not translate to us not working 

closer with Coast Guard. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Certainly. You guys do a great job with that. 

That is not the issue. 

Mr. AGUILAR. And the Coast Guard engaging, for example—and, 

again, I don’t want to speak for the Commandant, he is a good personal friend, but I don’t think he would appreciate that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That causes some problems. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, he is working with SEMAR (The Mexican 

Navy), and things of this nature. We are working very closely with 

port authorities, with maritime authorities and things of that nature to get us what we need. But, again, I don’t want to go into 

that realm because I just don’t have enough information on it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And you won’t be able to fly as many surveillance hours. You are going to have to cut your surveillance hours. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Let me address that because I spoke to General 

Kostelnik this morning before I came over here, and this is the way 

he described it. And I would agree with him. 

In the area of the Air environment, more is always going to be 

good, more capability. Now, capability does not necessarily translate to either just pilots, UAS pilots or aerial platforms. It is the 

right mix. And then having said that, I asked him, ‘‘Are we actuVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
51 

ally going to take cuts?’’ And he said it is not actually cuts; it is 

a cut to the anticipated enhancements. So the assets that are on 

the ground right now are not going to be cut. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You can’t do all that you had planned to do. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, with the enhancements we expected, yes. 

IMPACT OF DECLARING AMNESTY

Mr. CULBERSON. We will do all we can to help you with that. I 

know we are in the final round, but I wanted to ask, it is a fact 

we have seen throughout history, whenever there is a discussion in 

Congress that there may be an amnesty, we are going to legalize 

illegals, there is a surge in crossings. If you can again ballpark 

anecdotally, quantify what type of percentage increase do you typically see in the number of crossings? How big has that surge historically been when there is a discussion of amnesty? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I would not even venture a guess, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You have seen a surge. Every time there is a 

big discussion, lots of press about there is going to be amnesty, you 

have seen a surge. 

Mr. AGUILAR. There is activity on both sides of the border. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You have seen an increase as a result the discussion and the debate? 

Mr. AGUILAR. There is activity; yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. As a result of the debate. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes. 

ARRESTS IN EACH SECTOR

Mr. CULBERSON. And if I could also, Mr. Chairman, Chief, I 

would be very grateful if your staff could provide Jeff in my office 

with the number—what I am looking for is to try to get a handle 

on the current state of affairs, the number of arrests in each sector, 

and, in that sector, if you are arresting one out of three, one out 

of four, one out of five, best estimate. 

And then, of those arrested, Chief, the third thing I would really 

like to get a handle on is what percentage of those folks that are 

apprehended are actually being prosecuted in each sector. And then 

work with your office to try to help you identify what the problem 

is. 

Because again, I keep going back to Tucson, because it is so 

awful. Again, it looks like the most recent numbers we have, Mr. 

Chairman, are fiscal year 2008. Chief, is it still your understanding 

if you are arrested in the Tucson sector carrying less than 500 

pounds of dope, the U.S. attorney will not prosecute? What is the 

threshold? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I do not believe that there is actually a hard-andfast threshold. 

Mr. CULBERSON. A couple of years ago it was 500. 

Mr. AGUILAR. There was one. There was one. 

Mr. CULBERSON. There is no hard-and-fast today? 

Mr. AGUILAR. That I know of, no. I will check, but I do not believe there is a hard-and-fast threshold. If I might, sir, a very quick 

story. 

Dennis Burke, the sitting United States Attorney, was out in the 

field with us at one of our remote locations, working. To his credit, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
52 

he was out there; he wanted to see how we operated. He was on 

horseback, and he was out there, I believe, for about 6 to 8 hours, 

to track down, along with one of our officers, a load of dope, 250 

pounds more or less, give or take a few pounds. When he recognized that under existing thresholds, that amount of work would 

not be prosecuted, that is when he really started taking a look at 

that situation. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I am so glad to hear that, and I am so sorry I 

couldn’t go with you, Sam, and Mr. Chairman, to go to Tucson. It 

was just impossible for my schedule. Because it has got real problems and it is a team effort in there. But I would be grateful if you 

could provide me with those numbers. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: CBP does not control the threshold for narcotics prosecution. CBP 

reports all suspect loads that have the potential to be part of an investigative operation to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE presents the information to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, who decides if it will be accepted for prosecution. 

MERIDA INITIATIVE

Mr. CULBERSON. If I could ask, could you let us know what happened to the Merida Initiative that Bush was pushing? I think it 

wound up being, the money or equipment we provided to the Mexican Government on Merida, I think it was $1.3 billion worth of 

equipment. What happened? Where did it go? What kind of equipment did they get and where did it go? 

Mr. AGUILAR. That is under the auspices of the Department of 

State, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. All of it went through the Department of State? 

Mr. AGUILAR. As a funding mechanism; yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. We will have some other questions for the 

record, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you very much. 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION POLICE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

I turn to Mr. Farr to close out. I too recollect that visit very 

acutely. We did learn a lot. I appreciate, Mr. Commissioner, that 

you are not in a position to answer the broad policy questions 

about immigration reform necessarily. 

But I do remember from that visit remarking that we never met 

a Border Patrol agent that said this was about enforcement alone, 

that in fact you learn just the opposite; that unless and until there 

is a more comprehensive fix, a more comprehensive balancing of 

our official policy and what it permits and our labor market needs, 

that all the fences and all the enforcement in the world aren’t 

going to represent a complete solution. I know I heard that many 

times on that visit, and I have heard it many times since. So we 

understand here on this committee that we are dealing with only 

a piece of this issue. 

I hope we have dealt with it responsibly and well. We take enforcement very seriously. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
53 

Mr. PRICE. But I for one have never had the slightest delusion 

that this was all that we needed to do in this Congress and in this 

country. 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Culberson, the answer to your question is in today’s paper. Secretary Clinton is in Mexico today, and the complaint from Mexico is, ‘‘We never got the money,’’ and the response 

was, ‘‘We are going to get it to you ASAP.’’ 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. Also I wanted to correct something. I think you led the 

witness a little bit on this surge issue on when there is discussion 

of immigration reform. As you recall, in order to apply for sort of 

temporary status, because you have to go through background 

checks, you have to prove that you have had a history of being 

here. You do not grandfather in anybody who got here yesterday. 

They couldn’t qualify for the old amnesty program. You had to have 

proof of work and residence prior to the law, in fact, months before 

the law was ever adopted. 

The issue on prosecution, it is the same at home. It is threshold 

value. It is what is the value? We saw in the marijuana locker all 

these backpacks that were seized, and the issue for the U.S. attorney was that the value of that backpack didn’t meet a threshold 

level to go in and prosecute. 

You find that in your domestic courts as well as your border 

issues. Our prosecutors don’t prosecute misdemeanors or small 

crimes, because they have got so much work to do with large 

crimes. 

I am interested in this. I think if you are going to grow the border, it first has to start with getting our own house in order. We 

have been very interested in integrating with other entities like 

AFT on the arms going south and working with Border Patrol and 

then working in a collaborative way so we could stop this. You 

know, our side of the smuggling out or smuggling into Mexico, 

those arms are being bought on our side of the border. I think in 

order to have credibility in this border issue of smuggling from 

Mexico, we also have to be honest that, one, the demand side is on 

this side of the border; the money is on this side of the border; and 

the guns are on this side of the border. Those are things that are 

getting back—that money is getting into the system because of our 

use of drugs. 

Hopefully this health care bill, it might be very interesting. We 

allow for the treatment of drug addiction. It has to be in every insurance policy now. It is automatic. So one of the difficulties we 

have had is getting people access to treatment. Now there is going 

to be a huge market for treatment, so there is going to be a lot of 

growth in treatment programs. I think that is one of the real benefits of the health care bill we signed. 

What do you have to pay to come across to the coyotes now? 

What is the going price? 

COST FOR BEING SMUGGLED

Mr. AGUILAR. For being smuggled? 

Mr. FARR. Yes. 

Mr. AGUILAR. It all depends on where you are. In Tucson it could 

be—for an illegal person from Mexico wanting to get to Phoenix, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
54 

it would be $1,500 to $2,000. If you are talking about a Korean, you 

are talking about as much as $60,000 into the interior of the 

United States. If you are talking about a special interest country 

alien, it could be higher. 

Mr. FARR. So how many do you say you think made it across, or 

you seized? What percentage of those getting across are seized? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I am sorry, sir. I don’t understand the question. 

Mr. FARR. You mentioned how many are detained. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Five hundred and fifty-six thousand, last year. 

Mr. FARR. Five hundred and fifty-six thousand. And what percentage of that is—of the whole total? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I didn’t give an answer to that because we haven’t 

found anybody to include the major universities in this country to 

approximate. 

Mr. FARR. So we don’t know whether it is two-thirds, 90 percent, 

80 percent. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Or if it is 2 percent. We don’t know. 

Mr. FARR. But if it is half a million people paying $2,000 each, 

averaged out that is a lot of money. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. In fact, I remember on that trip we were told that 

there is more money being made in smuggling people across the 

border than drugs. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I wouldn’t doubt that. 

POTENTIAL CORRUPTION OF CBP OFFICERS

Mr. FARR. So if there is that much money in people and they are 

getting through, there is some question of what about you know, 

what is going on? Are any of our cops being bought off? Are they 

being paid? And the question goes to the Office of Internal Affairs. 

Because, as I understand, the President’s budget is cutting that 

funding by $250,000. Meanwhile, we have doubled the Border Patrol size in the last 5 years. You are struggling to adequately train 

the new officers. I mean, there is a lot coming in. It is pressure on 

the system. I understand there is a very low ratio of supervisors 

to the novice new agents, and Internal Affairs mission to oversee 

the integrity of this is critical and is strapped. Do you know what 

the budget is for that and how many staff investigative complaints 

and concerns are they being able to deal with? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I don’t know the exact numbers, up-to-date numbers. 

I can tell you this, sir, a couple of things I think are critical. The 

Internal Affairs Office of CBP is absolutely critical to our operations. We recognize that we operate under one of the most vulnerable environments there is to operate in from a law enforcement 

perspective: Customs. You are guarding a border. Sometimes you 

are working remotely and things of this nature. 

But it is also important to note that what we do—and I am talking now from the approach of the law enforcement community. As 

we approach corruption from the point of being reactive, which is 

absolutely critical, we need to do that, and we need to do more of 

that. One of the focuses that we are trying to bring to CBP is that 

we be as preemptive as possible, we be as proactive in keeping corruption to the lowest level possible and be more reactive and susVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
55 

tain a culture of intolerance to corruption. So it is a full court press 

across. 

The other thing that I think is critical to note is that it is not 

just Internal Affairs that has responsibility for corruption or ethical 

oversight, integrity oversight. It is Internal Affairs. It is the IG. It 

is FBI Corruption Task Forces. It is ISO PR. It is everybody else 

that—it is the local task forces, also. 

So, yes, we have gone down if the number is—I believe you are 

correct—250,000, but we are also augmenting by other means, such 

as training, than just being reactive. We are concentrating on 

training our people on the value of intolerance for corruption. So 

it is that comprehensive approach that we have to take a look at. 

Mr. FARR. Enough resources in that area? Do you have enough? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Same answer I gave Mr. Culberson. More is always 

better. We are doing everything we can in looking for more effective ways to do what we are doing today with the capacity that we 

have. 

Mr. FARR. Do I have any more time, Mr. Chairman? I have one 

question. 

Mr. PRICE. One minute. 

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS

Mr. FARR. The other thing I am very interested in, I talked to 

Mr. Culberson. I come from local government. What we have done 

in local government and what we are trying to deal with in region 

and we have got all different kinds, we create these joint powers 

agreements. And my instinct on being on the border was why don’t 

we create these joint powers agreements between border cities. I 

mean, it is infrastructure on both sides. 

And, as you pointed out, I mean, ideally, if Mexico had the economy that we had and the middle class that we have, there wouldn’t 

be any desire to cross this border. I mean, Europe has open borders 

all over Europe; and you have got southern Europe, where there is 

still a lot of poverty. That doesn’t mean they have to put up a fence 

between Italy and Switzerland and Austria and so on. Those are 

open borders. 

It would be remarkable if Canada, the United States, and Mexico 

were just a uniform common market and could compete with the 

rest of the world, but we are not there. But little by little it seems 

to me if we are just repairing one side of the river, so to speak, one 

side of the border, and the other is left in poverty and doesn’t have 

water and doesn’t have sewer and doesn’t have the kinds of things 

that lead to quality of life and to investment. 

Maybe we ought to be building joint powers agreements. I think 

California did that with Tijuana. It is their sewage, but it came 

through our—their pipes came through our State. We ended up 

building a treatment plant for their sewage, even though it was on 

the other side of the border. 

Those are the kinds of projects it seems to me along the border 

that we ought to be more engaged in in trying to develop an infrastructure that works for both sides, and I wonder if you have any 

feelings about that. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Let me comment. I don’t have an answer, but let 

me comment. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
56 

Mr. FARR. But you have some law enforcement interactions, don’t 

you? You have joint meetings with law enforcement on the other 

side? 

TERRORISM

Mr. AGUILAR. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Anything that our country, the 

municipalities, that the border region population can do to reduce 

the exploitation possibilities of our border is going to increase the 

security of our Nation. 

One thing that we haven’t talked about here, which I find kind 

of ironic at times, and it is not anybody’s fault, is that we have 

spent a lot of time on immigration, on narcotics, on prosecutions of 

those. What is very critically important is the security of our Nation from the standpoint that people who are looking to harm our 

country do not exploit that flow, that chaotic information, those 

criminal enterprises that now operate to get into this country. 

So I just want to point that out. It is about all threats. It is not 

just about immigration. It is not just about narcotics. Those two 

are critically important, but it is about securing our Nation from 

all threats. And reducing to the degree possible the flow of illegal 

people, the flow of illegal narcotics and any other illegal commodity 

increases multi-fold our capabilities to bring greater security to this 

Nation. 

And it doesn’t begin and doesn’t end at the border. It begins predeparture, points of origin, transit, at arrival, and it continues into 

our final destination. 

So Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to make that statement because I think it is critical and too often it just gets lost. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. May I join with you on that? Just a quick follow-up that I think you and Sam will find very interesting and 

worthwhile, very quickly, if I may. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you so much. 

Chief, you bring up a great point that I needed to ask you about, 

but I had to get at some of the other fiscal issues. 

To follow up on Sam’s question, CBP reported the GAO released 

a report in August, 2009, that said that the Border Patrol had reported that in fiscal year 2008 there were three individuals encountered by the Border Patrol at Southwest border checkpoints—this 

is a direct quote—who are identified as persons linked to terrorism. 

Who were they and what links did they have to what terrorist organizations? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I think that goes to closed session, if you don’t 

mind, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That would be I think helpful, Mr. Chairman, 

if we could at some point. 

Mr. PRICE. We will get that information out in a different setting. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me thank all our members and thank you, Commissioner, for your appearance here today, your service, your conVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
57 

tinuing service. We look forward to working with you as we formulate our 2011 budget. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee is adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
58 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 61840A.016
59 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 61840A.017
60 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 61840A.018
61 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 61840A.019
62 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 61840A.020
63 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 61840A.021
64 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 61840A.022
65 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 61840A.023
66 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 61840A.024
67 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 61840A.025
68 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 61840A.026
69 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 61840A.027
70 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 61840A.028
71 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 61840A.029
72 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 61840A.030
73 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 61840A.031
74 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 61840A.032
75 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 61840A.033
76 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 61840A.034
77 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 61840A.035
78 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 61840A.036
79 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 61840A.037
80 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 61840A.038
81 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 61840A.039
82 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 61840A.040
83 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 61840A.041
84 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 61840A.042
85 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 61840A.043
86 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 61840A.044
87 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 61840A.045
88 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 61840A.046
89 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 61840A.047
90 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 61840A.048
91 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 61840A.049
92 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 61840A.050
93 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 61840A.051
94 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 61840A.052
95 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 61840A.053
96 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 61840A.054
97 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 61840A.055
98 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 61840A.056
99 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 61840A.057
100 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 61840A.058
101 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 61840A.059
102 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 61840A.060
103 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 61840A.061
104 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 61840A.062
105 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 61840A.063
106 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 61840A.064
107 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 61840A.065
108 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 61840A.066
109 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 61840A.067
110 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 61840A.068
111 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 61840A.069
112 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 61840A.070
113 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 61840A.071
114 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 61840A.072
115 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 61840A.073
116 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 61840A.074
117 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 61840A.075
118 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 61840A.076
119 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 61840A.077
120 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 61840A.078
121 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 61840A.079
122 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 61840A.080
123 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 61840A.081
124 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 61840A.082
125 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 61840A.083
126 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 61840A.084
127 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 61840A.085
128 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 61840A.086
129 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 61840A.087
130 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 61840A.088
131 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 61840A.089
132 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 61840A.090
133 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 61840A.091
134 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 61840A.092
135 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 61840A.093
136 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 61840A.094
137 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 61840A.095
138 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 61840A.096
139 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 61840A.097
140 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 61840A.098
141 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 61840A.099
142 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 61840A.100
143 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 61840A.101
144 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 61840A.102
145 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 61840A.103
146 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 61840A.104
147 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 61840A.105
148 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 61840A.106
149 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 61840A.107
150 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 61840A.108
151 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 61840A.109
152 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 61840A.110
153 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 61840A.111
154 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 61840A.112
155 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 61840A.113
156 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 61840A.114
157 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 61840A.115
158 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 61840A.116
159 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 61840A.117
160 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 61840A.118
161 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 61840A.119
162 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 61840A.120
163 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 61840A.121
164 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 61840A.122
165 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 61840A.123
166 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 61840A.124
167 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 61840A.125
168 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 61840A.126
169 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 61840A.127
170 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 61840A.128
171 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 61840A.129
172 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 61840A.130
173 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 61840A.131
174 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 61840A.132
175 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 61840A.133
176 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 61840A.134
177 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 61840A.135
178 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 61840A.136
179 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 61840A.137
180 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 61840A.138
181 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 61840A.139
182 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 61840A.140
183 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 61840A.141
184 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 61840A.142
185 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 61840A.143
186 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 61840A.144
187 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 61840A.145
188 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 61840A.146
189 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 61840A.147
190 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 61840A.148
191 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 61840A.149
192 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 61840A.150
193 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 61840A.151
194 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 61840A.152
195 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 61840A.153
196 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 61840A.154
197 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 61840A.155
198 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 61840A.156
199 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 61840A.157
200 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 61840A.158
201 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 61840A.159
202 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 61840A.160
203 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 61840A.161
204 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 61840A.162
205 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 61840A.163
206 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 61840A.164
207 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 61840A.165
208 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 61840A.166
209 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 61840A.167
210 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 61840A.168
211 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 61840A.169
212 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 61840A.170
213 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 61840A.171
214 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 61840A.172
215 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 61840A.173
216 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 61840A.174
217 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 61840A.175
218 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 61840A.176
219 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 61840A.177
220 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 61840A.178
221 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 61840A.179
222 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 61840A.180
(223) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010. 

FY2011 BUDGET HEARING FOR UNITED STATES 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

WITNESS 

JOHN MORTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

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

Welcome to this once-postponed, once-delayed hearing. We are finally underway here, and we are very glad to welcome today Assistant Secretary John Morton from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to discuss his agency’s $5.5 billion request for fiscal year 2011. Overall, the ICE discretionary budget grows by $87 million, or 

1.6 percent, in 2011 with proposals that would expand the successful Border Enforcement Security Task Force, or BEST program; invest in improved ICE information technology systems; grow ICE’s 

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Center; and hire additional investigatory support personnel. 

Other key programs, such as Secure Communities and alternatives to detention, have no real budgetary increase. 

Three years ago when I became Chairman of this Subcommittee, 

I challenged ICE to prioritize the identification and removal from 

our country of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes. Astonishingly, at that time, and I will never forget that 

initial hearing, the Director of ICE was unable to give this Subcommittee even an estimate of the number of illegal immigrants 

that might be in penal custody, let alone guarantee that all of those 

convicted of violent crimes would be deported at the end of their 

sentence. 

While this problem is still not solved, the Subcommittee has provided the resources for ICE to make significant progress finding 

aliens in penal custody, and removing them at the completion of 

their criminal sentences. 

ICE’s performance statistics bear this out. Between 2002 and 

2007, ICE increased criminal alien removals by only 7 percent per 

year, even as non-criminal deportations surged 22 percent annually. In contrast, criminal alien removals increased 12 percent in 

2008, another 19 percent in 2009. Furthermore, the 2011 budget 

estimates that after full rollout of the Secure Communities program, 80 percent of ICE detention capacity will be dedicated to 

criminals awaiting removal from this country. These are real results that show ICE’s commitment to target its resources based on 

threats to our society. And I would note these changes have been 

made while maintaining the Department’s catch-and-return policy, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
224 

the key element of maintaining control of our nation’s Southwest 

border. 

Another key ICE success over the last year has been a strengthened presence along our nation’s Southwest border, and the expansion of joint operations with Mexican law enforcement. These efforts have been critical to containing the drug violence that continues to plague our southern neighbor. 

In April we will hold a hearing specifically focused on Southwest 

border activities, so I will reserve further questions about ICE’s 

anti-smuggling, counter-drug, and gang-destruction investigation 

until that time. 

During our hearings last year, the Subcommittee heard about 

improvements ICE planned for its detention facilities, particularly 

in detainee medical care. I had hoped that in this hearing we 

would be applauding the significant progress made since then. Unfortunately, many of the promised solutions to this issue, such as 

a new electronic medical records system, are still years away from 

implementation. 

A study of ICE medical services that this Subcommittee funded 

in fiscal year 2008 has yet to be completed. Other system reforms 

advocated, by Dr. Dora Schriro’s comprehensive analysis of ICE’s 

detention facilities are being challenged by ICE field office directors 

as unworkable or inappropriate. 

So, Mr. Secretary, we want to know more about how you plan to 

accelerate progress in this area, and when we will begin to see 

meaningful reform of the ICE detention system. 

Another area requiring Subcommittee attention is ICE’s international operations, particularly the Agency’s Visa Security Unit, 

or VSU, program. In last year’s House Bill and in the final Appropriations Act, Congress increased funding for VSUs so that ICE 

could expand its presence overseas, and review more visa applications from high-risk countries. Although ICE has identified 46 

countries it considers at high risk for terrorist travel or other visa 

fraud, it has established units in only 12 countries, and has just 

received State Department approval to expand to three more in 

2010. The 2011 budget proposes no additional Visa Security Units. 

Assistant Secretary Morton, we will need to discuss this further, 

both to understand the pace at which ICE is expanding this program, and what is delaying the establishment of VSUs in more 

countries. 

Finally, Mr. Secretary, we would like to discuss your plans for 

the Alternatives to Detention Program, with which ICE keeps track 

of individuals whose cases are working their way through the Immigration Court removals process but who pose no risk to society. 

It is a successful program. It has an appearance rate of over 90 

percent at final hearings. Also important for this Subcommittee is 

the fact that it costs much less per day to monitor individuals 

through this program than to keep them in detention. 

Every year that I have been Chairman of this Subcommittee we 

have seen to it that the budget for Alternatives to Detention has 

increased over the request level, both because the program is costeffective, and because it is more humane than locking up everyone 

who appeals their status in Immigration Court. In the last two Appropriations Acts, Congress has required ICE to submit a plan for 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
225 

nationwide deployment of the Alternatives to Detention program. A 

draft report was delivered to Subcommittee staff last month, but 

we have yet to receive an official submission from the Department. 

Given projections that the majority of immigration detention space 

will soon be filled with criminal aliens, I am concerned about what 

appears to be resistance to expanding this important program. So 

Mr. Secretary, we hope you can clarify ICE’s plans for Alternatives 

to Detention. 

Mr. Morton, we look forward to reviewing these details of your 

budget, and undoubtedly there will be a wide range of questions 

about ICE operations. As you are fully aware, the policy area that 

you are in charge of elicits strong opinions from many corners of 

American society. But despite the concerns I have raised, I am 

grateful for the leadership you have brought to the Agency. Like 

the tough, seasoned prosecutor that you are, you have set clear priorities for ICE, starting with the imperative to keep the American 

people safe. We look forward to continuing to work with you to help 

your Agency fulfill its mission. 

I am going to ask you to summarize your statement with a fiveminute oral presentation. We will enter your full written testimony 

into the hearing record. 

Before we begin, let me ask our distinguished Ranking Member 

from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, for his opening remarks. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
226 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 61840A.181
227 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 61840A.182
228 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 61840A.183
229 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER HAROLD ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Secretary 

Morton. It is good to have you here with us, your first blush at this, 

I think. 

It looked like we were afraid to have you because we postponed, 

and then we delayed today. But I assure you, we are happy to be 

here. 

As I reviewed ICE’s body of work over the past year, as well as 

the Agency’s budget request for 2011, I see a rather disturbing 

trend. On the one hand, ICE has laudably stepped up its efforts on 

criminal aliens, illicit trade, Southwest border enforcement. 

But on the other hand, ICE has noticeably curtailed its enforcement actions on illegal immigration, under the guise of prioritizing 

criminal aliens. What the Administration calls its smart-tough enforcement policy. 

So the way I see it, it looks as though you are an enforcer 

trapped in a poorly veiled administrative effort at so-called immigration reform. But last I checked, our immigration laws have not 

changed. Minding our borders and the people who enter our nation 

very much matters to our homeland security. 

First and foremost, ICE’s principal mission is to target the people, money, and materials that support terrorism. Look no further 

than the 9/11 hijackers, none of which would have been categorized 

as criminal aliens. Rather, all of the 9/11 terrorists exploited the 

legal immigration system, and several were here illegally. 

And then just this past year, we have seen three serious terrorism cases that involved individuals who could not be categorized 

as criminal aliens, who all exploited the legal immigration system, 

as well. The Zazi case in Denver, and the Smadi case in Dallas, 

and the Christmas Day attack over Detroit. 

In fact, the Smadi case in Dallas involved a Jordanian who had 

overstayed his tourist visa, and was therefore here illegally. So we 

cannot allow a preoccupation with criminal aliens to obscure other 

critical ICE missions; namely, those missions pertaining to what 

should be an unrelenting effort to disrupt and interdict terrorists. 

Secondly, immigration matters to our economy. At a time of painfully high unemployment, how can we allow illegal immigrants to 

take jobs away from Americans who need them? Stats do not lie; 

from 2008 to 2009, ICE’s non-criminal administrative arrests during work-site enforcement operations declined by more than 68 percent. It trickled down to just 24 arrests this past January. Hardly 

any. 

Furthermore, current detention bed space capacity is not being 

fully utilized. Out of the 33,400 detention beds ICE is currently 

able to use, only 29,192 beds are filled. What these facts tell me 

is that ICE is not vigorously enforcing our immigration laws, or 

fully using all the tools at its disposal to deter illegal aliens. 

Finally, immigration matters to the disruption of criminal activity. In our hearing on Southwest border enforcement last fall, our 

witness testified that ICE needs to use its administrative authorities to apprehend and deport dangerous individuals affiliated with 

criminal gangs and illicit trade, but individuals who may not be 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
230 

criminal aliens, by the Administration’s definition, but are extremely dangerous individuals nonetheless. 

In summary, when I look at the shift in ICE’s focus over the last 

year, I am deeply concerned. At best, it appears as though immigration enforcement is being shelved, and the Administration is attempting to enact some sort of selective amnesty, under the cover 

of prioritization. 

At worst, however, the Administration’s apathy towards robust 

immigration enforcement is perhaps making it easier for terrorists 

and hardened criminals to embed themselves in our communities. 

Either way, I will not stand for it. 

Secretary Morton, I know you have a tough job. I think it is getting made tougher by the Department’s lack of planning on 

SBINet, and proposed cuts to the Coast Guard’s drug interdiction 

capabilities, two things that will now only put more pressure on 

the border. 

So what we need to know here today is that ICE is using every 

tool at its disposal to fulfill its mandates and improve our homeland security, because far too much is at stake. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
231 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 61840A.184
232 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 61840A.185
233 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 61840A.186
234 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 61840A.187
235 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MORTON

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Morton, please proceed. 

Mr. MORTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Price. Thank you, 

Member Rogers, and the distinguished members of the Subcommittee. 

In light of the overall budget challenges, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) request this year is primarily designed to sustain our existing criminal and civil enforcement activities. As the Chairman noted, we have some enhancements that are 

proposed, primarily to improve our detainee medical care, to expand our border enforcement efforts and to strengthen our intellectual property efforts, particularly the financial intellectual property 

rights coordination center. 

Before I go any further, though, let me thank the Subcommittee 

for its steady and bipartisan support of ICE. To Mr. Rogers, it is 

a challenging job, and we have received modest support. And I 

have to tell you, in spite of the many challenges that we face, in 

my view, the Agency’s future has never been brighter. 

We are rapidly becoming a premiere federal criminal investigative agency and a critical player in the war on transnational organized crime and national security. We are also taking long-needed 

steps to identify and remove criminal aliens in a uniform and concerted manner, steps that were strongly encouraged by this Subcommittee. We removed a record number of criminal aliens from 

the United States last year (136,000)—that number, I expect to report to you in a few months will increase yet again quite substantially this year. 

Indeed, for the first time in the Agency’s history, I think we have 

programs underway to answer the questions that, the Chairman 

noted, we could not answer a few years ago. And it is a major reform and a major step when it comes to criminal offenders. I think 

we are just a few years away from being able to accurately identify 

all alien criminal offenders in the United States and have a rational way to remove from the United States those that are subject to 

removal. 

Please also know that I want to have the best relationship I possibly can with this Subcommittee. I value oversight; I think it is 

a hallmark of our democratic system. And I commit to candor and 

transparency as Assistant Secretary. 

Let me just start out with a little candor and transparency. The 

Chairman has noted reports that, for a variety of reasons, are not 

here to the Subcommittee on a timely basis. All I have to say to 

that is it is not acceptable. They should have been here, and it is 

my responsibility as Assistant Secretary ultimately to make sure 

that they are. I do not make any excuses. We are going to do better. We will get to it on those two reports, get them here, and we 

will do better in the future. 

Let me briefly comment on a few priority areas. I will start with 

one that Mr. Rogers touched upon, and I will start with that, which 

is preventing terrorism and enhancing security. I agree with Mr. 

Rogers; this is a critical area for us. We have to focus on it very, 

very strongly. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
236 

With this budget, were it enacted, we would continue our very 

strong presence on the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). We are 

the second-largest federal contributor to the JTTF outside of the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Most people do not realize 

that. With the Deputy of the National JTTF, we are at 100 out of 

106 JTTFs. I expect we will be at 106, whether or not we receive 

these particular enhancements requested in the budget. 

We are going to continue our leading role when it comes to export control. We investigate more cases than any other federal 

agency when it comes to the efforts to obtain our sensitive technology illegally, whether it is weaponry or dual-use technology. 

We will talk shortly about visa security, I am sure. I am committed to it. Just know that I am in the midst of discussions with 

the State Department to see how we can come up with a much 

more aggressive, comprehensive expansion of the program. 

There are some other initiatives that I think I should come and 

brief the Subcommittee on, that address some of Mr. Rogers’s concerns in the national security area. I would rather not do that in 

public, however. 

Next, turning to our efforts to secure the border, we are placing 

a major emphasis on intellectual property enforcement (mainly because there are real job issues), also it fuels transnational crime 

and with this budget we would be able to do that. 

We also want to continue the great work of the Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST). We have 17 BESTs; with this 

budget we would be able to go to 20. We would also make permanent the generous increases to Southwest border enforcement that 

the committee made last year. And that is very important to us. 

Turning to the nation’s immigration laws. With this budget, we 

would continue to have a heavy emphasis, at the Subcommittee’s 

encouraging direction, on criminal offenders. I think we would see 

record numbers, and not just in terms of a 2 percent or 3 percent 

increase. We will do so without ending catch-and-return. I am committed to it. Hear it straight from me: We will provide the necessary detention space and resources to maintain that policy. I 

think it is important. 

I agree with Mr. Rogers 100 percent that we cannot have an immigration enforcement system that is marked solely by attention 

on criminal offenders. They are an important priority, but if the 

system is going to have integrity and credibility, the border has to 

be attended to, and we have to pay attention to fugitives, people 

who knowingly ignore final orders. 

And we are going to continue to address the question of illegal 

employment. It is a challenge. There are a number of statutory provisions that I would be happy to talk to the Committee about, and 

I have some ideas on how we might be able to improve them. 

For example, we do not use the two most direct provisions, as an 

investigative agency, given their difficulty in actually employing. 

One is a Class B misdemeanor. The other requires us to demonstrate that an offender had actual knowledge that, not only were 

the people being employed in an unauthorized manner, but they 

crossed the border unlawfully. We have to demonstrate that in a 

case. Very, very difficult for us to do. We are going to have a record 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
237 

year in terms of I–9 enforcement. And I think you will see the results shortly. 

Secure Communities, we are continuing to deploy that. As the 

Chairman noted, it works well. And that is going to pose a very 

large challenge for us down the road, as we are faced with an everincreasing number of serious criminal offenders that we need to remove. 

Just to give you some flavor of how it is working. Secure Communities just had its best week ever. More than 600 level 1 aliens 

identified in a single week. Level 1. Put aside levels 2 and 3. Level 

1, drug traffickers, murderers, rapists, violent offenders. In a single 

week. And we have just begun, and we will continue to grow. It is 

going to pose a necessary but significant law enforcement challenge. 

On bed cost, here is the challenge. We absolutely intend to meet 

the Committee’s direction when it comes to the funding of 33,400 

beds. The big challenge for us is that estimate is based on the $99- 

a-bed figure. In reality, the cost, in Fiscal Year 2010, is closer to 

$122. So it is not a question of will, it is a question of how. I am 

committed to a robust use of our detention resources, the resources 

provided here. And I can assure you that they are not being diverted to anything other than custody operations. 

Let me just finally note, Mr. Chairman, that we are working very 

hard on the question of detention reform. I would be happy to discuss that further. I know it may appear from the outside that the 

progress is slower than would be liked; it is a signature issue for 

me personally. We spend an enormous amount of time on it. 

I just got back from Mr. Carter’s district, looking at the Hutto 

facility. I go to a lot of detention facilities. I am very, very focused 

on bringing the reform that I think the committee seeks. My foot 

is on the path, and I am going to continue down that road. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
238 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 61840A.188
239 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 61840A.189
240 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 61840A.190
241 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 61840A.191
242 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 61840A.192
243 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 61840A.193
244 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 61840A.194
245 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 61840A.195
246 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 61840A.196
247 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 61840A.197
248 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 61840A.198
249 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 61840A.199
250 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 61840A.200
251 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 61840A.201
252 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 61840A.202
253 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 61840A.203
254 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 61840A.204
255 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 61840A.205
256 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Let me start with Secure Communities. 

SECURE COMMUNITIES

As you know, Mr. Secretary, this Subcommittee regards itself as 

the instigator, co-initiator you might say, of such Secure Communities. So we follow this very carefully. So I do welcome your upfront acknowledgement that we have got to have better compliance 

with the deadlines for the various reports that are due. And that 

almost certainly would include the quarterly reports that we receive on Secure Communities. They are required by law to be delivered 45 days after the close of each quarter. They have been consistently late. So we take your pledge at face value, and that means 

the second quarter report for fiscal year 2010 will be delivered on 

May 15 of this year. And we will look forward to receiving that, 

and to having that at hand as we proceed with our business. 

I want to focus on Secure Communities. Through the work of this Subcommittee, ICE has received $550 million for the Secure Communities program. It is designed to identify and deport all aliens 

convicted of crimes, sentenced to imprisonment, and judged deportable by the United States. 

The key part of Secure Communities is ICE’s support of the socalled inter-operability solution, which links crime databases with 

immigration databases. So that when criminals are fingerprinted, 

both their criminal history and their immigration status can be immediately determined. 

In 2009, almost 826,000 inquiries were processed through interoperability, from only 88 jurisdictions. Twenty jurisdictions ran it 

in the first quarter of 2010. During that time about 515,000 more 

inquiries were submitted to inter-operability. 

Now, the current plan, as we understand it, is to deploy interoperability to 270 locations in 2010, which is estimated to cover 

more than 80 percent of the foreign-born jail population. However, 

ICE was only able to reach 20 additional facilities in the first quarter of 2010. 

So we would like to know what you are doing to make sure you 

reach your deployment goals for the remainder of 2010, and are 

those goals, in fact, on track? And then how much more coverage 

do you anticipate achieving with the 2011 appropriation? 

We assume, as you have said, the eventual goal is for ICE to 

have inter-operability implemented in 100 percent of the country’s 

jails and prisons. And assuming that is true, what is the timeline 

for that to happen? 

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, first of all, you are absolutely right 

in the figures you recite. And we are in 119 facilities now. We have 

reached about 30 of the ones that we want to do this year. And 

that means there is a big number between now and the end of the 

year, the last 6 months. 

I have been asking the same questions that you have been asking. I am told that we are going to get there. And I am committed 

to it. 

So I can tell you, I am not aware of a reason why we are not 

going to get there. I am focused on doing it. We need, and then we 

have got another big chunk to go next year, big challenge. But it 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
257 

is working. It is the wave of the future. The truth of the matter 

is the Committee prodded the Agency quite strongly to get to where 

we are now. And I am not defensive about that at all. It was the 

right thing to do, and here we are. 

The big challenge for us is that it does work. It works well. It 

was the right thing to do. We need, as an agency, to make sure we 

deliver on our implementation. I intend to see it through to 2013, 

to where we are with everyone. 

But, as you have noted, we are front-loading. We are going first 

and foremost to those places that our mapping suggests we will 

have the biggest bang for the buck. And those last out-years, while 

they are large in actual number of implementation, we will reach 

jurisdictions with ever-decreasing percentages of criminal offenders. Because we focused on, for example, going into Cook County. 

We started in Harris County, Texas. All places where our modeling 

has suggested there are a large number of deportable criminal offenders, and, in fact, that has turned out to be right. I expect it 

will continue. 

So I will say I hear your concern. There is no part of me that 

is not fully committed to Secure Communities. Frankly, I think it 

is the future of criminal alien enforcement. 

Mr. PRICE. Now, I want to make sure what I think I heard you 

just say. That the target date, the expected completion date for the 

100 percent coverage of the country’s jails and prisons is 2013, for 

100 percent coverage. 

Mr. MORTON. Correct. 

Mr. PRICE. You are also saying that the 2010 goal of 270 locations, 80 percent of the foreign-born jail population is on track. 

What I did not hear you say is what this 2011 appropriation will 

buy us. What kind of, what kind of coverage are we going to have 

at the end of the fiscal year, for which we will be appropriating this 

spring? 

Mr. MORTON. Yes, to be clear, you are right on everything I just 

said. When you say ‘‘on track,’’ I think for this year what I would 

respond is: ‘‘It will be on track at the end of the year.’’ 

We have 30 of 190 this year and is in addition to what we had 

last year and gets us to the 280. For next year, our intention is to 

deploy to another 870 locations. So we have a big increase next 

year, and we have clearly got to do a lot. We have got to get to 190 

this year, and then we have really got to turn it on the following 

year to go to 870. In Fiscal Year 2012, that number increases even 

more, to 1,550. 

Mr. PRICE. There you are talking about, ordinarily, very small facilities. 

Mr. MORTON. Correct, very small. 

Mr. PRICE. Or facilities with a very small number of—— 

Mr. MORTON. And with a diminishing return, in terms of the 

overall response. But the goal is 100 percent coverage. I want to 

get to a place where we can answer the Committee’s questions: 

How many criminal offenders are in the United States? And, are 

you doing everything you can to identify and remove them? 

And to do that, we need to be in every jail and prison in the 

United States, whether or not it is at the Federal level, the State 

level or the local level. The big challenge, of course, is the local 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
258 

level because there are so many. There are more than 3,000 jails 

and prisons at the local level. We are in every Federal and every 

State jail and penitentiary as we speak now. It is the local level 

where the big challenge is. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I salute you for the criminal alien work. We 

all agree on that, and it should be a top priority, as it is. So I salute you for that. 

DECREASE IN WORK-SITE ENFORCEMENT ARRESTS

However, you have all but stopped apprehending and detaining 

non-criminal illegal aliens. As I said in the opening statement, a 

major, major decline. Administrative arrests, that is non-criminal 

arrests, down 68 percent. And in January this past year, you only 

arrested 24 people. Twenty-four. 

Criminal arrests, criminal arrests during work-site enforcement 

operations, went down 60 percent. And in January, 20 arrests. 

Twenty. Indictments filed during work-site enforcement operations, 

down 58 percent. In January, 10 indictments. Ten. Convictions 

through work-site enforcement operations, down 63 percent. In 

January, 13 convictions nationwide. 

However, I–9 audits of employers increased 187 percent. And I 

do not see how you can have that many employers arrested, and 

ignore, apparently ignore apprehending the illegal aliens working 

at those employers’ places. Can you explain that? 

Mr. MORTON. A few things. First of all, let me be clear on our 

efforts when it comes to non-criminals. 

You are right, Mr. Rogers, that our numbers, in the context of 

work-site enforcement operations, have dropped. But that cannot 

be extrapolated to the larger effort. 

On the contrary, in Fiscal Year 2009, this Assistant Secretary 

presided over the largest removal of non-criminal offenders in the 

Agency’s history, in the country’s history. Fiscal Year 2009 saw the 

largest number of non-criminal offenders removed from the United 

States. 

The challenge for me is obviously when it comes to our priorities, 

where do the non-criminal offenders that we identify and remove 

come from. And for me, the challenge has been, first and foremost, 

we have a priority when it comes to criminal offenders. 

Second, the border. DHS has to maintain security along the border. We cannot return to catch-and-release. 

And finally, for me, we need to have an emphasis on fugitives, 

people who knowingly flout their final order. 

Now, I do not mean to suggest that is a full explanation for the 

numbers on work-site enforcement. But I will tell you that you are 

right; a number of the categories that you identified are down from 

the previous year. It is of concern to me. I have been talking about 

it the last few weeks, and we are going to do better. 

Mr. ROGERS. It is not down, it has plummeted. As I said, administrative arrests went from 5,184 to 1,644. That is 68 percent. And 

as I say, in January, this past, there were only 24 arrests. And yet 

you audited, your I–9 audits went from 503 to 1,444, 187 percent 

increase; and yet, you practically had no administrative arrests of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
259 

illegals. Apparently, at those employers’ places. That is not going 

down, that is plummeting, practically to zero. 

Mr. MORTON. We have 387 administrative arrests, to date. We 

have—— 

Mr. ROGERS. For what, for the year? 

Mr. MORTON. For the year. For 6 months, to date, in the fiscal 

year. And that is a substantial reduction from the year before. 

We have a reduced number of criminal cases, to date, as you 

have noted. I am very focused on getting that up. But, again, just 

in fairness, it is not a question that we have in any way given up 

on non-criminal immigration enforcement. On the contrary, we set 

a record for employer fines and penalties. 

I routinely receive a number of letters noting the record, and not 

particularly in a positive light, from the perspective of the person 

writing the letter. 

DETENTION BED RESOURCES

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you have got almost 4,000 beds, detention bed 

space, unused this year. I mean, for all of those years we were 

building and acquiring detention bed space like crazy, every year 

getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and we could not keep up 

with it then. 

Now, all of a sudden it has gone the other way. We have got 

33,400 beds, and 3,900 of them are being unused this year. Which 

tells me something. It tells me you are not apprehending people 

and processing them on the way back home. 

Mr. MORTON. The 29,000 figure, and you are correct, reflects the 

fact that of the 33,400 number in the budget, we cannot afford 

year-long detention because the estimates that went into what it 

takes to fund 33,400 beds were not right. And we, as an agency, 

bear most of the responsibility on that. Let me be clear about this. 

I am not suggesting that the Committee has responsibility for that; 

that is largely the Agency’s responsibility in past years, and very, 

very poor cost modeling. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am just saying that the unused beds are an indication that you are not apprehending and deporting the numbers 

that you are talking about. Otherwise you would not, you would 

use every bed you could. We have done it for decades. 

Mr. MORTON. Just to be clear, Mr. Rogers, we are going to use 

every bed. I have been planning to use every bed. It is a question 

of given how much money is in the budget, how many beds can we 

actually buy. 

And on April 1, you are going to see us move to something very 

close to 33,400 and run it for the rest of the year. I can assure you, 

coming straight from the top, there is no intention whatsoever to 

divert detention bed resources to something else. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, on average, on average for the year, there are 

3,900 beds that you are not using. And maybe once in a month or 

two you may use the max, but the average number should be the 

max. It always has been. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one particular 

question, and then I want to get back to some of the stuff, see if 

I have time after Mr. Rogers on the next round. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
260 

CONTRACTORS VS. ICE EMPLOYEES—DETENTION OVERSIGHT

As of April 12 of 2010, current contract for private contractors 

that oversee ICE’s compliance with the national detention centers 

will expire. ICE will begin to replace these highly qualified contractors, that have at least 10 years’ experience, with new government 

employees that have little or no experience at overseeing compliance with NDS. 

This also will become a conflict-of-interest, whereas ICE’s own 

folks will do compliance, not private-sector contracts. 

In addition, it is another needless expansion of Federal government to create full-time positions which are not fiscally flexible, 

like in the private sector. You currently have a contractor performing the on-site monitoring of ICE detention facilities. Is this 

contract funded, and for how long? Is ICE planning next month to 

remove the independent contractors, with a minimum of 10 years’ 

correctional experience—and in the case of the current contractor, 

they have 26 years’ average experience—with government employees who have minimal or no experience? 

Mr. MORTON. We do have independent contractors providing 

oversight. And we are reviewing whether to eliminate or not eliminate some of those contractors. And we do intend to have Federal 

employees. Let me just address it directly. 

We got to a point over the last couple of years where, literally, 

no ICE employee was involved in the basic detention operations of 

the Agency, even though we are responsible, all the way to me, for 

the detention of more than 400,000 people per year. And we 

reached a level of dependence on contractors that came to literally 

100 percent. In my view, we need some direct ICE responsibility 

and oversight of the detention function. 

It is our statutory obligation. We are responsible for it. You hold 

me accountable for its good use and exercise. And we have had a 

number of instances in the past few years where our stewardship 

of detention space has been questioned, and questioned quite 

strongly. 

Let me be clear. We are going to continue to use contractors to 

carry out large portions of our detention function. This is not about 

replacing contractors with Federal employees. It is a reflection 

that, right now, we are 100 to zero. And that, when it comes to our 

responsibility as an agency, we ought to at least have one person 

on site at the major detention facilities—which are all carried out 

in our name, with taxpayer dollars provided by this Committee— 

who is there to make sure that the job is being done well and is 

being done in a way that is efficient to the taxpayer. 

We are very cognizant of the need to have people with experience. That is a requirement for the folks that we are looking for. 

We have a number of people on our staff who have Bureau of Prisons experience. My view is we need to have direct ICE involvement 

so that, you know, the buck really stops with me and with us as 

an agency. And we are not in a situation where we basically contracted out—lock, stock and barrel—the statutory responsibility 

that was given to us by the Congress. 

Mr. CARTER. And maybe we are talking about different things, 

but I am not arguing with you that ICE ought to have some parVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
261 

ticipation in overseeing the operations of the contractors who operate a facility. This is a question of making sure that national detention standards are met. 

I have only the experience of national jail standards, which are 

very similar. And at least when I was overseeing the operation of 

a fairly good-sized jail, on the standpoint of oversight as a judge, 

we had serious compliance officers breathing down our throat every 

day. And they did not work for the people who operated the jail. 

They worked, they were independent people who operated outside 

it. Now, in our case it was a state agency, independent completely 

from the operation of our jails. 

I am not talking about that, operations. I am talking about the 

oversight, make sure you are in compliance with national standards which are required. 

And the other question I have is, my understanding is right now, 

you are contracting that with some very experienced compliance officers. And I would assume at least some of those compliance officers should be independent from the operation of it. Maybe they 

are not, and that might be a problem. I am not going to argue with 

that problem. 

But if they are independent from the operation contractors, they 

are doing oversight or compliance. And with the kind of experience, 

I do not understand why. And there is a flexibility on contractors. 

You do not hire them for life like you do federal employees, with 

some exceptions. 

And so you are sitting there now replacing an inexperienced compliance officer, an experienced with an inexperienced, to create government jobs. And I want to know why that is better and more efficient. I do not understand how it is. 

Mr. MORTON. One, I do not think we are going to replace them 

with inexperienced people. I completely agree with the idea that 

there needs to be various levels of oversight, not all of which is 

within the Agency. But I am a strong believer that integrity starts 

at home. And you know, the Assistant Secretary ought to be on the 

hook for making sure that—— 

Mr. CARTER. So is what you are telling me, you are not completely substituting government employees for all compliance officers. 

Mr. MORTON. Well, we are going to move forward with 40 positions. I would need to get back to you about whether or not that 

is going to replace all of the present independent contracts that we 

have doing some of it. And I am more than happy to talk to you 

about, even if we have a person on site that does our immediate 

things, how do we have the necessary independent oversight to 

make sure that we are doing what we are supposed to do. 

Mr. CARTER. Yes, I would like to know about that. 

Mr. MORTON. Okay. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: Yes, beginning in FY 2010, 39 ICE positions were dedicated to approximate the coverage provided by 54 contract field positions and contract management oversight to ensure compliance with ICE’s national detention standards. To 

provide the same level of coverage and oversight as the contract, an additional 25 

full-time employees are being requested to complete the baseline activation of the 

program. This is part of the on-site Detention Compliance Oversight Program initiative to improve efficiencies and enhance oversight and care of detainees in custody. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
262 

The 39 positions are responsible for monitoring facilities housing approximately 

23,000 detainees which, on any given day, accounts for 70–80 percent of ICE’s total 

detained population. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Morton, let us pursue this topic of detention, detention space, detention reform a bit further. 

As I understand it, ICE’s detained population is, in fact, projected to change quite dramatically in the coming year. Before ICE 

initiated the Secure Communities program, a majority of ICE’s detained population was non-criminal. The budget justification states 

that by the end of 2011, 80 percent of ICE’s detention capacity will 

be used for criminals. 

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION PROGRAM

Now, such a shift could complicate ICE’s approach to detention 

reform. It may also heighten the importance of the Alternatives to 

Detention program and the integrity of our immigration system. 

If ICE’s detention space is going to be used primarily for criminal 

aliens, there will need to be a practical, robust approach to deal 

with non-criminal immigration violators. As I mentioned in the 

opening statement, you do not seem to have made a great deal of 

progress in expanding the Alternatives to Detention program, even 

though this Committee has increased funding for that program, 

and requested, for the last two years, a report outlining ICE’s 

strategy for a nationwide rollout of the program. 

Well, let me just ask you a few questions about this. What is 

holding up the nationwide rollout? As more criminals are held in 

ICE detention, what is going to be done with the non-criminal immigration violators? 

Last fall you awarded a new contract for Alternatives to Detention. Under that contract, ICE projected 16,750 participants in the 

30 cities where alternatives are currently available. 

However, recent ICE data show that only 11,353 participants are 

enrolled. That is 32 percent under the projected program capacity. 

Why are you not using that full capacity in the Alternatives program? 

And then finally, the contract solicitation for Alternatives to Detention proposed expanding the program from that 30-city base to 

up to 134 more locations within two months of the contract award. 

Why has that not been initiated when you anticipated it when the 

contract was awarded? 

Mr. MORTON. I understand that we had a one-time blip when it 

came to the conversion of the contract, and we went with the unified contract for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, 

which brought the cost down. That made it appear that we were 

not using the full number of spaces allotted, but was really a conversion issue, and we are back up much closer to 15,000, 16,000 

slots now. I am happy to look into that, though. I do not want to 

speak out of turn. And if your numbers are right as of today, then 

we clearly have a problem that I am not aware of. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The Aternatives to Detention (ATD) program currently manages 

11,767 participants in the full-service program and 4,116 participants in the technology-assisted program. In FY 2010, ICE consolidated two full-service contracts 

and enrolled 3,000 new participants for both full-service and technology-assisted 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
263 

programs. Total participation in ATD program components is 15,883 and represents 

full capacity. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, maybe we do need to clear it up. I just do not 

understand what you mean, though, by conversion issue. What do 

you mean? 

Mr. MORTON. Well, we went from using three different contractors for Alternatives to Detention (ATD), to one. And we have 

moved to a single contractor to implement the program nationwide. 

That is not only going to bring some uniformity to what we are 

doing, it is going to reduce costs. So we can use the same money 

to have more slots. So overall, from our perspective, it is a necessary reform. 

But let me address the sort of heart of your questions directly, 

which is, I am not at all reluctant to use ATD. My only caveats are 

it needs to work, and it needs to be cost effective for the taxpayer. 

Now, in immediate terms, on a daily basis, it seems like a no- brainer. It is $8.80 per day, compared to $122 per day. But that 

$8 per day only works out in the long run if the hearing time for 

that case is a short one. And right now, it is not. 

A non-detained docket takes a long time. And so we are actually 

occasionally in perverse situations, where it actually costs more 

money to put somebody on an ATD, because it just takes so much 

longer to get their case heard, than someone in detention, because 

the detention docket is expedited. It is really a question of Department of Justice (DOJ) resources and the ability for DOJ to move 

ICE cases. So it is a challenge that we face. 

We are trying to deal with that directly, with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). We are running two pilots, 

Mr. Chairman, one in Baltimore and one in Miami, where EOIR is 

devoting the resources so that we can see if we have an expedited 

ATD docket. You know, can we achieve the promising vision of 

ATD? And I think we can. But just to let you know, there are some 

real-world impediments to making it work. 

And the second, I would just caution, the figure of 90 percent, 

which is often used, is for the final hearing. For us, however, the 

law enforcement agency, it needs to work through removal. That is 

what we are ultimately judged on. And if, you know, lots of people 

are willing to show up to hear whether or not they were granted 

relief. The real question is when they are informed that they lost 

their case and they need to leave the United States, will they show 

up? That is the number that we need to work on and make sure 

it works for ATD. 

If ATD can ensure that people who are not a risk to the community show up for their removal, then it makes sense. If it is 90 percent up to their final hearing, but then only 10 percent show up 

for their actual removal, it is a challenge for us. 

Mr. PRICE. Your last point about needing to know about the percentage rate for actual removal, as well as the showing up for the 

hearing, is the basis. But I understand that figure is around 70 

percent. Is that about right? 

Mr. MORTON. The initial reports are, anecdotally, that it is not 

as high, but that it can be significant, depending on which one they 

are using. Bracelets tend to work the very best. Now, a lot of people do not like that because of the intensive supervision. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
264 

I do not know that there is enough real data in from our pilots 

for me to answer that directly. I do not want to lead you astray 

or to get myself into territory that I do not know. But I do know 

that that figure is one we need to know and answer well, to be able 

to tell you that it is a good-use alternate. 

I think it will be. We just have to recognize that that is a challenge for us because people do tend to show up for their hearings 

at a greater rate than they do for removal. That is why we have 

such a large fugitive backlog. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. I would appreciate your furnishing, for the 

record, the best figures you have on that. And of course, also, comparisons to the removal rate for people released on their own recognizance. That is a very, very low number. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: Thus far in FY 2010, the participants in the program have a 98 percent appearance rate (3,607 attended 3,620 scheduled hearings). Of the participants 

that have received either a final order of removal or the benefit of voluntary departure (452), over 78 percent (354) have departed the United States. 

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) maintains the appearance 

rates for non-detained aliens through its Statistical Yearbook. EOIR statistics indicate the failure to appear rate for FY 2009 among non-detained aliens is 27% (thus, 

a 63% appearance rate). 

The removal rate for non-detained, non-ATD population is 2.17%. The reason this 

number is so low is that many of these individuals represent a low priority for ICE 

and tend to have cases that go through various appeal processes (e.g. a student requesting an extension of time in the U.S. to complete studies or a VISA overstay 

requesting an extension). 

SECURE COMMUNITIES

Mr. MORTON. Could I briefly comment on your observation on 

criminal aliens? 

Just to note, that is a function, that is—the way Secure Communities has mapped this out, and the way the numbers are unfolding, that 80 percent is a result of mandatory detention provisions 

in the law. 

So what we are saying is, Secure Communities is working well. 

As we go into all sorts of jails and prisons that we have never been 

in before as an agency and take it to 100 percent over the next few 

years, the good news is it works; the challenge is we are going to 

identify a huge number of serious criminal offenders who are mandatory detention, from the perspective of the law, that the Agency 

was not previously identifying. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, and of course, it is obviously a big difference, 

if you will be using 80 percent of your detention capacity for such 

people. 

What kind of implications is that going to have for detention 

practices themselves? For conventional detention? Does it imply a 

need for heightened levels of security, for example? I mean, will 

there be budget implications for having a different population mix 

in detention? 

Mr. MORTON. I think you are right on the money. There are 

going to be serious questions, both regarding the kinds of facilities 

that we need to have and the budget implications. Because obviously, the Level 1 offenders, who are largely the mandatory detention offenders, need more restrictive centers. Let us be frank; these 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
265 

are criminals coming out of the criminal justice system, and they 

need to be detained in something that looks a lot like a jail. 

The expedited removal cases, they are mandatory detention, but 

those are typically non-criminals. A significant portion of those not 

need to be detained in something that looks like a jail. 

The real challenge for us is, as we look forward, how do we address the fact that we are detaining an ever-increasing number of 

serious criminal offenders, who, everybody would agree, need to be 

detained and need to be removed. How do we do that in a way that 

does not get to the Ranking Member’s point, which is there are 

other parts of the immigration enforcement docket that are important, and need a certain level of detention to maintain credibility 

in the system? 

We can do that, some through ATD. But there are, you know, a 

significant number of people for whom that is not appropriate. 

There is just such a high risk of flight, or they are a danger to the 

community. We are either going to have to look at future appropriations or decrease the amount of time it takes for us to turn 

cases over. 

If I can reduce the amount of time that people stay in detention, 

it is a way of increasing our detention capacity without a further 

appropriation. I am very focused on that. Each couple of days that 

I can shave off the amount of time it takes to turn a case over is 

the same: the net effect of you giving me more money to go out and 

buy more beds. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. I want to get to the violence on the border in a 

minute, but I cannot leave this one. Briefly. 

WORK-SITE ENFORCEMENT POLICY—LEAK TO MEDIA

The Administration’s first raid on a work site I think was the 

Bellingham, Washington matter, where I think it was 24 illegals, 

who admittedly got their job through false documentation, were arrested on that raid. And then I think all of them were then released from custody. And more importantly, were given a permit to 

go to work, which was an absolutely new policy, and what I called 

at the time virtual amnesty. Because I think the message to 

illegals coming into the country was work for a company, even 

though you admittedly are illegal there, and we will not touch you. 

If you get arrested, we are going to give you a permit to go to work, 

and you have got a license. You are legal now. Which is unheard 

of. 

And then, to top it off, the IG, DHS IG issued a report in December of 2009, I think just—well, I am not sure when it was, related 

to Bellingham. Anyway, issued its new policy on work site enforcement to the New York Times. Not to Congress, not to the ICE field 

offices; to the New York Times. We read about it in the newspaper. 

A whole new policy on immigration enforcement in the country, one 

of the hottest issues going. 

And the Congress, your funding authority and authorization, 

overseers, read about it in the New York Times. Last I heard, the 

Times is not the approval of authority for ICE workshop enforcement policy. Or am I wrong? 

Mr. MORTON. Well, you are obviously right to be—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
266 

Mr. ROGERS. Was there any disciplinary action ever taken about 

that? Who was responsible for leaking this policy before it was allowed to be reviewed by the Congress? Has anybody ever been disciplined because of that? 

Mr. MORTON. A couple of points. First, Bellingham was before 

my time as Assistant Secretary. What I understand is that, at the 

time, there were work authorizations given, but it was for the purpose of witnesses for the criminal case. 

Mr. ROGERS. Oh, we have heard that before. We have heard all 

of that. Was anybody disciplined on letting this go to the press before the Congress approved it? 

Mr. MORTON. The answer, I believe, is no. I think the Inspector 

General did not find any disciplinary misconduct. 

Mr. ROGERS. It is not the IG’s job to find disciplinary conduct; 

it is the Department’s job. The IG reports on what he found. Did 

the Department take any disciplinary action against anybody for 

leaking this new work site enforcement policy to the New York 

Times before Congress could look at it? 

Mr. MORTON. I believe the answer is no. 

Mr. ROGERS. Can you tell me why not? 

Mr. MORTON. I think the answer is that the Inspector General, 

in his review, found that there was no misconduct that would warrant discipline. But I will take a look at the report, and I will see 

if I am incorrect about this. 

Mr. ROGERS. I want you to file with this Committee the name of 

the person that leaked the information out, and why he or she was 

not disciplined for that. If we are going to have government in the 

press, then let us just go ahead and do it, and disband Congress. 

So will you file that information with the Committee? 

Mr. MORTON. Let me take a look at the report, Mr. Rogers. Let 

me educate myself on this, and I will get back to you and the 

Chairman. 

Mr. ROGERS. The question is, will you file that information with 

the Committee? 

Mr. MORTON. I will let you know if anybody was disciplined. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. I want to know who leaked the information, and 

whether he or she was disciplined. Will you file that information 

with this Committee? 

Mr. MORTON. To the extent that it is, one, that somebody leaked 

the—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Answer the question. Yes or no. 

Mr. MORTON. I will, to the extent that somebody leaked the information, and there is no statutory prohibition on me disclosing 

something, of course. Again, as I said at the beginning, I want to 

have a relationship that is marked by transparency and candor, 

even when it is something that you disagree with me on as a policy. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, file the information. And I do not know, Mr. 

Chairman, there ought to be some sort of a time limit on this, to 

be sure we get it. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: On December 3, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office 

of Inspector General released a report regarding the review of the potential leak of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
267 

the WSE strategy to the New York Times. The report concluded that while the release of the strategy deviated from DHS and ICE practices, no Law Enforcement 

Sensitive information was released. No person has been identified as having provided the information to the New York Times and as such, no disciplinary action 

has been taken. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me say to the Ranking Member, I appreciate his 

request. It does seem to me, and I am not in possession of all the 

details about this case, it seems to me that there is probably a 

prior question about whether a change in policy, in fact, was involved here. And therefore, whether there is any departmental employee that could have leaked the information about a change in 

policy. 

I do think that what Mr. Morton is offering, which is an accounting of this incident and of the IG’s finding, is a reasonable response. And then at that point we can determine if we want to request further information. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would inform the Chairman that the Department 

IG issued this report, in December of 2009, on the new policy on 

work site enforcement. There is a new policy, and it was released 

last spring, labeled law enforcement-sensitive. 

And then, in response to that report, I issued a statement back 

then. I can quote it, I will not take the time to do it, but, talking 

about how concerned I was that, complaining that the policy was 

issued publicly to the newspapers before we had a chance to even 

see it, much less comment on it. I think that is a gross violation 

of the relationship between the Department and the Congress, particularly Appropriations. 

Mr. PRICE. We want to be informed of any change in policy. However, it does seem to me appropriate for us to have a response from 

Mr. Morton answering your question to what extent there was, in 

fact, a change in policy implemented at that time. And therefore, 

the extent to which there was a news item to be leaked in the first 

place. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, he knows what I want, and he knows I will 

not rest until I get it. So the sooner the better, Mr. Morton. 

Mr. MORTON. What I can add to some of the things that we could 

give, is an accounting of where things actually ended up in Bellingham. Because I think at the end of the day, and I am just looking at some notes here, there were 28 individuals in question; 15 

of them are now pending their removal proceedings, and seven already have gone through and have a voluntary departure order or 

have left. And one absconded, and one left right away. 

So again, I was not there at the time. But the end result is enforcement against all but one person, who absconded. 

BORDER VIOLENCE—DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. ROGERS. Let me move quickly to violence on the border and 

trends that may be going on. We all know about the drug cartels 

and the violence that is taking place inside Mexico. A lot of us complain that the cartels are all over this country, as well, in our larger cities, including this one. So the cartels’ operations have spilled 

over the border, and that is to put it mildly. 

And as the judge can better tell us, the cartels are getting more 

emboldened. We read of the tragic murder of the boys on the ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
268 

sulate, and another, the woman, pregnant and with a child in the 

back seat. 

But at least 18,000 people have been killed in Mexico since December of 2006. And the pace escalates, most notably in Juarez, 

500 murders so far this year. The average number of murders per 

month approaches 200. That is 10 a day. Well, not quite. 

What have we learned over the last year about the cartels’ tactics, especially related to border crossings, how they get the drugs 

across and where, and how that operates? 

Mr. MORTON. Let me say a few things. I am going to be careful 

how I answer your question. And let me offer to come and tell you 

a little bit about what we have got going on, in a bit more sensitive 

environment. 

But listen, Mr. Rogers, the cartels, as you have noted on many 

occasions, are just brutal, vicious, you know, organized criminal 

gangs. And they are operating on a grand scale with great consequences for all of us. 

You mentioned something in your opening that I think bears repeating, which is ICE has some fairly unique authorities that can 

be brought to bear in that regard. And that is, not only do we exercise aggressive and broad criminal investigative powers but we 

have our civil immigration authority. And that should be put to 

work, side by side with those criminal investigative authorities, on 

the border. 

We have done a number of recent operations. As a matter of fact, 

I remember meeting with you at the very beginning, and we talked 

about this a little bit. And I am glad to report that we have started 

to do some of these exact kind of operations, where we are not just 

saying that we are going to do gang enforcement operations, but we 

started targeting those efforts against those gangs that support the 

drug cartels. 

We have done an operation called Cross-Check now in Los Angeles, and we just did it in Texas, and we are going to be doing it 

in a few other states, where we specifically target criminal offenders on the streets for removal. We need to be more aggressive as 

a law enforcement agency in using our civil powers to support and 

carry out some of the important criminal investigative work we do. 

So I am very interested in looking at our civil immigration enforcement efforts against gang members and criminals and using 

our powers in a way that furthers a broader objective of attacking 

the drug-trafficking organizations. 

If a particular gang is known on our side of the border to be supporting, even at a low level, drug distribution that furthers a drugtrafficking organization, then why do we not pick that group as 

this month’s focus for immigration and customs enforcement? And 

that is the kind of targeted effort; we need to do everything we can 

to push back on the drug-trafficking organizations. 

But let me—— 

BORDER INSPECTIONS—WEAPONS

Mr. ROGERS. I know we talked about, I guess it was last year 

some time, we were talking about the inspections at the ports of 

entry, and looking for drugs coming in and weapons going south. 

And one of the things that we wanted to try to do was to check 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
269 

the rail traffic going into Mexico for weapons. And I think we have 

been doing that. My information is that they found no weapons in 

that fashion. Do you know, is that accurate? 

Mr. MORTON. I would not say no, and I would really want U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), who has been doing most of 

the inspections, to answer for you. 

We have not found a large number of firearms. And obviously, 

the question is, is that a reflection of they are not going in at the 

level that we think they are, or are we not finding them? 

I will say, obviously the Mexican Army and Mexican law enforcement finds very large caches of weapons all the time in Mexico. 

That is an open question about where those come from. They could 

come from many places in addition to the United States. 

So I think on that one, I would need to double-check with CBP, 

and let you know exactly what the results are. But CBP has been 

upping its inspections, not only at the ports of entry, but also at 

the rail crossings and with the Border Patrol. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if we are not finding weapons in that fashion, 

should we not move those personnel to more productive places? 

Mr. MORTON. Assuming, I know they just started it. And so the 

real question is, without me commenting much further let me find 

out what they are doing. I do not want to misspeak. They may be 

finding far more weapons than I appreciate. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: Although ICE works with U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to curtail illegal weapons trade between the United States and Mexico, CBP 

maintains exclusive jurisdiction over border searches, including those involving 

transnational rail. 

CBP is conducting 100 percent scanning of all outbound rail cars destined to Mexico. CBP deployed high-energy systems along all eight (8) Southwest Border railroad 

crossings to conduct non-intrusive inspections (NII) of southbound trains for the 

presence of contraband to include illicit currency and smuggled firearms. 

Notification protocols have been developed with Mexican Customs for the inspection of suspect rail cars, since the cars themselves are on Mexican soil immediately 

after the U.S. NII scan. 

From March 1, 2009, to February 28, 2010, there were approximately 7,378 southbound train movements. While conducting 100 percent scanning, CBP has completed non-intrusive inspections of over 368,000 full and over 160,000 empty southbound railcars and referred 72 railcars to our Mexican counterparts. To date, all referrals have been negative. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start off by saying I am a fan of your agents on the Texas border. They do a good 

job, as far as I know, those that I have gotten to know. I am 

pleased to call them fellow Texans. 

SECURE COMMUNITIES

The question I have—I have a lot of questions, I do not know 

where to start. I want to go back to the Secure Communities program. And I want to make sure I have got the right idea. 

You are setting this up to take people out of prison that have 

committed serious felony crimes, is that right? Or are you taking 

everybody who has committed any crime? 

Mr. MORTON. Well, the ultimate goal of Secure Communities is 

to identify anybody who has committed a crime, that Congress has 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
270 

provided for as deportable based on that crime. And obviously, we 

are going to start, first and foremost, with those who have committed a serious offense. 

But you know, my view is, if you are here unlawfully and you 

are committing crimes, Congress has said that is two reasons that 

you should—— 

Mr. CARTER. And I am also making the assumption that these 

people have finished meeting their obligation to the State or the 

county that has arrested them and convicted them. 

Mr. MORTON. That is right. Now, one minor caveat. It is within 

most State’s power to release people to us early. But our preferred 

approach is for the State to go through with the criminal process, 

for there to be a conviction and for the person to serve their time; 

then, we take them and remove them. 

We will accept, and the law provides for, some early release, but 

that is at the discretion of the State. 

Mr. CARTER. So, what I call serious people, and that is people 

who do aggravated sexual assault, murder, major crimes, drug 

dealers, gang cartel members and those types of people; they are 

the first round that is taken up, right? 

Mr. MORTON. Absolutely. Our Level 1 offenders, any crime of violence, any serious drug-trafficking organization. Now, of course—— 

Mr. CARTER. Some of those people are going into detention centers. And you just visited mine, which used to be a prison, but it 

is not any more. And now the question, are not you going to have 

security problems there? And I would argue you are. 

I mean, if you are housing those kind of people, you need, you 

have got a different situation than what we have been trying to 

deal with on detention for the last five years. 

Mr. MORTON. It depends on the facility. The Hutto facility, for 

example, in your district, would not be appropriate for those 

kinds—— 

Mr. CARTER. It would have when it first opened, but it is not 

now. 

Mr. MORTON. Right, it is now. Now it is appropriate, yes. 

Mr. CARTER. We spent a lot of time changing that. 

Mr. MORTON. And you can see that when you are there; it was 

an old prison, and it is now something else. It is entirely appropriate for the non-criminal female, females that we detain and remove there. And we need a facility like that because we have a lot 

of women. 

But for your basic point of—— 

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

Mr. CARTER. Now, and your alternative for the non-criminal offenders is to do intensive supervision, or electronic monitoring, 

right? 

Mr. MORTON. Or something like Hutto. Hutto works perfectly. 

Mr. CARTER. Or Hutto. Detention. 

Mr. MORTON. Yes. 

Mr. CARTER. But when you are trying to relieve the detention 

population, you use electronic monitoring, or you use intensive supervision. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
271 

Mr. MORTON. Or bonds, we also use bonds. And then in some instances—— 

Mr. CARTER. Now, under the bond program, I mean, our history 

on bond programs, with ICE and with this immigration program, 

is horrible. I mean, the people who show up for their hearings, they 

are in the 5 percent to 8 percent range, is what usually happens, 

at least used to historically. 

Now, I happen to have done a whole lot of electronic monitoring, 

and I have also done a whole lot of intensive supervision. And intensive supervision, if done right, is intense. Which means somebody is calling in all the time, and that means that a case worker 

can only handle X number of intensive supervisions. So that means 

you, with the numbers that you are talking about, you are talking 

about a tremendous number of case workers, which I doubt if you 

have got enough people out there that can do the job. 

Because if you have got 100 people on intensive supervision, you 

have got an insane case worker, okay? Cannot do it. 

Now, on electronic monitoring, are you treating that as house arrest? In other words, do they, does that monitor tell you when they 

leave home and when they come back to home, and they are given 

rules that they have to live under? Or does it just tell you where 

they are? 

Mr. MORTON. I do not know the answer to that. Let me get it 

to you. But we have both intensive supervision or electronic monitoring, and in some instances we have both. You go on intensive 

supervision, and you have a monitor. And it works well. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: A participant in an ATD program is first served with an Order of 

Recognizance (OREC), for those still in immigration proceedings, or an Order of Supervision (OSUP), for those who have completed their immigration proceedings and 

have a final order of removal. The OREC and OSUP documents detail the rules of 

their release and specify what they may and may not do while out of custody. Once 

in the program they will either be required to report telephonically (TR) through 

a voice verification program or be assigned a global positioning system (GPS) ankle 

bracelet. ICE determines on a case-by-case basis the proper reporting mechanism 

to assign to a participant based on factors such as the procedural posture of the participant’s immigration case, criminal history, demonstrated program compliance, 

and flight risk. 

A participant that is assigned TR is required to schedule a recurring interval during which the participant receives a telephone call from the voice verification program instructing the participant to call back within three minutes. When the participant calls back, the participant’s voice is verified using voice recognition technology. 

After the call is completed successfully, the next pre-set call interval is determined. 

If the participant is assigned a GPS unit, the unit sends out signals to track the 

participant’s location in 15-minute intervals (passively) or 1-minute intervals (actively). Although the device tracks the participant’s whereabouts generally, the device does not affirmatively alert ICE. Unless otherwise pre-determined, the participant is not prevented from participating in routine activities. The participant’s 

movements are not typically restricted; however, additional controls may be required in a specific case. In some instances, participants are also informed of areas 

they may or may not be permitted to enter. The GPS units track and record where 

the participant goes and the information is typically used to verify participant compliance in the program. 

For me, I want to get to, as you describe it, that program that 

works well. I want to see a high rate of compliance, where you are 

not just at your hearing but at your removal. And I will do whatever it takes to get that. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
272 

Mr. CARTER. Is there a punishment for taking the bracelet off? 

In other words, do you have procedures set up that if they remove 

the ankle bracelet, then they are automatically going to detention? 

Mr. MORTON. We are going to detain you. If you do that, if you 

take it off, we are going to detain you. 

Now, it is an interesting question as to whether or not that 

would fit under some of the obstruction of justice criminal provisions in the Code that can be applied on the criminal side, if you 

do not do what the Court ordered you to do. I would need to take 

a look at that. Absolutely. 

Mr. CARTER. So you might have charges, additional charges you 

could file. 

Mr. MORTON. We might. 

Mr. CARTER. Absolutely. 

Mr. MORTON. As a minimum, we would go to your house and 

pick you up, find you, pick you up, and put you in detention if you 

do not comply. 

Mr. CARTER. If they do not show up for their hearing, then, in 

other words, if they are monitored but they do not show up for the 

hearing, then—— 

Mr. MORTON. Then they are a fugitive. 

Mr. CARTER. They are fugitives at that point in time. 

Mr. MORTON. Absolutely. And when we go through the ATOs, we 

are very clear with people. 

Mr. CARTER. And you will find out whether they are under house 

arrest. I mean, when we have people on monitors, we say okay, we 

are putting you out on a monitor. You are free to travel to work. 

But there is an argument about your monitor, that if you keep everybody on a monitor, and they keep doing what they were already 

doing when we picked them up in the first place, they are pretty 

happy. I guarantee that monitor is not that burdensome. But I will 

not go into that argument. 

The question I have is, are you saying you are not free to go to 

the beer joint, you are not free to go out on Saturday night and 

stay out until 3:00 in the morning. You are policing these people 

up, and saying you are going to be model citizens if you are going 

to get this privilege. We treat it as a privilege. 

Mr. MORTON. Absolutely. Let me find out for you, and we will get 

back to you. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Morton. All right. We will go and 

have a final round here. 

Mr. MORTON. Of course. 

VISA SECURITY UNIT PROGRAM

Mr. PRICE. And move right ahead. And I have a question about 

visa security units, as I indicated in my opening statement. 

We appropriated $30.7 million to the ICE Visa Security Unit, or 

VSU program, in 2010. The Agency has not requested an increase 

for 2011, even though by the end of the year there will be VSUs 

in only 15 of 46 high-risk countries. 

And by the way, those 46 countries are an interesting mix of 

countries with, in sensitive regions of the world, but also with a 

population mix that makes them of special interest. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
273 

This program requires coordination with the Department of 

State. But I heard a disconcerting remark from the last Ambassador to London, who apparently told ICE that DHS already had, 

quote, ‘‘too many people at the embassy’’ to justify a VSU there. 

Well, what do you say about the level of deployment of these 

units? Are you concerned that ICE Visa Security Units are at less 

than one third of the countries your own agency has labeled is at 

risk? What are you doing to work with the State Department to accelerate the establishment of VSUs in all high-risk countries? 

And the obvious question. Why does the 2011 budget request not 

include more funding for VSUs, when there is a known deficiency 

in the coverage we are achieving? 

Mr. MORTON. I am concerned. I am attending to the matter with 

the State Department. I do want to get to a place that is more comprehensive than we are now. 

The Secretary wants to do the same thing. She has asked me to 

meet with the State Department. I have already met with the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs. I am going to meet with the 

head of Diplomatic Security, also an assistant secretary, next week. 

And we are going to have some good conversations about how we 

can get to full coverage at the 57 posts that we have identified, together, as the institutions that we should have posts in. 

I will say, on London, some good news. I went to London personally and spoke to the Deputy Chief of Mission, and we have approval to go to London. We will be going to London, and we will 

use the resources the Committee provided for us to do that. 

We will also go to one more country, or one more post in a country, in 2011, using what we have. I would rather just tell you that 

separately and not here publicly. 

So I have my work to do with the State Department. We have 

had occasional challenges, largely due to space issues, what the 

State Department refers to as right-sizing. And all I can tell you 

is I try to work through them on every one, but I do not want to 

suggest to you that I think we are exactly where we need to be. 

I am focused on it, and I would be happy to let you and the Ranking Member know where we intend to head well before our next 

hearing on something like this. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we will appreciate that information. This is not 

the first time the Subcommittee has been in the position of questioning the requested amount, and trying to nudge this program 

forward. 

If you are concluding that the original projections maybe are beyond what really has priority, or in some other way are reconsidering this, we need to know it. But it is not the way we want to 

operate, to have a stated goal in place, and an apparent rationale 

for that goal; and yet, it does not match up with the budget request. And there is surely not a good explanation for that. 

So we need, between now and bill-writing time, we need to come 

to a better understanding, I think, of what your goals are here, and 

what kind of priorities you have in your own mind as to where we 

go next. And for that matter, how far this rather modest appropriation request will take us. 

Mr. MORTON. Understood, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
274 

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you about the Visa Security Units. To 

me, it is sort of a muddled picture. We have never, in my judgment, got this right. It is not your fault. 

In issuing visas and who has control of what, both Homeland and 

State Department of course have a goal in visa policy. State responsible for visa applications, processing, and denial; DHS responsible for visa policy. And then specifically, Homeland is responsible 

for the approval of all immigrant and non-immigrant petitions, the 

authorization of permission to work in the U.S., the issuance of extensions of stay, and change or adjustment to an applicant’s status 

while he is in the, he or she is in the U.S. DHS, within DHS, the 

CIS administers policy, ICE conducts enforcement of fraud and 

compliance. 

To me, that is really muddled. Do you feel muddled? 

Mr. MORTON. I do not feel muddled today, at least not on this 

particular issue. 

You are right, we have the investigative responsibility. The CIS 

has the responsibility for the approval of the extensions and the 

various employment-based applications. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I have always had the belief if two people are 

in charge, nobody is in charge. Because both of them can blame the 

other one when something goes wrong. 

I really like a clean target. And I know this is above both of our 

pay grades, but it has always been confusing, ever since I have 

been around this place. And it ought to be straightened out, but it 

has not been. 

But back to the main point. These Visa Security Units that you 

run I think play a vital role in enforcement and counter-terrorism. 

In 2009, these units screened 900,000-plus applicants. You determined that 301,000 required further review, and you recommended 

over 1,000 for refusal, to the State Department, for the issuance of 

a visa. 

And then in 2009, you also generated 30 watchlist names, or 

nominations. And you have units in Sana’a, Yemen, Tel Aviv, 

Israel, London, and Jerusalem. Is that correct? 

Mr. MORTON. Coming. That is this year’s expansion. 

Mr. ROGERS. Applications to place them. You have existing units 

in Frankfurt, Amman, and I think those are pending, are they not? 

Mr. MORTON. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. And it is especially important to have those units, 

because I think it was London, was it not—where was the Christmas Day bomber—— 

Mr. MORTON. London. 

Mr. ROGERS. It was in London. If we had had a VSU there at 

that time, would that have made a difference? 

Mr. MORTON. It is really hard to do Monday-morning quarterbacking on that one. And I am not trying to avoid the question in 

any way, Mr. Rogers. 

The trick with Abdul Mutallab was the information that ultimately came to light after his visa was issued. And that is one of 

the challenges that we face with visa security and one of the issues 

that I want to focus on with the State Department. Also, when I 

referred to some sensitive things that I would rather brief you on 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
275 

in private, there is a gap; we can look at you once when you get 

your visa issued, but we cannot stop there. 

Many times, and Abdul Mutallab is a key example, you get your 

visa, and it is valid for multiple entries. And then you do some 

things that then come to our attention and ought to lead to either 

a revocation of the visa or refusal, putting you on the various 

watchlists. 

And I am very interested in that gap because I am responsible 

right now for the initial security screening at the time of the 

issuance of the visa. Because of the role that we play in JTTF, and 

as you have noted the critical importance of this from a national 

security perspective, I want to work on that gap, as well, and make 

sure that between us, CBP, the Transportation Security Administration, all the key players, that if something comes up after you 

get your visa, we have got a way to either revoke that visa or prevent entry. 

Mr. ROGERS. When will you set up these new VSUs? 

Mr. MORTON. Well, the four, we are doing it right now as we 

speak, this year, with the resources provided for by the committee. 

Mr. ROGERS. Who opposed the application? Who decides this? 

Mr. MORTON. It is a two-step process. 

Mr. ROGERS. Make it quick. 

Mr. MORTON. The first step is me and the Department. Then ultimately, the Department of State, we have to get the Ambassador’s approval at the end of the day for us to show up because 

they have to get a space. 

Mr. ROGERS. And you have got to have the money to do it, right? 

Mr. MORTON. And then we have got to have the money to do it. 

Mr. ROGERS. It is your personnel, right? 

Mr. MORTON. That is right. It is our personnel; we pay for it. 

Mr. PRICE. Will the gentleman yield just for a question? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. Did I hear you right? You have to secure the approval 

of the individual Ambassador? 

Mr. MORTON. We do. 

Mr. PRICE. Of the country concerned? There is not a State Department authority that you are working with? 

Mr. MORTON. Well, we have a general approval from the State 

Department, and we have an agreed list—the 46 high-risk countries that we have already done. But with regard to each actual 

placement, we must receive the approval from the Ambassador. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is not unusual. As a courtesy, I think, 

the local Ambassador has the approval of even FBI being there. 

Mr. MORTON. That is right. 

Mr. ROGERS. And other agencies, including the Marine Corps. 

Mr. MORTON. The Chief of Mission authority extends to every 

single employee. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is a formality only. It is really the State Department that decides, right? 

Mr. MORTON. A number of Ambassadors have raised concerns 

about whether or not there is space, room at the inn. And so there 

are times when an Ambassador will raise some question. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is that the case in London? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
276 

Mr. MORTON. No. In London now, thankfully, we have approval, 

and we are going forward this year. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does State have any investment, dollar-wise, in 

these units? 

Mr. MORTON. No, we pay for the entire cost. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, these are critical, in especially these locations 

that we have mentioned. It seems to me like we ought to move expeditiously. When do you think we can expect them to be in place? 

Mr. MORTON. I think by the end of the year, we should have everybody in place for the four new ones, and there is another one 

that I can tell you about afterward. 

ILLICIT TRADE

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you briefly about illicit trade investigations. It is part of your chore to enforce illicit trade questions, an 

often overlooked mission, especially on the companies doing business in violation of our Iran embargo. What can you tell us about 

it? 

Mr. MORTON. Well, I can tell you, first, Ranking Member Rogers, 

I appreciate you even noticing that it is a major issue, and it is 

something that we spend a lot of time on, because we do. We spend 

a tremendous amount of time, and it is a critically important part 

of our national security mission. 

This is a national security mission. We are not talking about 

mom-and-pop violations; we are talking about orchestrated attempts on behalf of foreign powers to obtain sensitive information. 

We do a lot of it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Tell us about Mr. Artibelli. 

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Artibelli was working on behalf of various 

international arms dealers to obtain sensitive U.S. weaponry for 

Iran. And there are a number of other cases just like his. 

We do more than 70 percent of these cases, and they involve a 

wide variety of countries trying to obtain our technology, in violation of the law, or our weaponry. And it is a serious problem. We 

are very focused on it. 

It takes a tremendous amount of sophisticated investigation and 

effort to do these. These people do not want to be caught; they do 

not want to come to the United States. They know what they are 

doing is wrong. 

I very much appreciate the support that we get from the committee in this. We could not do it without it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, he pled guilty, did he not? 

Mr. MORTON. He did, and he alternately cooperated. 

Mr. ROGERS. He was, he acknowledged procuring electronic chips 

used in military aircraft? Phase shifters, state-of-the-art devices 

that help guide missiles to their targets? 

Mr. MORTON. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. And various other things. That is pretty sensitive 

stuff. 

Mr. MORTON. Very sensitive. This typically involves attempts, in 

the case of Iran, to obtain items to rehabilitate weaponry that they 

obtained from us many years ago, F–94s and F–5s, or radar installations. Nuclear materials is a constant concern for us. Sensitive 

metallurgy. There are a whole range of very, very sophisticated eiVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
277 

ther material or technology that is produced here in the United 

States that people want to get for cheap and in violation of the law. 

Mr. ROGERS. So these were your agents? 

Mr. MORTON. Absolutely, yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. DOJ was with you, I am sure. 

Mr. MORTON. In some instances, we will partner with the Federal Bureau of Investigations. In many instances, we do them by 

ourselves. And we also work with the Department of Commerce. 

We are the lead in about 70 percent of the cases. And we run the 

National Export Enforcement Coordination Center. 

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you about this. On March 6 past, the 

New York Times reported that the federal government has awarded more than $107 billion in contract payments and other benefits 

over the past decade, to foreign and multinational American companies, American companies, while they were doing business in 

Iran. Including nearly $15 billion paid to companies that defied 

American sanctions, by making large investments that helped Iran 

develop its vast oil and gas reserves. 

What are we doing about that? These are tax dollars. 

Mr. MORTON. I do not know the answer to that question. I am 

unfamiliar with that report. I need to get familiar with it. And 

so—— 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: ICE is the primary agency authorized and responsible for conducting 

investigations involving illegal transactions with Iran. The Counter-Proliferation Investigations (CPI) Unit at ICE Headquarters is tasked with coordinating and supporting investigations into violations of the Iranian Transactions Regulations (that 

implement the sanctions against Iran), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and the Export Administration Act. 

If ICE learns that a United States multinational company is conducting business 

or facilitating the movement of money by means of Iran, ICE contacts the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), to query whether 

that company has obtained a license to conduct business with Iran. If ICE learns 

that a United States multinational company is doing business with Iran and that 

company has not received approval from OFAC, ICE initiates a criminal investigation into that company and all individuals involved in the transaction. This includes 

investigating the movement of money in support of any non-authorized transaction. 

ICE is familar with the New York times article ‘‘Profiting From Iran, and the 

U.S.’’ published March 12, 2010, wherein it was alleged that United States multinational companies are involved in illegal exports to Iran. The CPI unit at ICE 

headquarters has notified field offices of the allegations made in the New York 

Times article as well as the specific companies that were identified. 

ICE has a long history of successful investigations and prosecutions of individuals 

and companies that violate United States export laws, to include Iranian embargo 

violations. To combat the threat, ICE uses a multi-layered approach to include industry outreach visits to manufacturers, brokers, and sellers of sensitive and controlled United States technology and commodities. ICE’s Project Shield America is 

an effective mechanism in which to solicit industry cooperation and support in protecting the United States from illicit procurement attempts by Iran. ICE has a very 

successful undercover operations program wherein agents communicate and meet 

with targets of investigation that are predisposed to violate United States export 

laws. CPI agents also work closely with other ICE agents stationed overseas to coordinate enforcement actions and share intelligence with foreign law enforcement 

partners. ICE’s various investigative techniques combined with its unique border 

search authority have resulted in disrupting and dismantling numerous illicit proliferation networks asymmetrically from the potentially illicit United States source 

companies to the prohibited end user in Iran. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it seems to me like it would be ICE’s chore 

to stop our own government from awarding contracts to U.S. busiVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
278 

nesses in violation of the trade restrictions with Iran. Do you 

agree? 

Mr. MORTON. If there is a violation of the law, absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would like to know what you are doing about that. 

That is the March 6, 2010 edition of the New York Times. I have 

got a copy, would you not know. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Morton. 

Mr. MORTON. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. PRICE. With that, we will bring this hearing to a conclusion, 

with thanks for your appearance and your testimony, and in anticipation of working with you as we write the 2011 bill. 

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, if I just may note, on a closing note, 

I very much appreciate these hearings. I offer again that I am more 

than willing to come and meet with any member of the Committee, 

including the leadership, on any of these issues. And please do not 

hesitate to call. I will personally come and brief you on what we 

are doing. And even if it is a concern you think we are not doing 

something right, well, tell us because I need to know that and work 

on it. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee is adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
279 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 394 here 61840A.206
280 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 395 here 61840A.207
281 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 396 here 61840A.208
282 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 397 here 61840A.209
283 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 398 here 61840A.210
284 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 399 here 61840A.211
285 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 400 here 61840A.212
286 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 401 here 61840A.213
287 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 402 here 61840A.214
288 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 403 here 61840A.215
289 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 404 here 61840A.216
290 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 405 here 61840A.217
291 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 406 here 61840A.218
292 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 407 here 61840A.219
293 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 408 here 61840A.220
294 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 61840A.221
295 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 61840A.222
296 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 411 here 61840A.223
297 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 412 here 61840A.224
298 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 413 here 61840A.225
299 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 414 here 61840A.226
300 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 415 here 61840A.227
301 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 416 here 61840A.228
302 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 417 here 61840A.229
303 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 418 here 61840A.230
304 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 419 here 61840A.231
305 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 420 here 61840A.232
306 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 421 here 61840A.233
307 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 422 here 61840A.234
308 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 423 here 61840A.235
309 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 424 here 61840A.236
310 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 61840A.237
311 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 61840A.238
312 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 427 here 61840A.239
313 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 61840A.240
314 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 61840A.241
315 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 61840A.242
316 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 61840A.243
317 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 61840A.244
318 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 61840A.245
319 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 61840A.246
320 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 61840A.247
321 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 61840A.248
322 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 61840A.249
323 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 61840A.250
324 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 61840A.251
325 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 61840A.252
326 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 61840A.253
327 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 61840A.254
328 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 61840A.255
329 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 61840A.256
330 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 61840A.257
331 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 61840A.258
332 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 61840A.259
333 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 61840A.260
334 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 61840A.261
335 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 61840A.262
336 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 61840A.263
337 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 61840A.264
338 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 61840A.265
339 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 61840A.266
340 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 61840A.267
341 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 61840A.268
342 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 61840A.269
343 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 61840A.270
344 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459 here 61840A.271
345 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 460 here 61840A.272
346 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 461 here 61840A.273
347 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 462 here 61840A.274
348 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 463 here 61840A.275
349 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 464 here 61840A.276
350 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 465 here 61840A.277
351 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 466 here 61840A.278
352 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 467 here 61840A.279
353 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 61840A.280
354 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 469 here 61840A.281
355 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 470 here 61840A.282
356 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 471 here 61840A.283
357 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 472 here 61840A.284
358 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 473 here 61840A.285
359 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 474 here 61840A.286
360 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 475 here 61840A.287
361 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 476 here 61840A.288
362 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 477 here 61840A.289
363 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 478 here 61840A.290
364 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 479 here 61840A.291
365 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 480 here 61840A.292
366 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here 61840A.293
367 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here 61840A.294
368 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 483 here 61840A.295
369 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 484 here 61840A.296
370 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 485 here 61840A.297
371 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 486 here 61840A.298
372 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 487 here 61840A.299
373 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 488 here 61840A.300
374 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 489 here 61840A.301
375 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 490 here 61840A.302
376 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 491 here 61840A.303
377 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 492 here 61840A.304
378 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 493 here 61840A.305
379 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here 61840A.306
380 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here 61840A.307
381 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here 61840A.308
382 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 497 here 61840A.309
383 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 498 here 61840A.310
384 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 499 here 61840A.311
385 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 500 here 61840A.312
386 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 501 here 61840A.313
387 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here 61840A.314
388 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here 61840A.315
389 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here 61840A.316
390 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 61840A.317
391 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 61840A.318
392 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 61840A.319
393 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 61840A.320
394 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 61840A.321
395 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 61840A.322
396 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 61840A.323
397 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 61840A.324
398 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 61840A.325
399 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 61840A.326
400 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 61840A.327
401 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 61840A.328
402 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 61840A.329
403 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 61840A.330
404 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 61840A.331
405 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 61840A.332
406 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 61840A.333
407 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 61840A.334
408 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 61840A.335
409 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 61840A.336
410 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 61840A.337
411 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 61840A.338
412 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 61840A.339
413 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 61840A.340
414 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here 61840A.341
415 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 530 here 61840A.342
416 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here 61840A.343
417 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here 61840A.344
418 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here 61840A.345
419 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here 61840A.346
420 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here 61840A.347
421 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 61840A.348
422 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 61840A.349
423 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 61840A.350
424 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 61840A.351
425 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 61840A.352
426 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here 61840A.353
427 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 542 here 61840A.354
428 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 543 here 61840A.355
429 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 544 here 61840A.356
430 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 545 here 61840A.357
431 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 546 here 61840A.358
432 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 547 here 61840A.359
433 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here 61840A.360
434 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here 61840A.361
435 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here 61840A.362
436 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here 61840A.363
437 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here 61840A.364
438 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here 61840A.365
439 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 554 here 61840A.366
440 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 555 here 61840A.367
441 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here 61840A.368
442 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here 61840A.369
443 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here 61840A.370
444 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here 61840A.371
445 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 61840A.372
446 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 61840A.373
447 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 61840A.374
448 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 61840A.375
449 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 61840A.376
450 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 565 here 61840A.377
451 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 566 here 61840A.378
452 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 567 here 61840A.379
453 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 568 here 61840A.380
454 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 569 here 61840A.381
455 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 570 here 61840A.382
456 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 571 here 61840A.383
457 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 572 here 61840A.384
458 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 573 here 61840A.385
459 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 574 here 61840A.386
460 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 575 here 61840A.387
461 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 576 here 61840A.388
462 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 577 here 61840A.389
463 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 578 here 61840A.390
464 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 579 here 61840A.391
465 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 580 here 61840A.392
466 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 581 here 61840A.393
467 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 582 here 61840A.394
468 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 583 here 61840A.395
469 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 584 here 61840A.396
470 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 585 here 61840A.397
471 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 586 here 61840A.398
472 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 587 here 61840A.399
473 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 588 here 61840A.400
474 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 589 here 61840A.401
475 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 590 here 61840A.402
476 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 591 here 61840A.403
477 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 592 here 61840A.404
478 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 593 here 61840A.405
479 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here 61840A.406
480 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here 61840A.407
481 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here 61840A.408
482 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here 61840A.409
483 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here 61840A.410
484 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here 61840A.411
485 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 600 here 61840A.412
486 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here 61840A.413
487 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here 61840A.414
488 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 61840A.415
489 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here 61840A.416
490 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here 61840A.417
491 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here 61840A.418
492 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 61840A.419
493 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 61840A.420
494 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 61840A.421
495 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 61840A.422
496 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 611 here 61840A.423
497 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 612 here 61840A.424
498 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 613 here 61840A.425
499 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 614 here 61840A.426
500 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 61840A.427
501 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 61840A.428
502 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 61840A.429
503 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 618 here 61840A.430
504 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 619 here 61840A.431
505 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 620 here 61840A.432
506 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 621 here 61840A.433
507 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 622 here 61840A.434
508 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 623 here 61840A.435
509 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 624 here 61840A.436
510 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 625 here 61840A.437
511 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 626 here 61840A.438
512 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627 here 61840A.439
513 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 61840A.440
514 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 61840A.441
515 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 61840A.442
516 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 61840A.443
517 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 632 here 61840A.444
518 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 61840A.445
519 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 61840A.446
520 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 635 here 61840A.447
521 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 61840A.448
522 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 61840A.449
523 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 638 here 61840A.450
524 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 639 here 61840A.451
525 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 640 here 61840A.452
526 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 641 here 61840A.453
527 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 642 here 61840A.454
528 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 643 here 61840A.455
529 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 644 here 61840A.456
530 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 645 here 61840A.457
531 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 646 here 61840A.458
532 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 647 here 61840A.459
533 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 648 here 61840A.460
534 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 649 here 61840A.461
535 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 650 here 61840A.462
536 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 651 here 61840A.463
537 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 652 here 61840A.464
538 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 653 here 61840A.465
539 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 654 here 61840A.466
540 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 655 here 61840A.467
541 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 61840A.468
542 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 61840A.469
543 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 61840A.470
544 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 61840A.471
545 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 61840A.472
546 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 61840A.473
547 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 61840A.474
548 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 61840A.475
549 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 61840A.476
550 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 61840A.477
551 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 666 here 61840A.478
552 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 667 here 61840A.479
553 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 668 here 61840A.480
554 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 669 here 61840A.481
555 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 670 here 61840A.482
556 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 671 here 61840A.483
557 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 672 here 61840A.484
558 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 673 here 61840A.485
559 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 674 here 61840A.486
560 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 675 here 61840A.487
561 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 676 here 61840A.488
562 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 677 here 61840A.489
563 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 678 here 61840A.490
564 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 679 here 61840A.491
565 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 680 here 61840A.492
566 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 681 here 61840A.493
567 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 682 here 61840A.494
568 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 683 here 61840A.495
569 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 684 here 61840A.496
570 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 685 here 61840A.497
571 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 686 here 61840A.498
572 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 687 here 61840A.499
573 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 688 here 61840A.500
574 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 689 here 61840A.501
575 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 690 here 61840A.502
576 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 691 here 61840A.503
577 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 692 here 61840A.504
578 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 693 here 61840A.505
579 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 694 here 61840A.506
580 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 695 here 61840A.507
581 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 696 here 61840A.508
582 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 697 here 61840A.509
583 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 698 here 61840A.510
584 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 699 here 61840A.511
585 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 700 here 61840A.512
586 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 701 here 61840A.513
587 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 702 here 61840A.514
588 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 703 here 61840A.515
589 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 704 here 61840A.516
590 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 705 here 61840A.517
591 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 706 here 61840A.518
592 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 707 here 61840A.519
593 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 708 here 61840A.520
594 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 709 here 61840A.521
595 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 710 here 61840A.522
596 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 711 here 61840A.523
597 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 712 here 61840A.524
598 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 713 here 61840A.525
599 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 714 here 61840A.526
600 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 715 here 61840A.527
601 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 716 here 61840A.528
602 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 717 here 61840A.529
603 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 718 here 61840A.530
604 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 719 here 61840A.531
605 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 720 here 61840A.532
606 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 721 here 61840A.533
607 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 722 here 61840A.534
608 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 723 here 61840A.535
609 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 724 here 61840A.536
610 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 725 here 61840A.537
611 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 726 here 61840A.538
612 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 727 here 61840A.539
613 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 728 here 61840A.540
614 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 729 here 61840A.541
615 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 730 here 61840A.542
616 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 731 here 61840A.543
617 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 732 here 61840A.544
618 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 733 here 61840A.545
619 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 734 here 61840A.546
620 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 735 here 61840A.547
621 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 736 here 61840A.548
622 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 737 here 61840A.549
623 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 738 here 61840A.550
624 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 739 here 61840A.551
625 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 740 here 61840A.552
626 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 741 here 61840A.553
627 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 61840A.554
628 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 61840A.555
629 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 61840A.556
630 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 61840A.557
631 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 61840A.558
632 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 747 here 61840A.559
633 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 748 here 61840A.560
634 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 749 here 61840A.561
635 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 750 here 61840A.562
636 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 751 here 61840A.563
637 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 752 here 61840A.564
638 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 753 here 61840A.565
639 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 754 here 61840A.566
640 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 755 here 61840A.567
641 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 756 here 61840A.568
642 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 757 here 61840A.569
643 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 758 here 61840A.570
644 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 759 here 61840A.571
645 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 760 here 61840A.572
646 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 761 here 61840A.573
647 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 762 here 61840A.574
648 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 763 here 61840A.575
649 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 764 here 61840A.576
650 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 765 here 61840A.577
651 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 766 here 61840A.578
652 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 767 here 61840A.579
653 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 768 here 61840A.580
654 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 769 here 61840A.581
655 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 770 here 61840A.582
656 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 771 here 61840A.583
657 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 772 here 61840A.584
658 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 773 here 61840A.585
659 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 774 here 61840A.586
660 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 775 here 61840A.587
661 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 776 here 61840A.588
662 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 777 here 61840A.589
663 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 778 here 61840A.590
664 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 779 here 61840A.591
665 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 780 here 61840A.592
666 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 781 here 61840A.593
667 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 782 here 61840A.594
668 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 783 here 61840A.595
669 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 784 here 61840A.596
670 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 785 here 61840A.597
671 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 786 here 61840A.598
672 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 787 here 61840A.599
673 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 788 here 61840A.600
674 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 789 here 61840A.601
675 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 790 here 61840A.602
676 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 791 here 61840A.603
677 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 792 here 61840A.604
678 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 793 here 61840A.605
679 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 794 here 61840A.606
680 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 795 here 61840A.607
681 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 796 here 61840A.608
682 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 797 here 61840A.609
683 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 798 here 61840A.610
684 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 799 here 61840A.611
685 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 800 here 61840A.612
686 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 801 here 61840A.613
687 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 802 here 61840A.614
688 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 803 here 61840A.615
689 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 804 here 61840A.616

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(691) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010.

CIS—FY2011 BUDGET HEARING 

WITNESS 

ALEJANDRO ‘‘ALI’’ MAYORKAS, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good afternoon, everyone. This afternoon we are happy to welcome Director Ali Mayorkas to discuss the 2011 budget request for 

the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, or CIS, in 

his first appearance before our Subcommittee. The Administration 

is requesting $386 million in discretionary appropriations for CIS, 

an increase of 72 percent over the 2010 enacted level. This large 

increase stands in contrast to many other programs at DHS, the 

budgets for which have been held virtually flat or even reduced in 

2011. 

CIS operations are funded through a mix of discretionary appropriations and nonappropriated collections. The vast majority of 

CIS’s resources come from the application fees collected when 

someone applies for an immigration benefit, which covers the cost 

of adjudicating the application and processing all of the necessary 

paperwork. While we expect CIS will continue to be largely feefunded, if appears that ongoing fee shortfalls have contributed to 

policy decisions that shift more operational costs to the taxpayers 

and away from fees. We will need to discuss this approach in detail 

and, as we move toward marking up our bill, review the longerterm impacts of this proposal carefully. The most significant shift is a $207 million discretionary request 

for CIS to process asylum claims and refugee applications, an increase of $157 million over the 2010 appropriation. Currently the 

cost of processing refugee and asylum applications is borne by 

other immigration applicants. The 2011 budget proposes fully shifting this cost to general revenue. While Congress started this transition in the 2010 Appropriations Act by funding 3 months of taxpayer-financed processing, CIS has yet to discontinue the surcharge 

it imposes on other immigration applicants. So, Mr. Director, the 

conference report made it clear that CIS would not be allowed to 

double-dip and to charge immigration applicants and taxpayers for 

asylum and refugee processing. We want an update today on when 

the regulations will be published to discontinue the application surcharge. 

The 2011 budget also proposes a new discretionary appropriation of $34 million to fund Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE. This program complements E-Verify and is used 

by State and local governments to validate people’s immigration 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
692 

status when they apply for various State-administered benefits, 

such as driver’s licenses, Medicaid enrollment, and food stamps or 

other welfare benefits. 

Currently the SAVE program is also financed through CIS’s fee 

collections. Your proposal would shift the cost, again, to general 

revenues. There are going to be arguments on both sides of this 

proposal, so we are eager to understand in more detail the reasons 

you proposed a change such as this at this time. 

Discretionary funding for E-Verify itself is decreased in the 2011 

budget. As explained in the budget justification, the higher-thanrequested appropriation for E-Verify in 2010 as well as some nonrecurring investments planned in the current year will permit CIS 

to continue expanding E-Verify enrollment in 2011 with a lower 

level of funding. 

I am concerned, however, by the findings of a recent Westat 

study that revealed an inadequate level of compliance auditing and 

analysis designed to prevent fraudulent uses of E-Verify. In this 

Committee’s report accompanying the fiscal year 2010 House bill, 

we supported CIS plans to expand the monitoring and compliance 

staff to ensure E-verify is not used for employment discrimination 

or other prohibited purposes. Mr. Director, we will be interested to 

know where that initiative stands and how the 2011 request will 

adequately address these concerns. 

In 2011, CIS projects a decrease in expenditures from fee-based revenue of $209 million, largely because of one-time expenditures 

and an anticipated decrease in applications. Even though application fees were raised substantially in July of 2007, a surge of applications were filed just before the higher fees took effect. Since then 

CIS has seen its filing volumes drop and has spent down its sizable 

cash balances that were accumulated by virtue of that surge. 

The recent 2010 reprogramming that this Subcommittee approved does not leave the agency much of a financial cushion if 

lower filing volumes persist. Given the Federal budget deficit, it 

also seems unlikely Congress will be in a position to provide discretionary appropriations for CIS operations if processing times begin 

to lag. 

Although the most recent production report show the CIS application backlog all but eliminated, I am concerned that it might 

come back. So, Mr. Director, we need to talk frankly about the 

longer-term implications of lower fee projections and your outlook 

for CIS finances in 2011. I look forward to hearing your plans for 

avoiding any financial crisis that might threaten your agency. 

Given this wide range of topics we need to discuss, we will ask 

you to limit your introductory statement to 5 minutes. We will 

gladly put the full statement in the record. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
693 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 810 here 61840A.617
694 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 811 here 61840A.618
695 

Mr. PRICE. Before we hear from you, I recognize my friend and 

Ranking Member Hal Rogers for his opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER HAROLD ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Welcome to Director Mayorkas in what marks your 

first appearance before the Subcommittee. While I know we are 

primarily here, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the fiscal 2011 budget request, I have to say this witness’ personal story is perhaps one of 

the most compelling we have heard for someone responsible for 

overseeing our Nation’s immigration service: the son of Cuban immigrants who fled Castro’s Communist regime, an individual who 

worked his way up to become one of our Nation’s youngest U.S. Attorneys, and a dedicated prosecutor who sought to uphold the law 

by aggressively tackling the most challenging cases on discrimination and violent crime. This story is a truly American one, and embodies what our immigration system ought to be about, integrity 

and opportunity. 

In fact, CIS’s mission statement echoes this sentiment through 

the use of phrases like ‘‘lawful immigration,’’ ‘‘legal right to work,’’ 

‘‘civic integration,’’ ‘‘lawful presence in the U.S.,’’ and ‘‘strengthening the security and integrity of the immigration system.’’ These 

are not just mere words. These are bedrock principles for the agency that facilitates the rights, responsibilities, privileges and obligations of citizenship and visitation to the U.S. 

I am quite sure that you, Director Mayorkas, subscribe to these 

principles because of your background and your legal experience, 

but as I look at how the Administration is approaching immigration, I am increasingly concerned. 

First, immigration enforcement appears to be grinding to a halt, 

and while this is an issue that is most appropriate to discuss with 

ICE, it speaks to larger concerns on how DHS is ensuring the integrity of our immigration system, as well as lawful employment. 

Secondly, at a time when revenue is barely meeting CIS’s operating costs, the agency has yet to properly adjust its fees and is expanding the use of so-called reform in a claim of fairness to shift 

what have traditionally been fee-funded activities to activities supported by direct appropriations. What this means in real terms is 

that the Administration is shifting the cost of some immigration 

programs and benefits from applicants to the U.S. taxpayer. 

Third, recent reports have raised questions about E-Verify’s effectiveness, a program that Congress has robustly funded, and one 

that is absolutely vital to ensuring lawful employment and protecting American jobs. 

Finally, the pace of CIS’s transformation initiative continues to 

be a concern. This Subcommittee has appropriated funds for aspects of transformation since 2004, but it is unclear exactly when 

CIS will reap some savings and efficiencies from moving to operations that are more automated and less dependent upon manpower and paper. 

These concerns are not trivial. Immigration is absolutely central 

to our Nation’s security as well as to our economy. Look no further 

than the al Qaeda-led terrorist plots that occurred within the U.S. 

this past year. Both the Christmas Day attack and the Zazi plot 

involved individuals who exploited our legal immigration system to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
696 

gain entry into our country in order to carry out their various 

plans. 

So as I have said many times before, a viable immigration system based upon legitimacy and the rule of law very much matters 

to our homeland security. Without enforcing our immigration processes and laws, the true contribution and value that immigrants 

bring to America cannot be fully realized. 

Director Mayorkas, I know you have a difficult job, but given 

your commendable journey from Cuba and your current seat, I am 

confident you share my interests in getting our immigration system 

right. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the discussions. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
697 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 815 61840A.619
698 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 816 61840A.620
699 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 817 61840A.621
700 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 818 61840A.622
701 

Mr. PRICE. Director Mayorkas, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS

Mr. MAYORKAS. Thank you very much, Chairman Price, Congressman Rogers, and other Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you very much for inviting me to appear before you today to testify 

about our budget request for fiscal year 2011 and several critical 

issues of interest to the Subcommittee and to our agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

If I may, Congressman Rogers, thank you very much for your remarks about my personal history. I attribute whatever success I 

have achieved to the parenting I received. Regrettably, whatever 

shortcomings I have are my own responsibility. 

It is a privilege for me to be here today. On behalf our entire 

agency, thank you for your support of CIS and its programs. Increased funding this year will enable us to make further improvements to E-Verify, an important tool in ensuring a lawful workplace. A significant increase in immigrant integration funding will 

assist us as we build capacity across the Nation, integrate immigrants into our communities and build a stronger civic fabric. 

Providing funds to eliminate the asylum and refugee surcharge 

will help us strengthen the alignment between our fees and the 

costs of these applications and petitions. These are just a few examples of program improvements that your continued support 

make possible. 

While our budget request for fiscal year 2011 is consistent with 

your recent past actions on our funding, I appreciate and understand the constraints you are facing in this difficult budget environment. 

Our agency faces several operational and management challenges. Our challenges, however, present opportunities. To enhance 

our national security and the integrity of our immigration system, 

we have established a new directorate devoted exclusively to fraud 

detection and national security, and to develop improved safeguards and security measures in our operations. 

A decline in revenue underscores the importance of developing 

new and greater efficiencies. This is acutely significant for us as an 

agency funded primarily by applicant and petitioner fees. Inherent 

challenges in our immigration system have led us to improve operational transparency, begin initiatives to create consistency and 

predictability in agency actions, strengthen community outreach 

and improve customer service functions. 

Our outdated information technology infrastructure has led us to 

reassess how we operate so that we can move more quickly from 

a paper-based workplace to one that is account-centric and more reliant on electronic information. 

Challenges indeed present opportunities, and these opportunities 

in the hands of the men and women of the U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services will mean a stronger and brighter future for 

our agency and for the public we serve. There can be no stronger 

recent example of this than the dedication and skill our personnel 

exhibited in the tragic wake of the January 12th earthquake in 

Haiti. Working tirelessly and selflessly day and night, our workforce brought hundreds of Haitian orphans to safety and humaniVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00701 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
702 

tarian relief to thousands of Haitian nationals in our country who 

could not return safely to their homeland. What we have done since 

January 12th and what we continue to do is a shining example of 

our abilities and our potential. 

Each and every day around this great Nation, our agency celebrates the naturalization of immigrants who have come to this 

country with the hope of a better life, and who have earned the gift 

of citizenship, just as I did in 1973. We host these ceremonies on 

workdays and on special days such as those commemorating our 

Nation’s independence. Gaining the rights and assuming the responsibilities of United States citizenship is a privilege that we are 

proud to administer. 

We are thankful and proud of your support. Your demands and 

expectations help define our goals and aspirations. I am privileged 

to be before you today, and I look forward to working with you and 

to answering your questions as best I can. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
703 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 823 61840A.623
704 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 824 61840A.624
705 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 825 61840A.625
706 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 826 61840A.626
707 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 827 61840A.627
708 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 828 61840A.628
709 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 829 61840A.629
710 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 830 61840A.630
711 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 831 61840A.631
712 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 832 61840A.632
713 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 833 61840A.633
714 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 834 61840A.634
715 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 835 61840A.635
716 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 836 61840A.636
717 

ASYLUM AND REFUGEE FEE RULE

Mr. PRICE. We will now begin with some questions. I will begin 

with a question with several parts about CIS financing, some of the 

concerns I telegraphed in my opening statement. 

We have not yet heard from your agency about how or when the 

application surcharges for asylum and refugee processing will be 

discontinued. There is widespread agreement that they should be 

discontinued. We appropriated $50 million for this activity in 2010, 

but it remains unavailable for expenditure until a regulatory update is published. The 2011 request assumed that the surcharge 

will be discontinued since the budget includes $200 million for a 

full year’s worth of asylum and refugee application processing. 

So as we look toward 2011 and the kind of money that is going 

to be required, we need to know when you plan to publish the regulatory update to discontinue the refugee and asylum processing 

surcharge. And given the fact that we are nearly halfway through 

the fiscal year, we wonder, are you sure you can do this? Are you 

concerned you may not be able to spend the entire $50 million appropriated in 2010 that was designed for 3 months of asylum and 

refugee processing? In other words, the 2010 appropriation assumed that the new regulations would be in place for the last quarter of the current fiscal year. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are 

grateful for the $50 million that was allocated in the Fiscal Year 

2010 budget. 

Our draft fee rule, is indeed in the clearance process. We are 

very mindful of the timing requirement to make those funds available this year, both in terms of their availability and our ability to 

spend the resources that this Committee appropriated to us. So 

that fee rule is in the clearance process, and we anticipate our successful deployment of it within the time frame that this committee 

set for us. 

The request for a greater appropriated amount to fully cover the 

fees imposed on other fee-paying applicants and beneficiaries for 

the costs of servicing asylee and refugee applications is something 

that we believe allows us to better align the fee-for-services model 

that our agency’s financial condition is premised upon. 

We do believe it is incumbent upon us to serve that model by relieving paying applicants and petitioners of the burden of paying 

for services that they do not receive. 

Mr. PRICE. Mainly the services rendered asylees and refugees? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, who are the most ill-equipped to pay, given 

their circumstances. 

Mr. PRICE. So the idea is to eliminate that surcharge which other 

immigrants have paid. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. And to make their fees commensurate with the actual 

services they themselves are actually receiving. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, to truly align the fee-for-services model. 

Mr. PRICE. Your projection is you will be able to implement this 

system in the last quarter of the current fiscal year? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. It is, Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
718 

USING GENERAL REVENUE TO FINANCE CIS OPERATIONS

Mr. PRICE. Good. Well, we will await that eventuality, because 

we hope it will be done this year, and therefore we will be in a position next year to implement this fully. 

I would also like to hear your thoughts about how much of the 

CIS budget should eventually be funded by tax revenues. Under 

current law you receive most of your operations by charging fees 

to immigration applicants. The 2010 Appropriation Act started 

shifting the cost burden for asylum and refugee processing to taxpayers, as we have been discussing. The 2011 budget proposes another proposal to fund another CIS program through appropriations, namely the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements 

program, or the SAVE program. 

To determine benefits applicants’ immigration status, State and 

local agencies currently pay fees that fund the cost to administer 

the SAVE program. Although these fees don’t cover the full cost of 

SAVE, if users no longer have to pay to use SAVE, should we expect an increase in usage? Does this budget account for this potential outcome by investing in a greater capacity for SAVE? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Mr. Chairman, the amounts that we requested 

from this committee by way of appropriation (most notably that one 

that you already have referenced, the effort to relieve fee-paying 

applicants and beneficiaries of the surcharge for refugees and 

asylees, and now the second one, the effort to relieve fee-paying applicants and beneficiaries of the cost of the SAVE program) do not 

reflect an administration effort to move from the fee-for-services 

model but rather to align our agency’s budget with the principles 

of that fee-for-services model, which is that the fee-paying applicant or beneficiary pays a fee commensurate with the cost to our 

agency of providing the service to that individual petitioner or beneficiary. 

So the cost of the SAVE program, what we are seeking to do with 

the appropriation, is, in fact, to relieve the fee-paying petitioner 

and beneficiary of supplementing the funding for that service when 

they do not necessarily receive the benefit of it. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me make sure I understand this. The State and 

local agencies that are using this service do currently pay a fee. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, they do. 

Mr. PRICE. But the fee doesn’t cover the cost totally of the SAVE 

program. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. That is correct. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. And so the rest of the cost is picked up 

how? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. The rest of the cost is picked up by the fees paid 

by applicants and beneficiaries who do not avail themselves of the 

SAVE program. Therefore, we are seeking to relieve them of essentially that surcharge and to better align that fee that individuals 

pay with the services that they directly receive. 

Mr. PRICE. And what will the situation of the direct users of the 

SAVE program be? Will they still pay a fee that partially covers 

the cost? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. No, Mr. Chairman. The appropriation that we 

have requested would relieve state, local and municipality organiVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00718 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
719 

zations from paying the fee. Currently they cover, I think, approximately 25 percent of the cost of the SAVE program. 

Mr. PRICE. That is what I thought. That is why I asked, do you 

anticipate this would discourage use? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Actually our desire is to promote use, and it is 

intended to be an obligatory use of the SAVE program for the obvious security and antifraud benefits that participants realize. 

Mr. PRICE. So you expect a possible increase in use by the virtue 

of the absence of any fee whatsoever? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. What about the broader question? How much of the 

CIS operating budget do you think ought to be funded by fees? You 

have articulated a general principle here, although the conclusion 

you have reached with respect to SAVE doesn’t seem totally consistent with that in that you are removing any fees whatsoever 

from the users of that program. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. From the federal, state, local and municipal organizations, yes, we are. Chairman, I am 7 months into my tenure. 

I have focused primarily on the operational issues and challenges 

that our agency confronts. I have not spent a great deal of time trying to determine whether reformulation of our funding model is appropriate or not. That is something that I have given some thought 

and have begun to study. 

But my focus has been, to date, on seeking the funds that our 

agency needs and ensuring that our fraud detection and national 

security functions are operational, that our customer service obligations and responsibilities are met fully for the benefit of the public 

that we serve and that our critical current responsibilities are met. 

Refashioning the way we as an agency are funded is something 

that I have not yet focused upon. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 

E-VERIFY

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me talk to you about E-Verify. At last year’s hearing, we discussed how the inaccuracy claims against E-Verify were simply unfounded. But then the Wall Street Journal came out with an article 

about a month ago that said that E-Verify might be failing to detect one out of two illegal workers whose employment authorizations are screened, outside consultants have told the agency. Tens 

of thousands of companies—I am quoting from the story—participate in E-Verify, either voluntarily or as a condition of doing business with the government. 

The Department hired Westat, a consulting firm, to study the 

program and tell us whether or not the information that E-Verify 

has is accurate or not, and the report came back in essence saying 

that E-Verify is only as good as the data entered into it. In other 

words, E-Verify is, in fact, accurate at confirming the data it is presented, but it can’t confirm whether that data belongs to the worker who is submitting it. 

Is that an accurate statement that I made? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, if I can address the E-Verify topic 

as a whole. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
720 

The past criticism lodged against E-Verify was that E-Verify 

failed to authorize immediately potential employees who, in fact, 

were authorized to work in the United States. The Westat report, 

based on data in 2008, concluded that for authorized employees, EVerify’s accuracy rate is more than 99 percent. So, no longer is EVerify the subject of criticism in that realm. 

Westat then turned to a different community of potential employees, and that was the community of individuals who are, unauthorized. Putting aside for a moment the standard deviation and the 

potential shortcomings in the statistical model, Westat concluded 

that approximately 6.2 percent of the employees running through 

the E-Verify system were, in fact, unauthorized to work in the 

United States. 

I think one thing is very important to note about that. E-Verify, 

the use of E-Verify by the employer serves as a tremendous deterrent to the unauthorized worker seeking to gain employment for 

which that unauthorized worker is not entitled. 6.2 percent is a 

small percentage of the entire potential workforce that runs 

through E-Verify. And what the Westat report concluded is that, of 

that 6.2 percent, E-Verify failed to identify 54 percent of the workers who were unauthorized. 

So, 54 percent of a 6.2 percent subset of employees or potential 

employees runs through E-Verify, and, therefore, a much, much 

smaller number than the article or the Westat study, out of context, would imply. The 54 percent is only the numerator in the 

number. The denominator is 6.2 percent of the entire workforce. 

We are very proud of the fact that E-Verify continues to improve 

and has, in fact, implemented a series of improvements since the 

Westat data were collected in 2008. We have implemented the use 

of a photo tool to use the DHS photo database to better detect identity fraud. We will be accessing the Department of State’s portfolio 

of photographs to further supplement that effort. We intend to deploy 11,000 compliance actions in our enhanced monitoring and 

compliance efforts to detect employers who are misusing the system. 

We have a number of improvements already in place and 

planned, so we are actually very proud of the success of E-Verify. 

I will tell you that as a federal prosecutor who prosecuted identity 

fraud cases, they are sometimes very difficult to detect before the 

offense is committed. E-Verify is but one tool in our portfolio of 

measures to address identity fraud. 

Mr. ROGERS. So when this newspaper story says, ‘‘An evaluation 

of E-Verify carried out for DHS by research group Westat found the 

program couldn’t confirm whether information workers were presenting was their own, and as a result many unauthorized employees obtained employment by committing identity fraud that cannot 

be detected by E-Verify,’’ that allegation in the story is incorrect? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. I think that the story accurately communicates 

the fact that the E-Verify program is, indeed, not 100 percent able 

to detect identity fraud and that it does detect identity fraud slightly less than half the time. 

We have, as I mentioned, Congressman, implemented measures 

to improve that ratio of success. We have additional measures 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
721 

planned to further improve it, and other tools are at the government’s disposal to address the offense when E-Verify falls short. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am glad to hear that. It is a terribly important 

tool, because if we have a reasonably accurate database where prospective employers can screen an applicant for a job to find out 

whether or not they are authorized to work in the U.S., that then 

clears the way—if the employer, in fact, hires an illegal alien, it 

clears the way for us to prosecute the employer. So it is a terribly 

important program, one that I feel strongly about and support 

fully. We gave you $25 million, an additional $25 million, this year for 

E-Verify to enhance the system and to ensure it is capable to process the Federal contractor requirement, among others. Do you need 

more money, or is that enough? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. We have sought an appropriation for Fiscal Year 

2011, Congressman, that is less than the amount that we sought 

for the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriation. The 2010 appropriation provided 2-year money. We have some carryover money. We are very 

proud of the improvements we already have implemented, and we 

have future plans for improvement of E-Verify. 

Mr. ROGERS. Tell us how many participants you have now, employers. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. I have those data, if I may have a moment. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the newspaper story says close to 30,000. Is 

that reasonably accurate? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. I am sorry, Congressman? 

Mr. ROGERS. Close to 30,000. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. We have, I believe, more than that, Congressman. I have that information. 

Ms. RATLIFF. We have the most recent information from this 

morning, if I may hand it to him, the most recent statistics. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. We have 700,000 work sites that currently employ the E-Verify system or benefit from it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Seven hundred thousand work sites. Do you know 

the number of employers, or is that the number? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. One hundred ninety-two thousand one hundred 

eight is the most recent figure. 

Mr. ROGERS. The number of employers. That is a rapid growth; 

is it not? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. The employers, yes. We continue to receive approximately 1,400 new participating employers per week in the EVerify system. 

Mr. CALVERT. Would the gentleman yield for a second on that 

point? 

I thought you were growing the system by approximately 1,000 

employees a month. You are saying you are growing the system by 

1,000 employers a month. You are right. So how many employees 

does that equate to? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, we are actually increasing the program by more than 1,000 employers. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thanks for that clarification; 1,000 employers per 

week. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Per week. 

Mr. CALVERT. And how many employees does that equate to? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
722 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Approximately 6 million so far this year. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Just a follow-up question on that. Your testimony indicates you are about 96 percent accuracy with E-Verify? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. The Westat report reported an accuracy rate of 

96 percent. 

Mr. FARR. What does 4 percent represent in total number of people? You say you have about 6 million? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. We have run through approximately 6 million 

thus far this year. 

Mr. FARR. The point is even 4 percent, that is a lot of people, if 

it is screwing up on one thing or another. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. If I divide that number a little more surgically, 

Congressman, I think your question is a fair one. The accuracy rate 

of E-Verify is 96 percent overall. That speaks to both the authorized workforce and the unauthorized workforce as identified numerically by Westat. 

With respect to the authorized workforce, E-Verify’s accuracy 

rate is just more than 99 percent, which means that E-Verify accurately identifies a potential employee as work-authorized when, in 

fact, that potential employee is work-authorized more than 99 percent of the time. 

The success rate is reduced slightly when one takes into consideration the unauthorized workforce and E-Verify’s ability to detect, 

because of identity fraud, the unauthorized workforce. And as Congressman Rogers correctly noted, the success rate of E-Verify in 

that arena is not as high. 

APPLICATION PROCESSING TIMES

Mr. FARR. By the way, I want to thank you for what you all have 

done in Haiti. I think it is remarkable, and I appreciate it. That 

was great. Please pass our compliments to all of your staffers that 

worked so hard. 

My staff brings up processing times. We get a lot of casework, 

and it is processing, and you have made some great improvements. 

What are those standards? You indicate you have greatly improved 

on the standards and the times. What are the present standards 

for processing? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Well, we had goals that we set for ourselves as 

an agency, Congressman, and I think the best example of our success in meeting those goals is with respect to the critical N–400 application, which is the application for naturalization. 

Mr. FARR. It takes how long? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Our processing times used to be more than 10 

months for an application, and it is currently just more than 4 

months. So we are very proud of that improvement, and I think 

that improvement is characteristic of the progress we have made 

in our processing times across the board. 

Mr. FARR. There was a cabdriver the other day coming in from 

Dulles airport that said he just sent his old immigration card to get 

the new one. They screwed up on his name, and it was not his fault 

because his name was on the application. So they are waiving the 

fee, just told him they put it in the mail. But they told him it 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
723 

would take I don’t know how many months just to get his name 

corrected and get the card back to him. Is that typical, due to an 

error like that? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. No, it isn’t, and I, of course, can’t speak to that 

particular case, Congressman. But I think it is fair to compliment 

our agency with respect to our agency’s work in Haiti. I think, 

knowing what I know from the brief 7 months that I have been 

here, I would like to expand that compliment to all the work that 

the men and women in our agency perform. That is not to say that, 

from time to time, we don’t make mistakes. Lord knows I outnumber anyone in our agency with respect to that. But the improvement in the processing times we have achieved, I think, is a 

hallmark. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Mr. FARR. It has certainly gotten a lot better, there is no doubt 

about it. But if you are one of those individuals that gets caught 

up where it doesn’t go fast, it is still problematic. 

You have a new Office of Public Engagement. How is that outreach? Who do you outreach to? Who are considered your external 

partners? You mentioned in your testimony, but I don’t know what 

external partners are. Are those contractors, or what are they? Are 

they Congress or our staffs? Who are they? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, we stood up the Office of Public 

Engagement on the following very basic principles: That we are a 

public service agency and that we deal with the fundamental rights 

of individuals who seek a place in this country. 

Mr. FARR. I know that. But the question is who are your external 

partners, as you used that word in your testimony? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Our external partners or stakeholders, Congressman, are the general public, the advocacy community that represents the immigrants who come before us, the law enforcement 

community that is concerned about the integrity of our system, individuals who have an interest in the proper functioning of the immigration system regardless of the views that they might hold with 

respect to that system. Our external stakeholders include the applicants and beneficiaries, individuals that represent them, and the 

broader public, of course. 

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

Mr. Calvert. 

E-VERIFY IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Going back to E-Verify just for a moment, I am the original author of the legislation from back in 1996, and I know significant 

improvements have taken place over the years. But getting back to 

this issue of identity fraud, can you verify exactly what you are 

doing to allow employees to lock in their Social Security numbers; 

in other words, where we prevent or certainly cut down on the 

number of times that people can continually, repeatedly use the 

same Social Security number? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, Congressman. Thank you very much. That 

is a very important tool that we are utilizing to help ensure that 

a Social Security number is not misused. An employee has the abilVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00723 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
724 

ity to, once that employee begins the term of employment, lock in 

the Social Security number, so that anyone else who seeks to use 

that Social Security number again in a case of attempted identity 

fraud would be prevented from doing so. 

Our work, the E-Verify program, is a collaborative effort between 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and our partner, the Social Security Administration. 

Mr. CALVERT. How is that coming along? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Very successfully. We are always looking for further improvements, given, I think, what Congressman Rogers has 

correctly identified as the threat to the integrity of the system, and 

that is those who seek to fraudulently use a false identity to gain 

employment. 

Mr. CALVERT. As you know, there have been a number of critics 

over the years that claim that people authorized to work in the 

United States are being denied jobs. Has anyone ever sued the Department for losing a job over E-Verify? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Not that we are aware of, Congressman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Can you kind of review what the process is for individuals who receive a tentative nonconfirmation? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, what happens is if an individual 

receives a tentative nonconfirmation (and that is after they have 

begun the period of employment), they have 10 federal business 

days within which to obtain the records necessary to establish their 

authorization. 

It is interesting that if E-Verify issues a tentative nonconfirmation and, at the end of the 10 federal business day period, the employee is able to establish work authorization, that is determined 

to be an error on the part of the E-Verify system. And I think that 

terminology is actually misplaced because the tentative nonconfirmation may, in fact, be predicated upon the Social Security Administration records that are in place with respect to that potential 

employee. 

So, for example, a wife who has recently married and who has 

not updated her Social Security record may receive a tentative nonconfirmation, may utilize the 10-day period within which to correct 

the Social Security number. 

Mr. CALVERT. Wouldn’t you agree it would be better for individuals to be notified of an inaccuracy of their information sooner 

rather than later? It needs to get straightened out at some point. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, and we are actually working on a program 

to equip the potential employee with the ability to determine the 

accuracy of the Social Security records before seeking employment. 

Mr. CALVERT. By the way, back to tentative nonconfirmation, 

what is the most common reason for someone to receive a tentative 

nonconfirmation? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. A marriage, Congressman. 

ALIGNING CIS FEES WITH BENEFICIARIES

Mr. CALVERT. Let me see. One other issue that the Chairman 

brought up, these processing fees for visas and green cards. Just 

to clarify that, there is apparently some interest in increasing appropriation to cover the increased costs. But don’t you think that 

is improper, to shift that cost to the U.S. taxpayer? Shouldn’t we 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
725 

just increase the fees relative to the actual administrative costs of 

these processing fees? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, are you referring to the refugee 

and asylee population? 

Mr. CALVERT. I am talking about fees for visas, for green cards, 

the normal processing fees that are going on at the present time. 

I understand that you are only collecting a portion of those costs, 

actual costs and fees, and that there is some discussion about increasing the appropriation to cover the differential. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. The three things, Congressman, in our budget 

request for Fiscal Year 2011 for which we are seeking a greater appropriation—actually, I am sorry, efforts to better align the requested fees with the costs of providing the service to the individual paying the fee are to relieve the fee-paying petitioners’ and 

surcharge applicants’ relief from the cost of the adjudication and 

processing of asylum and refugee applications; the SAVE program, 

to which the Chairman referred; and the funding for the Office of 

Citizenship and the Immigrant Integration Program. I am very 

happy to comment that, if you so wish. 

Mr. CALVERT. Are you saying there is not cost shifting going on 

as far as the difference between the actual fee and the appropriation? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Not beyond those that I identified, unless I am 

in error. 

Mr. CALVERT. So if someone applies for a green card, for instance, and the fee is X, that is the actual cost to the Department 

for processing that green card? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. That is the way our cost model works. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. If I may, keeping in mind that currently there 

is a surcharge for asylees and refugees of which we are trying to 

relieve that fee-paying applicant or beneficiary. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

CIS FEE MODEL

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Welcome, Mr. Mayorkas. I want to go back 

to the question of fees, not the appropriated fees for the refugees, 

because it is my understanding that the fees that are paid by immigrants for green cards and visas cover far more than just the 

cost of processing their application; that, in fact, your agency’s entire infrastructure, including this new electronic system, is supported by these revenues. Is that correct? Because my understanding is that what happens is that that is one of the reasons 

that the fees continue to rise, and, unfortunately, in some cases 

they rise to the point where residents can’t—a legal permanent 

resident can’t afford the fees and often have to forgo their dream 

of American citizenship. 

So I want to differentiate between what I am talking about and 

what I think the question had to do with, with the appropriated 

money for the refugees and the asylum seekers. So could you explain that difference? And also what are the challenges? If, in fact, 

your fees that are charged to immigrants actually cover more than 

the costs, and your operation depends on those fees, what are the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
726 

challenges that you face as you have to respond to the changing 

workloads and the unpredictability of your budget? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. 

If I can preliminarily comment on, in the course of our public engagement, something to which Congressman Farr referred, we have 

heard loud and clear from the community we serve a concern that, 

if indeed the price of naturalization would increase, in this economy, the ability to become a citizen might be rendered inaccessible. 

We have heard that from stakeholders with whom we have spoken 

in our engagement process. 

When we talk about a fee-for-services model and a particular petitioner or applicant having to pay a fee for the cost of processing 

that individual petitioner’s or applicant’s benefit request, we take 

into account the overhead of the agency—the cost to us of operating 

as an agency. That is part of the costs that figure into the fee-forservices model that substantiate the fee rules that we publish and 

for which we seek appropriations. 

So, it is not just the individual cost of taking in that particular 

application by a single person. It is the cost of taking in that application; paying the person, of course, pro rata but paying what it 

costs us to employ the person who takes the application; keeping 

the lights on; keeping the facility open and the like. It is all of the 

costs of running our organization, and we deploy a formula when 

trying to determine how much each particular benefit costs us to 

administer, taking into account all of our operational costs. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. What challenges do you face when there is 

a fluctuation in the number of applicants, particularly when you 

have less applicants than anticipated? I am trying to understand 

the challenges that you face as a result of not having a certain appropriated amount of money for your operating costs, in addition 

to just the cost of processing the application. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. It is the very challenge that we are confronting 

now. We have considerable fixed costs. We have 86 field offices 

throughout the country, for example, not including our four very 

large service centers across the Nation, not to mention our international footprint. We have very significant fixed costs. 

Perhaps as a function of the downturn in the economy, but for 

the past 2 years (Fiscal Year 2009 and now in Fiscal Year 2010), 

the number of applications that we are receiving from fee-paying 

customers has been persistently below forecasts of 2 years ago. 

Therefore, on the basis of our fee-for-services model, we do not 

have the revenue sufficient to continue our operations as they existed prior to the decline. We have to make adjustments as a result. 

One of the things we have done, and as I think fiscal responsibility would dictate, was to turn internally within our agency and 

try to develop greater efficiencies and make cuts wherever they can 

be made so that we essentially right-size, if you will, to the extent 

we can, taking into consideration our fixed costs. And we have already in place $160 million in cuts. But it leaves us in a very difficult position when the number of applications drop. Our ability to 

fund our operations is challenged. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Then if they suddenly increase in a certain 

year, how long then does it take you to gear up to address this inVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00726 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
727 

flux? In other words, we are here asking how efficient are you operating; are you doing what needs to be done in terms of E-Verify 

and all of your programs? And what I am hearing, or as I understand, given the way that you receive, the model under which you 

operate, really jeopardizes your ability to plan ahead, to keep that 

same level of efficiency going, because it is dependent on how many 

people are applying in any given year. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. I think if I may, Congresswoman, there are two 

questions there. One is: Can we be as efficient as we should be in 

a time of economic challenge? And that we can be. Can we be prepared for any future increases in application numbers? Of course. 

It depends on quantities and degrees. But if, for example, we were 

to see in the coming months a tremendous increase in volume, we 

would want to develop a greater infrastructure capacity, we would 

want to achieve a greater level of hiring and we would not have 

the funds at our ready disposal. So the funds would have to precede our ability to intake and process. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. If you had actually an appropriated amount 

for your overall operation that you could depend on. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Well, appropriations—— 

Mr. PRICE. Go ahead. Please finish. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Well, appropriated amounts are not necessarily 

inflexible or lacking fluidity. So—— 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I am just trying to help you out. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. I know. It is something we are studying. 

EFFECT OF FLUCTUATING FILING VOLUMES ON OPERATIONS

Mr. PRICE. Our colleague surely has a good point, though, that 

your agency is faced with considerable fluctuations in workload by 

virtue of how applications wax and wane, but in your case, the inflow of cash is also determined by that same waxing and waning. 

And as much as our appropriations sometimes fluctuate from year 

to year, this is a particularly variable source of income, and that 

phenomenon lies behind a lot of the questions I was raising earlier 

as well. 

When the fee increases were announced in 2007, you had this 

surge, kind of an artificial surge, if you will, of applications. At the 

start of fiscal 2009, you had a cash balance of approximately $900 

million. At the start of 2010, your cash balance was $700 million. 

Based on estimates from 2010, that balance may be down to $400 

million by the start of 2011. And you have applications in 2009 12 

percent below projected receipt levels. So while your workload is 

going down some, your cash balance is going down even faster. 

You have given Ms. Roybal-Allard a partial answer here about 

your expectations for the future. I wonder if you expect to continue 

to see lower-than-projected application filing volumes this year and 

next. Then, of course, there is the question that she raised with 

you, if the application volumes and the associated fees fail to materialize at projected levels, what do you do about it? What plans do 

you have for maintaining CIS operations at the performance levels 

you promised? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By answering your 

question, I am going to sneak in a supplement, if I may, to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard’s question. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
728 

The model in place now certainly doesn’t leave us as a very nimble agency to address the fluidity in the volume of applications that 

we receive and especially to prepare for anticipated increases. But 

we are not forecasting an upswing right now in the number of applications. Our efficiency review, our spending plans, the way we 

are looking to make cuts, as needed, are in anticipation of the 

trend continuing as it has over the past 12 months or so. As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we have in place already $160 

million in cuts. We have not filled vacancies and full-time equivalents. We have ended quite a number of contractor positions. And 

that fiscal responsibility, that internal review, is an ongoing one. 

We are very mindful of the fact that we are trying to make whatever cuts are prudent and of our responsibility to incur the cuts 

without adversely impacting the service we provide to our customers. 

We are very proud of the reduction in processing times we have 

achieved over the past 2 years, and we intend to continue that high 

level of service while gaining greater efficiencies. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, I am well aware, as we all are, that were we 

to move away from a fee-based system with your agency, the price 

to pay in regular appropriations could be substantial. So the principle that you articulated early on in this hearing, that of the fees 

levied should basically cover the costs of services rendered, seems 

like a sound principle, and it certainly helps us deal with the refugee and the asylee case. I don’t think you have applied it precisely 

to the SAVE case, but we see what you are getting at. 

I do think Ms. Roybal-Allard has raised a set of interesting questions, though, about just how much overhead are you including in 

that, and what does it mean for a fee to cover the cost of processing 

and application, and just how widely do you range in counting 

those cost, in figuring what contributes to those costs? 

Thank you. This does help clarify the situation you may face 

with respect to the waxing and waning of revenues and the kind 

of contingency plans that might be necessary. 

Mr. Rogers. 

BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM

Mr. ROGERS. Since 2004, we appropriated about $153 million for 

IT modernization and your transformation effort, which is intended 

to transform the agency from a manpower and papercentric operation to a digital enterprise, and in addition, $585 million was 

given since 2004 for employment verification systems, including EVerify, which are fundamental to your mission. 

But then last year the Department’s Acquisition Review Board 

required you to stop work on that transformation contract with 

IBM to facilitate a modification and resequencing of the contract. 

And that action, as I understand it, put in place then short-term 

milestones which are intended to prevent major cost and schedule 

overruns since each term is based upon accomplishment of previous 

milestones. 

Did I say that right? And where are you on the transformation? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, your focus on transformation is 

very important to us. That is an initiative that speaks to the future 

of this agency and the effort to move this agency into an accountVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00728 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
729 

centric electronic environment for the benefit of those who file petitions and applications, as well as the benefit of our Nation’s security and the integrity of the immigration system that we administer. 

Indeed, the Department did impose a benchmark process. I 

should note that I am getting further and further personally involved in the transformation effort, given its importance to our 

agency as well as its cost. What we are doing now, Congressman, 

is we are essentially laying out a blueprint for the implementation 

or the rollout of the transformation effort. 

We have studied the transformative efforts of other Federal 

agencies. We have taken a lessons-learned approach. We are sharing data with other government agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security and in other departments, to ensure 

that the transformed environment, if you will, is an integrated one 

across the government and our systems are compatible and to understand the needs and our demands of the agencies with which we 

do business on a regular basis. 

We are engaged in extensive outreach in the community, and I 

say that in the broadest sense, the broadest definition of community, to understand what our external partners require and what 

they need from us. We are developing a plan, and we hope to implement our first rollout in the resequenced environment in 2011. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I have seen the acres of files, and there are 

literally acres. One file on one person might be that thick. And 

there is some inquiry from some agency, and somebody has to flip 

through that entire file, maybe it takes 30 minutes or an hour or 

more, whereas if it were digitized, it would be available instantaneously. So it is very important with the kind of paperwork that 

you are having to deal with that that transformation take place expeditiously. 

I wonder, is this new sequencing, or whatever you call it, milestone accomplished process, is that going to drag out the completion of the transformation process all told? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. No, it won’t, Congressman. It actually accelerates the rollout. Our goal is to implement the electronic environment for the nonimmigrant class in 2011, and our goal remains the 

same, that by 2013 our agency will have been transformed. 

Mr. ROGERS. 2013. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. 2013. 

Mr. ROGERS. Any way to speed that up? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. I have asked that very same question. It is a 

question that not only I ask, but we ask ourselves on a daily basis. 

Given the inefficiency to which you refer, or I should say the system that is currently in place, that is certainly not optimal. The 

digitized environment and the ability to access electronic records 

and share information and access information is of critical importance to our agency and to our improvement. 

Mr. ROGERS. I know you have asked yourself, and I ask you, too. 

You may have answered yourself; you didn’t answer me. Is there 

a way to speed it up? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. We want to get it right. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is there a way to speed it up? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. We are doing everything possible. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
730 

Mr. ROGERS. Is there a way to speed it up? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Not that I am aware of yet, Congressman. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am excited that you are putting a lot of this on your Web site. 

The question is what happens to those people who don’t have computers in their house? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, we have not as an agency made 

the decision to move to a purely mandatory electronic environment. 

As a matter of fact, the question of the community’s ability to access services in an electronic environment is a question that we 

posed to the community last week as part of our public engagement. 

Mr. FARR. Can you just give me a short answer? If you don’t 

have a Web site or have access to a computer, do you use the existing system? They still have to call in or visit or come to the congressional offices? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Assuming lack of access to a computer or to a 

Web site, we have in-person means or telephonic means of obtaining information from our agency. 

Mr. FARR. But you are reaching out with this Office of Public Engagement to try to figure out how to get people more information 

so they don’t spend a lot of time just trying to find out where their 

application is and things like that? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. That is correct. We have also redesigned our Web 

site. 

NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

Mr. FARR. I know. My staff uses it and recommends it to people 

all the time. You and I chatted about this Proud to be an American 

Act, which was a process the Congress adopted to encourage swearing-in ceremonies around the Fourth of July and take them out of 

the centers where you normally process these swearing-ins. I know 

the Department has done a lot of that yourselves. 

I am very curious about how we can work with your Members 

of Congress who want to do that this coming Fourth of July. Who 

in your office should they be working with and talking to? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. The individual who leads our Office of Citizenship, Congressman Farr, is Rebecca Carson. 

Mr. FARR. So if Members ask me—because a lot of them know 

I have been doing it with great success. It is the nicest thing I do 

all year, I think. We treat them like a big graduation ceremony. 

The whole town comes, and, in fact, we move it around to a different town in the district all the time. I am interested in making 

sure that you use that, because I think it is good public relations 

for both sides, for Congress and for the community, to understand 

how proud we are to have new citizens in America. 

CONTRACTOR WORKFORCE

One of the things that we heard from Secretary Napolitano is 

that you are looking at a Department of Homeland Security-wide, 

districtwide or systemwide reduction in contractor positions. How 

many contractors does CIS have? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
731 

Mr. MAYORKAS. I believe we have just under 8,000, Congressman. 

Mr. FARR. Eight thousand contractors? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Just under, yes, I believe, approximately. 

Mr. FARR. What are their capacities? What are they doing for 

you? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Their capacities range widely. Some assist in the 

intake of applications. Some conduct site visits in our effort to 

make sure the integrity of those who seek particular benefits. Really they run almost the gamut of our activities that are not inherently federal. 

Mr. FARR. Who do you have supervising them? As the Secretary 

said, you are trying to reduce the contractors and make, wherever 

possible, these jobs Federal employees? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, Congressman. I am sorry, was your question—— 

Mr. FARR. How long would it take? That is a lot, 8,000. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. It is. Our entire workforce is approximately 

18,000. As part of the realignment of our agency, we created a 

Management Directorate that has focused on the efficient administration of our agency. It is within the Management Directorate’s 

purview to review the federal employment versus contractor ratio 

and to achieve the greater efficiencies to which Secretary 

Napolitano was referring. 

Mr. FARR. You are at almost 50 percent. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Almost. 

Mr. FARR. Do you have a plan how long it is going to take? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. I would have to get back to you, Congressman, 

on what exactly is the execution plan for the review of our contractor versus federal workforce. But I can tell you the efforts are 

under way to move from the ratio that we currently have. 

Mr. FARR. All right. You have somebody in your Department that 

is supervising all of that? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, Congressman. We have a number of people 

dedicated to that efficiency effort. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: USCIS is implementing a plan to in-source a portion of our contractor workforce consistent with guidance and standards being utilized across the 

Department. We expect the processes for in-sourcing the positions will continue at 

least through FY2011. 

Mr. FARR. Has my time expired? 

Mr. PRICE. At this very moment it has. 

Mr. FARR. I had one more question. 

Mr. PRICE. We will have a brief final round. 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just for the record, what is the fee for someone to apply to become a legal permanent resident right now? 

E-VERIFY

Mr. MAYORKAS. $1,010. 

Mr. CALVERT. One thousand ten dollars. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
732 

Going back to E-Verify, now that Federal contractors are required to use E-Verify, have you seen an increase in the number 

of employers signing up since that rule went into effect? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. We have, Congressman, yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. That is significant. 

Now, can you clarify what that means, say, to a Federal contractor? If a business is hired by the Federal Government to get a 

product or a service, they must go through E-Verify; isn’t that correct? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Say that the government buys something from 

Walmart Corporation as a contractee. Are they required to go 

through E-Verify? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, I think it depends on the nature 

of the contract. If it is a pure procurement, I don’t know that the 

E-Verify requirement would be triggered. That would depend on 

the contractual relationship between the government and the private entity. 

Mr. CALVERT. Is there a definition of what you perceive a contractor to be that we can take a look at? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. I would be glad to provide your office with that 

information, Congressman. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: Executive Order 12989, as amended, instructs the Federal Acquisition Regulation to be amended to include the FAR E-Verify clause in certain federal 

contracts. The Executive Order uses the definition of contractor found in the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at subpart 9.4. Under the FAR, ‘‘contractor’’ means 

any individual or other legal entity that: 

1. Directly or indirectly (e.g., through an affiliate), submits offers for or is awarded, or reasonably may be expected to submit offers for or be awarded, a government 

contract, including a contract for carriage under government or commercial bills of 

lading, or a subcontract under a government contract; or 

2. Conducts business, or reasonably may be expected to conduct business, with the 

government as an agent or representative of another contractor. 

In addition, the preamble to the FAR E-Verify final rule states that ‘‘[w]hoever 

signs a contract is the contractor. Only the legal entity that signs the contract and 

is bound by the performance obligations of the contract is covered by this E-Verify 

term. If ambiguity remains, this issue will have to be handled on a case-by-case 

basis consistent with traditional FAR principle.’’ 73 Fed. Reg. 67,651, 67,669 (2008). 

The E-Verify Federal Acquisition Regulation thus requires contracting officers to 

insert a clause into covered Federal contracts committing Government contractors 

to use the USCIS E-Verify System to verify that all of the contractors’ new hires 

and all employees (existing and new) directly performing work under the respective 

Federal contracts, are authorized to work in the United States. The government contracting official, not the E-Verify program, determines whether the Federal contract 

will include the FAR E-Verify clause. 

The Rule only affects Federal contractors who are awarded a new contract on or 

after the effective date of the rule, September 8, 2009, that includes the FAR EVerify clause (73 FR 67704). Some existing Federal contracts may also be bilaterally 

modified to include the FAR E-Verify clause. In summary, consistent with the requirements first set forth in the proposed rule, the final rule: 

1. Exempts contracts that are only for commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) 

items and items that would be COTS items but for minor modifications; contracts 

of less than the simplified acquisition threshold ($100,000); contracts with a period 

of performance of less than 120 days; and contracts where all work is performed outside the United States. 

2. Requires inclusion of the clause in subcontracts that flow from the prime con- tract for services or for construction with a value over $3,000. 

3. Requires contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of all new hires and all existing employees who are directly performing work under the covered contract. Certain Federal contractors need only use 

E-Verify to verify the employment authorization of employees assigned to a covered 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
733 

Federal contract. These include state and local governments, governments of federally recognized Native American tribes, institutions of higher education, and sureties performing under a takeover agreement entered into with a Federal agency pursuant to a performance bond. 

4. Applies to solicitations issued and contracts awarded after the effective date of 

the final rule in accordance with FAR 1.108(d). 

5. In exceptional circumstances, allows a head of the contracting activity to waive 

the requirement to include the clause. 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. When there are articles in the newspaper 

like there was in the Wall Street Journal—it was repeated, by the 

way, by the Los Angeles Times about E-Verify and the 50 percent 

inaccuracy rate, which is 50 percent of the 6 percent, which is obviously perceived to be something different than what it was—are 

you proactive in addressing those misrepresentations and trying to 

get a correction? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, we are very proactive in publishing the success of E-Verify, as well as its challenges. I hope I 

made clear at the outset that the complaints that were lodged at 

E-Verify initially were its inability or perceived inability to accurately capture work-authorized individuals as work-authorized. 

That success rate now seems to have caused a shift in concern 

about E-Verify to its ability to address the unauthorized workforce 

and recognize that. 

As you correctly underscored, the Westat report, which is based 

on data that are now a bit dated, speaks of a percentage success 

rate that we believe we have improved upon. 

Mr. CALVERT. I read the Westat report, and relative to the newspaper articles, the articles obviously were quite negative. But you 

read the Westat report. It is relatively positive. So it was just an 

interpretation of the statistics within that study, which ultimately 

ended up with the stories that ran nationally. 

Are you asking for the newspaper to give information to those 

newspapers and other publications—it got picked up obviously by 

the broadcast industry and the rest—to deal with that? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. We have been very active in ensuring that the 

public is aware of the success of E-Verify. We have reached out to 

quite a number of community members, the business group, the 

labor group and other important constituents, that are impacted by 

the E-Verify program, to ensure that they are aware of the success 

of the program and the improvements that we are making to address whatever weaknesses might exist. 

Mr. CALVERT. If there is a significant increase in the number of 

employers that want to go in the system, do you feel confident that 

you are able to take that on and be able to process them in a relatively quick fashion? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Most certainly. E-Verify is built to a capacity far 

greater than it currently administers. 

Mr. CALVERT. What is the capacity it is built to? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Approximately 200 million employees per year. It 

currently has the capacity to run approximately that many through 

its system. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Ms. Roybal-Allard. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
734 

FRAUD PREVENTION

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. According to law enforcement officials, 

there is a growing number of unscrupulous individuals in our country who call themselves ‘‘immigration specialists’’ or ‘‘notarios,’’ 

hold themselves up as attorneys that are qualified to practice immigration law. As you know, they enter into fraudulent contracts 

and promise permanent legal status and charge exorbitant fees, 

even when they know very well that sometimes the person that 

they are asking to represent has no chance of legalization. In other 

cases, beyond the loss of money, these fraudulent services often 

jeopardize a victim’s ability to legalize their status, even though 

they were qualified prior to becoming a victim of fraud. 

Could you highlight a little bit of what kinds of things that you 

are doing to educate the public about these fraudulent practices by 

these people to let them know that they do, in fact, exist and will 

jeopardize their status? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. That is 

a question that goes to the very heart of a very significant initiative we already have underway. 

Earlier this year, we led a very robust engagement with community members about the unauthorized practice of law and notario 

fraud, and we are developing a strategic plan to fight immigration 

practitioner fraud and protect the consumer. We understand that 

public education, building a stakeholder capacity and deterrence 

are three very important foundations for a successful program. 

We currently have available on our Web site a number of informational pieces that we hope serve the community while we are developing a more comprehensive and fulsome nationwide strategic 

plan. 

For example, we list the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and 

BIA-recognized organizations that serve the immigrant community. 

We list free or low-cost service providers. We have a link to the National Association of Attorneys General that identifies individuals 

who have been prosecuted for the unauthorized practice of law or 

notario fraud, to mention just a few of the tools we are using. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Going back to Mr. Farr’s point, not everyone has access to a computer, and that is certainly true of many 

in my district. So you are not depending on that alone. You mention you also do outreach to community-based organizations and 

other groups to get that information out; is that correct? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Yes, we do. And, Congresswoman, we not only 

touch the community-based organizations that represent individuals who might not have access to computer facilities, but we touch 

the individuals themselves through our extensive outreach efforts. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. You said you were developing a strategic 

plan. When can we expect that? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. We hope to unveil that in the next 30 days. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you. 

And just one last point, going back to the model under which you 

operate. If and when we pass comprehensive immigration reform, 

the processing of thousands of background checks and applications 

for naturalization will be your responsibility. I am wondering if 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
735 

there is anything that you are doing now in anticipation of that, 

given the model that you are now working under? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congresswoman, we are building efficiencies so 

that we are fully prepared to address whatever increase in applications we receive. Our experience with the January 12th tragic 

earthquake in Haiti demonstrated our capacity to meet an unanticipated increase in volume. So if comprehensive immigration reform would pass, we would be prepared to administer the program. 

Our ability to administer a program of an exponentially greater 

volume of people would depend on our receipt of funds to build the 

infrastructure capacity. But in terms of the systems, the operational design, we have that. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION

Mr. Director, we will have a very rapid final round here, just to 

tie up a few loose ends. I will start with the subject our Ranking 

Member discussed, the business transformation plan and our concerns about the delays of implementation, and our desire for good 

information going forward, and, if at all possible, an acceleration 

of the timeline that you have projected. 

We do want to get it right. Of course, you are correct about that. 

But when you consider the savings, the efficiencies, the greater accuracy, the gains are going to be substantial, and it is highly desirable to realize them as soon as possible. I want to make sure that 

I understand the stages in which this system is going to be put in 

place. 

As I understand what you said and what we have heard from 

you otherwise, under the current project plan, CIS is first going to 

implement transformed application processing for nonimmigrant 

benefits, for student visas, work visas, that sort of thing. 

I wonder if you have an interim cost estimate as to how much 

you are going to save with on-line processing for nonimmigrant applicants? 

Then what you were talking about with Mr. Rogers, the 2013 

date, the second phase of CIS’s business transformation will put 

the green card and citizenship processes on line, incorporating the 

entire immigration process into a digital system. That is what you 

have given us the 2013 estimate on, and I wonder if you have figures with estimated savings and efficiencies from the completed 

transformation? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Mr. Chairman, we did resequence. Originally, 

the agency had planned to first transform the citizenship application process, but we thought it most economically and systemically 

prudent to actually follow the cycle of the immigration benefit process. We resequenced, therefore, to first transform the nonimmigrant benefit process. 

RESPONSE: USCIS does not have a cost estimate associated with savings that 

may be realized from the transformation of non-immigrant benefit processing, or for 

the complete transformation effort as a whole. Long term cost savings is a goal of 

transformation. USCIS will strive to realize cost savings and factor them into future 

fee levels. Savings are one of several important goals that also include the modernization of outdated technology and processes, improvements in customer service 

and security, and more effective adjudication operations overall. USCIS will assess 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
736 

the cost savings over the long term as transformational operations, systems, and 

processes begin to be implemented. 

With respect to what savings we intend to realize, if I may, 

Chairman, this committee, I would like to get back to you with 

that. I do not have that information at the ready, and I do not 

know whether we have actually undertaken that modeling. 

I well understand and appreciate, from the questions that you 

have posed, the frustration that you have with respect to the initial 

pace of the transformation effort, as well as my estimated 2013 

time frame and my clearly unsatisfactory answer that we are not 

in a position to accelerate that time frame now. What I would respectfully propose is that I make it a point to personally update 

this committee on a regular basis with respect to the transformation program, both substantively in terms of the improvements and progression of the effort, as well as the costs associated 

therewith. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield on that point? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. If you could include in that estimate if more money 

would accelerate the process? 

Mr. PRICE. I would second that request. That is clearly a relevant 

aspect. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: Transformation within USCIS is a gradual process that will require 

careful planning and a comprehensive change management strategy that will take 

several years to fully implement. USCIS will continue to explore options for moving 

Transformation forward at a faster pace. 

HAITI AND THE TPS PROGRAM

Mr. PRICE. Let me wrap up with reference to Haiti. I want to 

echo Mr. Farr’s expression of gratitude to you. I should have done 

this at the outset. We are well aware of the contribution CIS has 

made in responding to the Haitian tragedy and being one of several 

Homeland Security agencies that has been working on this very 

hard, along with the Coast Guard, with FEMA, with ICE. We are 

grateful for your efforts. 

I want to ask you about one aspect of this, though, that I think 

may raise some broader questions about your method for projecting 

the impact of various programs, the demand for various programs. 

On January 21, you issued a public notice that you would accept 

applications for temporary protected status for Haitians who were 

illegally present in the United States before the earthquake that 

had destroyed, of course, so much of that country and the prospects 

for anyone returning and earning a livelihood. 

Based on the latest data, CIS has processed about 30,000 applications for temporary protected status. That is much lower, considerably lower, than the 200,000 individuals you projected might 

apply for that benefit. 

So, Mr. Director, I wonder how you would account for that? Do 

you believe that the TPS announcement may have overstated the 

number of Haitians that might apply for TPS? What would account 

for receiving so many fewer applications than projected? 

Then it does lead me to a broader question. There have been 

some other shortfalls in application filings versus CIS projections, 

such as the overall lower level of applications received in 2009. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
737 

Does this lead you to reflect on CIS’s method for projecting its 

workload and changes, improvements that might be indicated by 

some of these missed projections, missed targets? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Thank you very much, Chairman. Let me, if I 

can, answer the questions in the order in which you posed them. 

First with respect to the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program for Haiti, specifically, we at the outset estimated 100,000 to 

200,000 potential applicants for TPS, for that humanitarian relief. 

Indeed, we thus far have received approximately 30,000 applications. The pace is a bit slower than we anticipated. We are, of 

course, only 2 months into a 6-month registration period, so it is 

unclear what volume we will see at the close of the period. So it 

is, I think, a bit early to assume that our projections were off. 

I should say also that we projected the 100,000 to 200,000 number on the basis of our best understanding from the community of 

the anticipated volume and to ensure that we as an agency were 

ready should that volume materialize, rather than underestimate 

and plan on the basis of an underestimation. I think that would be 

far more dangerous to our ability to administer the relief that the 

government extended to this population in need. 

So that number of 100,000 to 200,000 was our best understanding at the time based on our interaction with the community 

and the data that we had available. We geared up for it operationally. We are, I think, approximately 2 or so months into a 6-month 

registration window, and we will see where the numbers shake out. 

With respect to the projections prior to Fiscal Year 2009, I don’t 

know if the drop in applications is directly linked to the economic 

conditions that befell this country, and, frankly, the world, in 2009. 

I don’t know if anyone anticipated the degree of the financial challenges that our economy would face and perhaps the consequent 

drop in applications. But our ability to project numbers, because of 

the significance of the projections on our operations and on our efficiency modeling, is something that we are constantly reviewing and 

scrubbing. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. No further questions. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

IMMIGRATION INTEGRATION GRANTS

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up on this. You have requested $8 million in 

competitive grants to organizations preparing immigrants for citizenship and helping these individuals gain knowledge that is necessary to become successful citizens. You talk about expanding the 

capacity of volunteers to prepare immigrants for citizenship and so 

on. That is what in a way a lot of congressional offices do by referring people to the support groups. 

What I would suggest in this is that you include in this outreach 

notifying Members of Congress of these grants and being able to 

put them together in their communities. 

One of the reasons to do this, Mr. Chairman, is that it just becomes sort of a routine if you are doing it all the time in Federal 

courthouses and Federal office buildings. But if you take this outVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00737 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
738 

side of the normal area to do it, it just creates a whole pageantry 

of interest by local press that interview these people. They interview these people, the oldest person being sworn in, the number of 

countries they are coming from, the incredible background stories 

that need to be told all the time. This is what the great, great melting pot of America is. 

I know I do it and other Members do it, but it has always been 

sort of ad hoc, and it seems to me if we are going to put this money 

out there for community outreach, that we ought to get better connected. You can figure out the math here. If community organizations and local people wanted to put together one at $5,000, we 

have never had one that expensive, but $5,000 for a swearing-in 

ceremony for all of them, you give them food and drink, and we do 

birthday cakes, a big celebration for America. We do it around the 

Fourth of July. We get flags all up, school groups, all sorts of 

things. But if you did that for every Member of Congress, you are 

talking about $2.1 million. I think that the sense of the importance 

of immigration, if every Member wanted to participate in it, would 

really help the image of our country, both internally and abroad, 

from the countries that these people come from. 

So it is just a suggestion. I would like to work with you on that 

and include in that outreach and in those community organizations 

sort of the ability if you would like to have a swearing-in ceremony 

in your own community, that one could put together the ‘‘ask’’ for 

a grant to do that. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. FARR. Are you interested in helping on that? 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Congressman, if I can address the question, we 

receive an appropriated amount to fund immigrants’ ability to prepare for the naturalization test, to be able to provide to them educational tools that they might not otherwise have access to so that 

they can be equipped to pass the naturalization test and become 

U.S. citizens. 

Once they achieve that citizenship, we, through the funding that 

this Committee has appropriated, have increased exponentially the 

capacity of community-based organizations and our office to assist 

immigrants who have been naturalized to integrate into the community and become part of the national fabric. 

We currently, without special appropriation, conduct naturalization ceremonies throughout the country, almost one every day. I 

think we naturalize 600,000 or 700,000 new citizens per year. 

Given the tremendous fiscal challenges that we face, given the critical need to use the appropriated funds for our Office of Citizenship 

to enable people to become naturalized and then, once naturalized, 

to integrate into society, given the fact that we receive donations 

from the facilities that want to lend themselves to our effort to conduct naturalization ceremonies across the country, in cities far and 

wide, on ordinary days and on special days, it is very difficult for 

us as an agency to come before this Committee and seek an appropriation to fund ceremonies themselves when we conduct them already across the country without the appropriated amounts. 

Mr. FARR. I certainly would like to know what you spend on 

those and where you do them, because certainly no one has ever 

been doing them in our area until I initiated it. As I said, it is all 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
739 

the service clubs and schools and everybody is involved. No one 

ever did it outside of our asking. So I would like to see how many 

of these you do, how much you move around, and what the cost is 

to the agency to put on one of these, because I think we can do it 

cheaper with the service clubs. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Thank you, Congressman. I will provide you with 

that information. 

Mr. PRICE. We will look for that information for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: As indicted within the Congressional Justification of the FY 2010 

budget request, USCIS estimated that naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies cost approximately $26.3 million in FY 2010. The level for FY 2011 is estimated to be $27.1 

USCIS holds hundreds of naturalization ceremonies across the country and overseas every month. Among these are ‘‘special’’ naturalization ceremonies held at historical landmarks and uniquely American setting across the nation in an effort to 

highlight the importance of citizenship. Such events are held on holidays and national days of observance such as Independence Day, Veterans Day, Citizenship 

Day, and Constitution Week. USCIS would be happy to provide information upon 

request for specific categories of naturalization ceremonies of interest and/or ceremonies provided on specific days of a particular year. 

Mr. PRICE. Director, thank you. Congratulations on your appointment and your service thus far. Thank you for that service and for 

your presence here today. We will look forward to working with you 

as we assemble your budget for next year. 

Mr. MAYORKAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PRICE. With that, the Subcommittee is adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
740 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 895 here 61840A.637
741 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 896 here 61840A.638
742 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 897 here 61840A.639
743 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 898 here 61840A.640
744 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 899 here 61840A.641
745 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 900 here 61840A.642
746 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 901 here 61840A.643
747 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 902 here 61840A.644
748 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 903 here 61840A.645
749 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 904 here 61840A.646
750 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 905 here 61840A.647
751 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 61840A.648
752 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 61840A.649
753 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 61840A.650
754 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 61840A.651
755 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 61840A.652
756 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 911 here 61840A.653
757 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 912 here 61840A.654
758 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 61840A.655
759 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 61840A.656
760 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 61840A.657
761 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 61840A.658
762 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 917 here 61840A.659
763 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 918 here 61840A.660
764 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 919 here 61840A.661
765 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 920 here 61840A.662
766 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 921 here 61840A.663
767 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 922 here 61840A.664
768 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 923 here 61840A.665
769 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 61840A.666
770 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 61840A.667
771 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 926 here 61840A.668
772 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 927 here 61840A.669
773 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 928 here 61840A.670
774 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 929 here 61840A.671
775 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 930 here 61840A.672
776 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 931 here 61840A.673
777 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 932 here 61840A.674
778 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 933 here 61840A.675
779 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 934 here 61840A.676
780 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 935 here 61840A.677
781 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 936 here 61840A.678
782 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 937 here 61840A.679
783 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 938 here 61840A.680
784 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 939 here 61840A.681
785 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 940 here 61840A.682
786 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 941 here 61840A.683
787 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 61840A.684
788 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 943 here 61840A.685
789 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 944 here 61840A.686
790 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 945 here 61840A.687
791 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 946 here 61840A.688
792 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 947 here 61840A.689
793 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 948 here 61840A.690
794 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 949 here 61840A.691
795 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 950 here 61840A.692
796 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 951 here 61840A.693
797 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 952 here 61840A.694
798 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 953 here 61840A.695
799 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 954 here 61840A.696
800 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 955 here 61840A.697
801 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 956 here 61840A.698
802 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 957 here 61840A.699
803 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 958 here 61840A.700
804 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 959 here 61840A.701
805 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 960 here 61840A.702
806 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 961 here 61840A.703
807 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 962 here 61840A.704
808 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 963 here 61840A.705
809 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 964 here 61840A.706
810 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 965 here 61840A.707
811 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 966 here 61840A.708
812 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 967 here 61840A.709
813 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 968 here 61840A.710
814 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 969 here 61840A.711
815 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 970 here 61840A.712
816 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 971 here 61840A.713
817 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 972 here 61840A.714
818 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 973 here 61840A.715
819 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 974 here 61840A.716
820 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 975 here 61840A.717
821 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 976 here 61840A.718
822 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 977 here 61840A.719
823 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 978 here 61840A.720
824 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 979 here 61840A.721
825 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 980 here 61840A.722
826 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 981 here 61840A.723
827 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 982 here 61840A.724
828 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 983 here 61840A.725
829 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 984 here 61840A.726
830 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 985 here 61840A.727
831 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 986 here 61840A.728
832 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 987 here 61840A.729
833 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 988 here 61840A.730
834 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 989 here 61840A.731
835 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 990/1201 here 61840A.732

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(837) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

UPDATE ON SOUTHWEST BORDER: THE CHALLENGES 

THAT DHS CONTINUES TO FACE 

WITNESSES 

ALAN BERSIN, COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 

JOHN MORTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. This morning 

we will be focusing on the southwest border and the challenges 

that the Department of Homeland Security continues to face in 

that part of our country. 

Our southwestern border region possesses a rich history, a 

shared culture interwoven over the centuries, and lands of unsurpassed natural beauty. It is not a faraway, alien place, but an inextricable part of our homeland with millions of hardworking families 

and a vital and diverse economy. Cross-border trade is an important part of the picture. Eighty percent of Mexico’s exports and half 

of its imports are with the United States, and 10 percent of our 

country’s overall trade is with Mexico. 

However, these trade statistics exclude illicit drugs. Over 90 percent of the cocaine entering our country is estimated to pass 

through Mexico, which is also our country’s largest supplier of 

marijuana and methamphetamines. The U.S. appetite for drugs 

has nurtured powerful and corrupting cartels with tens of billions 

of dollars in criminal proceeds. These international criminal organizations routinely violate our borders to traffic drugs and weapons 

and money and to smuggle undocumented aliens. But it is the violence of these cartels and the fear and disruption they sow that 

now dominate the news. 

Over 18,000 people, including 79 Americans, have died in Mexico 

since President Calderon confronted the cartels. The brutality, the 

wanton disregard for bystanders, including women and children, 

and the apparent impunity with which the cartels have operated 

is appalling. 

The questions we raised in prior hearings and we will explore 

today are whether and to what degree are we making progress 

against the cartels, making our borders harder to exploit, and reducing the risk that violence will spread. 

I believe there is not much point in debating to what extent cartel violence has spilled over into the United States. Our close relationship with Mexico means we cannot ignore the violence there regardless of when and whether it crosses the line physically. The 

deaths in March of three persons in Ciudad Juarez associated with 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
838 

the U.S. consulate, intensified assaults against Border Patrol 

agents including the murder of two, the kidnapping and murders 

of U.S. residents in Texas, and the recent homicide of an Arizona 

rancher all remind us of the threats of narcoviolence. The truth is 

the cartels are engaged in criminal activities every day in cities 

and communities on both sides of the border and not just along the 

border. We need to focus on meaningful ways to deal with cartels 

and their violence on the border and beyond. 

This hearing falls on the first anniversary of the administration’s 

announcements of its Southwest Border Initiative. Secretary 

Napolitano noted during her recent visit to Mexico that CBP and 

ICE’s enhanced efforts have resulted in record seizures of drugs, 

firearms and smuggled illicit cash. She also cited unprecedented cooperation with Mexico on information sharing, joint training, crossborder communications and trade. 

Today from our witnesses we will want an assessment of how 

successful DHS efforts are or can become, and we will pose such 

questions as: how would you grade efforts to prosecute drug and 

trafficking cases in Mexico given that Mexico has its own immigration issues? Will our cooperation help U.S. security against attempts by non-Mexicans to enter the U.S. through Mexico? Does 

the fiscal year 2011 budget enable CBP and ICE to sustain a longterm effort to counter the cartels? How effective are joint efforts 

with Federal, State and local agencies, including backing them up 

when they are seriously outmanned or outgunned? 

We also want to understand how investments that we have made 

to date are complicating life for the cartels. These include the Secure Border Initiative, the Border Enforcement Security Task 

Forces, the deployment of air and marine assets, tunnel detection, 

and the establishment of forward-operating locations or checkpoints. 

Our Subcommittee is pleased to welcome this morning Commissioner Alan Bersin of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Assistant Secretary John Morton, the Director of U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, to bring us up to date on the status of 

this initiative in light of expanded staffing, equipment and other 

resources that Congress has provided to enable your agencies to 

work with Federal, State and local partners as well as with the 

Government of Mexico to overcome the cartels. Assistant Secretary 

Morton appeared here last November on this topic, but this is Commissioner Bersin’s first time before the Committee. 

Commissioner, we welcome you. We expect that your initial year 

at the DHS, along with your unique law enforcement and personal 

experience has given you a realistic perspective on what can be accomplished on the border. 

We look forward to hearing from both of you today. We will insert your complete statements in the hearing record, so we will ask 

you to summarize your presentation in a 5-minute oral presentation. We will begin with Commissioner Bersin followed by Assistant Secretary Morton. But we first want to turn to our distinguished ranking member Mr. Rogers for his comments. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
839 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1206 here 61840B.001
840 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1207 here 61840B.002
841 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1208 here 61840B.003
842 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER HAROLD ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this 

hearing, because there is no more important topic for American security than the southwest border. 

Commissioner Bersin, as the chairman says, this marks your 

first appearance before the Subcommittee. Given your extensive experience working in southern California and your service as this 

administration’s border czar over the past year, I look forward to 

finally hearing your views on border security. 

And a welcome back to Assistant Secretary Morton. We meet 

again. I appreciate your being here and look forward to hearing 

your strong views on border enforcement as well. 

As the chairman noted, it has been just over a year since this 

administration launched its Southwest Border Security Initiative, 

an effort that has surged resources to further enhance our border 

security and support the courageous actions of the Mexican Government against the cartels. While this initiative has resulted in 

some noteworthy seizures of drugs and bulk cash and modest interdiction of weapons, the murder rate continues to soar, the purity 

of marijuana and methamphetamine remains stubbornly high, and 

Mexico appears years away from sufficiently reforming its customs 

and immigration services as well as sustaining resilient local law 

enforcement. In fact, the cartels appear emboldened as ever, demonstrated by the continued escalation of violence and the recent assertion of a well-known Mexican drug lord to the media that ‘‘Mexico’s war on the drug trade is futile, even if cartel bosses are caught 

or killed.’’ Sobering. 

According to several published reports, mounting drug violence 

in Mexico has killed more than 19,500 people since President 

Calderon launched his effort against the cartels in 2006. Furthermore, the pace of homicides continues to escalate, most notably in 

Juarez, as the chairman said, where the average number of murders a month approaches 200, more than 6 murders a day on average in 1 city on the border in Mexico. 

But just as this drug war seem to be reaching a tipping point, 

I fear as though our political resolve to adequately sustain this 

fight is on the verge of slipping. The President’s fiscal 2011 budget 

not only curbs CBP’s operational resources and reduces funding for 

border security technology and infrastructure, it also severely cuts 

the Coast Guard and its drug interdiction capabilities to the point 

where the amount of cocaine seized will decline by an estimated 

11.3 percent. Explain that. 

Such reductions to operations will undoubtedly empower the cartels and put more pressure upon the border. In the midst of this 

drug war, with our border under siege, how can we possibly support a budget that is knowingly letting our guard down and allowing more drugs, more illegals, and contraband to flow across that 

border into this country? How can we justify this? 

And apart from DHS’s flawed fiscal 2011 budget request, there 

are other pressing questions. How can we accept the administration’s recent pronouncements on the troubled SBInet program 

when we have yet to receive the legislatively required expenditure 

plan for that program for the next fiscal year—for fiscal 2010, the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
843 

current fiscal year? And why does the administration repeatedly 

assert that ‘‘violence is not spilling over’’ when, one, our own Justice Department admits the cartels’ networks reach all across this 

country into every city and now almost every village, direct cartel 

organizations all across this land, not just on the border; two, assaults against the Border Patrol continue to increase, and an agent 

was murdered in cold blood last year, another with his face caved 

in a few days ago, a well-known Arizona rancher murdered last 

month on his own property, U.S. consulate personnel murdered, 

another consulate bombed just this past weekend? And as the 

Washington Post reported on April 4, the cartels’ contract killers 

are operating with near impunity on both sides of the border, but 

including the U.S. contract killers, hired by a foreign cartel, murdering Americans. What are you going to do about that? 

And beyond the surge efforts of the past year and escalating violence, what are the next steps that need to be taken against this 

threat? If there is one thing I am certain of from my experience as 

a State prosecutor in Kentucky for 11 years, a DA, and my years 

here in this body, is that drugs pose a grave and unrelenting threat 

to the health, safety and security of the United States; therefore, 

we must do all we can to secure that border, thwart these cartels, 

and put a stop to their savage criminality and their murderous 

ways. 

So the challenge being presented to DHS by this drug war is 

clear. My question, which is the same one I posed during our hearing on border violence last November, is whether or not we are up 

to the challenge. And when I pose this question, I am not wondering whether we have the proper resources in place to simply 

disrupt this organized cross-border crime. I am wondering, just as 

I did last November, whether we have the will to actually break 

its back. 

Now, I realize that is a mighty tough chore. I am quite certain 

it is a worthy fight, and surely this country has the capability to 

protect our border from organized criminal ventures spreading its 

tentacles across every inch of America. This is a serious, serious 

problem. 

Securing our border is not a mere luxury. Securing our border is 

a worthy fight that we must win. So today, Mr. Chairman, I am 

not only interested in assessing our progress in this fight with the 

cartels, I am interested in learning what more we can do to combat 

this clear and present threat to the United States and its citizens. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
844 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1214 here 61840B.004
845 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1215 here 61840B.005
846 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1216 here 61840B.006
847 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1217 here 61840B.007
848 

STATEMENT OF ALAN BERSIN

Mr. PRICE. We will now begin with the Commissioner, Commissioner Bersin. 

Mr. BERSIN. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers, members of the Subcommittee and staff. I appreciate this 

opportunity to provide an update on our efforts to combat the 

threat of violence along the southwest border and to discuss my vision for the southern border as U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) new Commissioner. 

The Committee has been extremely supportive of CBP over the 

years in meeting our difficult mission, and we are grateful for your 

support and your continued guidance. The significant investments 

that you have made in CBP helps protect our country from a variety of evolving threats, including those generated by organized 

criminal organizations operating transnationally in Mexico. 

Before serving as CBP Commissioner, I worked for many years 

as a prosecutor on the border and in other positions with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. 

During that time, I worked closely with U.S. law enforcement colleagues at all levels—state, local, county, federal and tribal—as 

well as with our counterparts in Mexico. The level of cooperation 

that we see today between the United States and Mexico under 

President Felipe Calderon is unprecedented and provides us with 

a historic opportunity. President Calderon’s willingness to address 

the growing problems of drug cartels is nothing short of heroic. It 

presents a unique opportunity to expand and deepen coordinated 

law enforcement operations between our countries. We recognize 

that this is a journey that will not be accomplished overnight, but 

the important point is that it is a journey in which the first steps 

have been taken. 

Having worked and lived most of my life in border communities, 

I recognize the concerns of our citizens regarding drug-related violence that has taken place on both sides of the border. It has been 

and continues to be a deeply serious threat. Most recently, the 

tragic murder of Robert Krentz, an Arizona rancher and a leader 

in his community, is an outrage and a tragedy. It points to the continuing problem. Secretary Napolitano has committed significant 

resources to bring this killer or killers to justice. 

Immediately after the shooting, CBP provided air and marine assets and trackers to find signs of the suspects. Furthermore, CBP 

dispatched additional mobile surveillance systems, supplemented 

regular aerial surveillance and transferred and deployed 64 additional Border Patrol agents into the area. 

Although individual incidents of violence are not a new phenomenon along the border, we are determined to prevent the kind 

of widespread violence that continues to take place every day in 

northern Mexico from crossing the border into the United States in 

the form in which it appears in Mexico. 

In March 2009, Secretary Napolitano announced the comprehensive Southwest Border Strategy aimed at preventing spillover violence and at helping the Government of Mexico crack down on drug 

cartels in that country. During the past year, CBP has supported 

that initiative by adopting the doctrine of co-responsibility, acVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00848 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
849 

knowledging that drugs coming north is part and parcel of a cycle 

of violence that involves bulk cash and weapons going south. 

To deal with national security issues for both countries, CBP has 

increased its cooperation with Mexico to coordinate border inspections and law enforcement operations. We have enhanced our information sharing and continue to build on intelligence cooperation. 

We have developed joint strategic approaches to our common problems, and we have continued to increase our capacity building at 

ports of entry. 

Just last month, CBP opened the Operations and Intelligence Coordination Center in Tucson, AZ. This new facility serves as a centralized location for gathering and disseminating real-time data 

(actionable information to help increase security along the southwest border) and then putting information into the hands of CBP 

agents on the ground. 

Since last November when Acting Commissioner Jayson Ahern 

testified before this Subcommittee, CBP has continued its enhanced 

efforts on outbound operations to prevent weapons and currency 

that, in fact, fuel drug-related violence that continues in Mexico. 

As part of the strategy, we have expanded our License Plate 

Reader (LPR) program, we have invested in nonintrusive technology and we have deployed additional Border Patrol agents on 

the scene. We have also deployed mobile response teams, canine 

teams and other resources to increase pulse and surge operations, 

looking at what is leaving our country as we concentrate on what 

is coming into our country. 

These outbound efforts have been successful. They are an important step in the right direction. Since the Southwest Border Initiative was launched last year, CBP has seized more than $30 million 

in illicit southbound cash along the southwest border. Together 

with our cooperative efforts with U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), the numbers are greater and growing. 

Let me take a concluding moment to address our future strategy. 

In addition to keeping America’s border safe and secure, CBP recognizes that we must promote economic competitiveness throughout North America. Security and trade and commerce go hand in 

hand. Security comes first, but we can be economically competitive 

as we enhance our security. 

We will adopt strategies that simultaneously improve security 

and expedite legitimate trade and travel. Smarter targeting and 

risk segmentation allow law enforcement authorities like CBP to 

focus their energy on the relatively small amount of illegitimate 

cargo and crossings that pose a threat to our public safety as well 

as to our economic prosperity. We can have enhanced security 

while reducing the cost and inconvenience to legitimate goods and 

lawful travelers. 

CBP has made tremendous strides in this area by implementing 

trusted traveler programs such as the Free and Secure Trade 

(FAST) program and the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers 

(SENTRI) program on the southern border. These programs complement the Global Entry program at our airports and the NEXUS 

program on our northern border. They expedite entry for low-risk 

travelers and cargo, while allowing our officers to focus on more 

high-risk individuals and shipments. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
850 

Working with our public, private and international partners, we 

believe that we can continue to have greater security and greater 

prosperity. 

Finally, let me thank you again for this opportunity to appear 

here and deliver my first testimony as CBP’s new Commissioner. 

I am honored to be able to share with you the good work the men 

and women of CBP do each day to safeguard our Nation’s security. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Commissioner. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
851 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1224 here 61840B.008
852 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1225 here 61840B.009
853 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1226 here 61840B.010
854 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1227 here 61840B.011
855 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1228 here 61840B.012
856 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1229 here 61840B.013
857 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1230 here 61840B.014
858 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1231 here 61840B.015
859 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1232 here 61840B.016
860 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1233 here 61840B.017
861 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1234 here 61840B.018
862 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1235 here 61840B.019
863 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MORTON

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Morton. 

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers, members of the Committee, thanks once again for inviting me to appear before you to 

testify on this subject. Let me also take a moment to welcome my 

new colleague, Commissioner Bersin, to his post. Alan has great insight and experience when it comes to the border and to Mexico, 

and I look forward to working with him as we train ICE and CBP, 

making the border a much more secure and safe place. 

Since I last testified before you on the same subject, we have, as 

both the chairman and Mr. Rogers noted, witnessed several acts of 

violence against U.S. citizens, and, in particular, we have seen the 

outrageous killing of three individuals associated with the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and the cowardly murder of Mr. 

Krentz, the Arizona rancher in Cochise County near the Mexico 

border. 

First, on behalf of ICE, I extend my heartfelt sympathy to the 

families of Lesley Enriquez, her husband Arthur Redelfs, as well 

as to the families of Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros and Mr. 

Krentz. 

Although I can’t get into the specifics of the open and ongoing investigations into these cases, I can assure you of one thing: Both 

ICE and CBP acted very swiftly and aggressively in response to the 

killings. We are working with our partners in Mexico and the 

United States as we speak to try to solve these murders and to 

bring the killers to justice. 

In the Krentz case, for example, ICE is the lead federal agency 

assisting the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office with the investigation. 

We have assigned special agents full time to the case, we have devoted the full resources of our office in Mexico to it and we have 

offered a reward to bring the killers to justice. 

My message today to you is simple. ICE shares the concerns of 

many over the presence of organized crime in Mexico and along our 

border. We are committed to vigilance and to a sustained attack on 

the criminal networks that seek to smuggle drugs, guns, money 

and people to and from Mexico. 

This commitment is more than rhetorical. Thanks to the increased appropriations we have received from this Subcommittee 

during the past 2 years, there has never been, in the history of our 

agency, more ICE agents and deportation officers devoted to the 

southwest border, and the results are promising. 

Let me start with our staffing. Approximately a quarter of our 

special agents are devoted to our five Special Agent in Charge 

(SAC) offices in the four border states. The same is true for our detention and removal officers, a quarter of our entire staffing. 

We now have 10 of our 17 Border Enforcement Security Task 

Forces (BESTs) on the southwest border: two in California, two in 

New Mexico, three in Arizona and three in Texas. The 11th is 

being formed in Mexico City itself. By the end of the year, we will 

have 40 ICE agents in Mexico, both in Mexico City and in border 

cities along the border—again, the largest presence we have ever 

had in any country in our history. We have six special assistant 

U.S. attorneys devoted to prosecuting border cases in border U.S. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
864 

attorney offices. I am personally committed to significantly increasing that number, and we are in the process of working with the 

Deputy Attorney General to do just that. 

To give you some flavor of the results over the past year, in our 

Houston office, we have seen a 64 percent increase in drug seizures; in San Antonio, a 23 percent increase in drug seizures and, 

in San Diego, a 40 percent increase in currency seizures; in Phoenix, a 15 percent increase in criminal convictions; and, overall, an 

11 percent increase in administrative arrests of criminal offenders 

along the southwest border. 

As welcome as these successes are, we intend to do more. The 

drug-trafficking cartels remain a very serious threat to both Mexico 

and the United States, fueling unacceptably high levels of violence 

in Juarez and elsewhere in Mexico. This is a fight. It is a very real 

and a very nasty fight, and it is one that will take deep resolve and 

deep commitment to win, but we have to win it. There is no rational alternative. 

ICE is aggressively going after the cartels and other organized 

criminals in Mexico in many ways. First, we are pursuing initiatives along the southwest border to stop all cash smuggling, drug 

trafficking and firearms trafficking. We are also attacking the 

alien-smuggling industry and transnational gangs that operate on 

both sides of the border, and, in this respect, we are increasingly 

doing it hand in hand with our other federal law enforcement partners, namely the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation. 

Second, we are going to continue to match our powers of investigation, seizure and deportation with CBP’s impressive powers of 

inspection and interdiction. Between the two of us, working closely, 

we can make the border and the transit zones on the Mexican side 

and the U.S. side hostile places for criminal networks. 

Third, we are going to increase our joint efforts with Mexican law 

enforcement to investigate cases, share intelligence and improve 

professionalism through training. I really want to focus on the concrete here: real cases, real criminals, real jail time. 

Fourth, we need to develop much better intelligence sharing 

among all of the federal and local law enforcement agencies involved. 

Finally, I want to harness the full power of our local law enforcement partners, our intelligence officers in our 10 southwest border 

BESTs. All of these are described in more detail in my submitted 

written remarks, but they just reflect the absolute commitment we 

have to trying to get this right. 

Since my last testimony here, we have also stepped up our specific efforts in and around Juarez and El Paso, TX. This has involved taking such extraordinary steps as stopping all removals of 

criminals and noncriminals through Juarez. We are expanding the 

Illegal Drug Program in which we, with the Mexican Government, 

prosecute individuals in Mexico for offenses that occurred in the 

United States, and we are working with the Mexican equivalent of 

the BEST called the UNITO. 

Let me close by just saying we have begun to see real results 

from our efforts. I can assure everyone here that we are mindful 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
865 

of the seriousness of this problem. We spend an enormous amount 

of time trying to think about getting it right, doing things differently, being more innovative. It is a very, very serious challenge 

to us. Alan and I have talked about it a lot. We are both sort of 

sober individuals. We are not pretending in any way that this isn’t 

a challenge that confronts our Nation. We have a long, long history 

in federal law enforcement, and ultimately I think that it is going 

to be an important combination of the power of the Federal Government, cooperation with state and Local law enforcement and a 

much better and improved relationship with Mexico that will lead 

to success in the end. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
866 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1242 here 61840B.020
867 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1243 here 61840B.021
868 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1244 here 61840B.022
869 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1245 here 61840B.023
870 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1246 here 61840B.024
871 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1247 here 61840B.025
872 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1248 here 61840B.026
873 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1249 here 61840B.027
874 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1250 here 61840B.028
875 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1251 here 61840B.029
876 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1252 here 61840B.030
877 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1253 here 61840B.031
878 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1254 here 61840B.032
879 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1255 here 61840B.033
880 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1256 here 61840B.034
881 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1257 here 61840B.035
882 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1258 here 61840B.036
883 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1259 here 61840B.037
884 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1260 here 61840B.038
885 

BILATERAL ENFORCEMENT RELATIONSHIP WITH MEXICO

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, and thanks to both of you for your testimony. 

I want to focus initial questions on something you both referenced extensively; namely, the cooperative efforts underway with 

the Mexican Government and to get you to elaborate a bit on the 

results that agreement has produced, and what you expect from it, 

because we all know that cooperation is absolutely essential. 

Secretary Napolitano, along with her counterparts at State and 

Defense, met with their Mexican counterparts in February and 

March. They signed new agreements on intelligence sharing, border 

and air security cooperation. We would be interested in your take 

on the significance of those agreements, and what difference they 

will make in your work, and what kind of results you would anticipate. But let me be a little more specific. I would like first, Commissioner Bersin, to ask you about efforts on the Mexican side to 

greatly beef up military and law enforcement presence in the 

northern part of the country. 

When President Calderon took over in 2006, he put the Mexican 

military in charge of security and policing for Juarez and other 

northern Mexican areas, and it was reported at the time the local 

police were demoralized, there were corruption problems, they were 

overwhelmed by the cartels. Now there has been a replacement of 

those military forces, or at least a number of them, with Federal 

police who have now arrived in Juarez as of April 8. What can you 

tell us about that? What do we conclude from that? Is that good 

news in the sense of signaling an enhanced capacity from the police? What kind of mix of forces are we looking at here, and what 

would be your assessment of the way on the Mexican side these 

forces have been deployed? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman, of all the remarkable changes that 

have taken place in Mexico and in the bilateral relationship with 

regard to confronting organized crime, one of the most extraordinary was the recognition and the public acceptance by President 

Calderon that much of Mexico’s law enforcement machinery and 

much, if not all, of its judiciary was subject to corruption and that 

corruption and the tentacles and the influence of organized crime 

had tainted law enforcement and the judiciary at all levels of Mexican society. 

Since 2006, they have begun, under President Calderon’s leadership, the transformation of law enforcement into a reliable instrument of public policy, focusing for the most part on the federal police and the federal enforcement authorities: the Secretary of Public 

Safety, or Seguridad Publica (SSP); ingeniero—engineer—Garcia 

Luna, I think, is a very positive step and one that will, over time, 

begin to produce dividends. 

Secretary Napolitano as well as Secretary Morton and myself 

have been to the headquarters in Mexico City, which just in an 

equipment and technological sense is impressive and indicates the 

commitment that has been made fiscally to build up a federal law 

enforcement presence. 

The plan is to move toward 20,000 federal police. What we have 

seen recently in Juarez was the decision that recognized that alVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00885 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
886 

though the military, because of the lack of local law enforcement, 

will continue to have a role to play in dealing with organized crime, 

the long-term solution was to substitute a military presence with 

a law enforcement presence. That is beginning to happen in Juarez, 

where the primary enforcement duties are being transitioned to 

Secretary Garcia Luna, with the military remaining, but in a protective stance. And I believe that is the way ahead, one that will 

show significant improvement in the near term as well as over the 

longer term. 

Mr. PRICE. So your assessment is that that is, number one, a 

mark of increased capacity, greatly improved capacity on the part 

of the police; and secondly, that that is the optimal long-term pattern, that the military would remain in that supportive role perhaps, but would not be the primary force? 

Mr. BERSIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that is the strategy, 

and that it is a sound one. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me turn to the Controlled Substance Pilot Project 

that is an agreement between the Mexican Attorney General, ICE 

and CBP, that enables them, the Mexicans, to prosecute drugsmuggling cases when for whatever reasons those cases are declined by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. There is a similar program for 

alien smuggler prosecutions known as the OASIS’s program. 

So, Assistant Secretary Morton, your testimony refers to the first 

two convictions from this new drug prosecution cooperative program. You don’t make any reference to prosecutions for alien smuggling. What can you tell us about the impact underway or the impact you anticipate from these two cooperative programs? Is there 

reason to believe the Mexican authorities are able and willing to 

accelerate prosecutions? What kind of specific report can you give 

us? 

Mr. MORTON. I can tell you that the initial results are very promising here. In less than a year, we have gone from having no pilot 

programs addressing drug prosecutions on the Mexican side to having two programs, and we are in active discussions with the federal 

prosecutor’s office about expanding. The basic idea is simply: We 

have a number of drug offenses that occur on our side of the border, particularly at ports of entry, that, for a variety of reasons, 

ICE is able to investigate with assistance from CBP, but that are 

not accepted for prosecution. Mexican federal law provides fairly 

significant penalties for that conduct, reaches that conduct assuming Mexicans were involved, and the Mexican standards of proof 

are different and allow prosecution in certain instances where we 

can’t do it. So it makes a lot of sense. And so far so good. And we 

have done the same thing with smuggling offenses for quite some 

time now through OASIS. 

OPERATION AGAINST SMUGGLERS INITIATIVE ON SAFETY AND

SECURITY

I am cautiously optimistic that we are going to stop considering 

these as pilots and move to a broad-based prosecution program 

hand in hand with the Mexicans for low-level offenses involving 

Mexicans on their side. And as we have seen, they are starting to 

convict people and send them to jail. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
887 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, by every account, public and private, the threat on that 

border is increasing. The violence is increasing. The audacity and 

the bravado of the criminal cartels is growing by the minute. According to the Department of Justice’s most recent National Drug 

Threat Assessment released in February of this year, the cartels 

are not only ‘‘the single greatest trafficking threat to the United 

States,’’ they also have operations in every region of the U.S. and 

are expanding into more rural and suburban areas, according to 

the CNN reports. And the cartels, according to that report, have 

partnered with U.S. street gangs and prison gangs for drug distribution to such an extent that ‘‘Mexican drug trafficking organizations control most of the wholesale cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine distribution in the United States as well as much of 

the marijuana distribution.’’ 

Do you agree with that? Commissioner. 

Mr. BERSIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. The report also says that greater levels of heroin, 

marijuana and methamphetamine are flowing across the border 

than ever before, and projects availability of such drugs to increase. 

Have I understated the threat that is there on the border? 

Mr. BERSIN. I think not, Mr. Rogers. 

CUTS TO BORDER PATROL MONEY AND PERSONNEL

Mr. ROGERS. Then how can you justify coming here to this Congress and asking us to decrease the amount of money and personnel in Border Patrol faced with this ever-growing threat to our 

security? How can you justify that? 

Mr. BERSIN. Congressman, with regard to the Fiscal Year 2011 

request and the level of Border Patrol agents, we have seen remarkable growth thanks to this Committee, and that growth will 

continue to increase. Although we saw a slight decrease from 2009 

to 2010, from 21,294 CBP officers, (and 20,019 Border Patrol 

agents), we will maintain a level of 20,163 in 2011. So, in fact, with 

regard to the Border Patrol, the budget calls for maintenance of the 

unprecedented levels that this Committee has been instrumental in 

providing us on the southern border. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you are still cutting air and marine operations, right, and Coast Guard? 

Mr. BERSIN. The cut in air interdiction agents, but not a diminution in the assets, yes, is from 891 to 839 under the budget that 

has been called for. 

Mr. ROGERS. And when you furnished us the first iteration of 

your budget request for 2011, you would have cut 1,100 Border Patrol agents—I am sorry, 1,100 Coast Guard personnel. And then 

when you heard the noise up here against that kind of a cut, you 

came back with a budget request that restored some of that personnel, but you are still cutting the air and marine operations and 

other aspects. And I just wonder how in the dickens you can justify 

that, given the threat that we are facing there by all accounts including your own. 

Mr. Morton, you have been silent there a while. What do you 

say? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
888 

Mr. MORTON. ICE’s budget has a modest 2 percent increase. Our 

budget for this year annualizes the enhancement that we received 

in Fiscal Year 2010, so I am quite confident that the President’s 

budget is going to sustain us at our highest levels ever, and we will 

have a modest increase. 

COMBATTING DRUGS AND GANG VIOLENCE

Mr. ROGERS. You know, Mr. Chairman, the old-fashioned idea of 

what Border Patrol and ICE is supposed to do is to protect us 

against the traditional threat along the border, illegal aliens particularly. But the problem on the border has evolved into huge 

changes and into a huge danger, and that is criminality, drugs, and 

contraband and that sort of thing, which is really a law enforcement problem. And I have been long critical of the administration, 

of the previous one and this one, for not recognizing that the border 

is more of a criminal problem now than it is anything else, and yet 

we do not have enough of the Nation’s law enforcement manpower 

on that border. I am talking FBI, DEA and those agencies that 

fight drugs and criminality. And this thing is getting out of hand 

down there. And I wonder what either of you see that we could be 

doing that we have not thought about or not planned for yet. Are 

we doing all that we can do? Commissioner? 

Mr. BERSIN. There are always, Congressman, improvements that 

can be made, but in terms of the strategy and the resourcing that 

has taken place over the last decade, indeed over the last 5 years, 

I think what we do is continue to get better and improve the mix 

and the alignment of the resources that have been provided; 

21,000, 20,000 Border Patrol agents compares favorably to what existed when I first met you 15 years ago by a factor of almost 6. 

We have seen dramatic increases, and we need to now develop 

the capacity of these wonderful men and women who now will have 

the opportunity to become journeyman Border Patrol agents. 

We need to build on intelligence sharing. We need to build on 

technology that is available. We need to coordinate with our sister 

agencies like ICE in a more effective way. 

All of this is always a work in progress. So I wouldn’t, for a moment, suggest that the work is done or the challenges aren’t supreme. They are. But, in fact, we stand better resourced than we 

have been. And we need to develop and see that the resources that 

have been given to us are deployed most effectively and aligned 

with our technical equipment capacities that also are, frankly, unparalleled from what existed in the past. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Morton. 

Mr. MORTON. Two quick things, Mr. Rogers. One, on your point 

about the border facing a level of criminality that needs to be reflected in a change in strategy and approach, I think that is one 

of the great promises that ICE holds. As you alluded to, traditionally we are often thought of in the context of civil immigration enforcement, yet, at the same time, we are the second largest criminal investigative agency, with nearly 7,000 special agents (1811s) 

whose sole job is to investigate crime. And we need to harness both 

of those powers in a very focused way on the border to address the 

problems that have arisen. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
889 

And, in terms of what can we do better, one of the things you 

mentioned earlier on that same report from the Department of Justice that pointed out the relationship between the cartels and gang 

members and street-level distribution, we did something differently 

this year. It was the first time we ever did it, and we need to do 

more of it. And that is ICE does a lot of transnational gang removal. We have typically done it in terms of—Look at MS 13. Look 

at this gang. Are they here unlawfully? Let us remove the gang 

members from the community from just a general safety perspective. 

For the first time, we took the very report you were talking 

about, and we said, ‘‘Well, this time let us focus on those gangs 

that also have a direct connection to the cartels and the distribution of narcotics.’’ We did it nationwide, and we ended up with 

nearly 800 people. That is the kind of thing where we need to 

match our civil powers with our criminal powers in a coordinated 

way so that we are not just removing gang members, but we are 

removing gang members who are furthering the efforts of specific 

cartels. And we are going to do more of it. 

Mr. ROGERS. My time has expired. Could I ask just one brief 

question? 

Mr. PRICE. Certainly. 

Mr. ROGERS. It relates to the gangs, the contract killers that the 

cartels are now engaging, have contracted with, that are apparently responsible for thousands of murders on both sides of the border. What can you tell us, either of you, about what we are doing 

to try to break that cycle of hiring gang killers? 

Mr. MORTON. I am not familiar with the level of contract killings 

that particular report refers to. I will say this, and I prefer to say 

more about it in private rather than in public: The relationship between ICE and the Drug Enforcement Administration is the closest 

it has ever been in our country’s history. And I don’t want to suggest that it is perfect. We can always work to make it better. But 

there is a lot going on in that regard that I think is promising. We 

need to do the same with the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI). ICE’s role from a border security perspective with the FBI 

has been good but not particularly strategic, so I need to work 

some more in that area. It might be a fruitful one. 

Mr. ROGERS. The Washington Post of April 4 carried the story 

about the heavily tattooed Barrio Azteca gang long operating 

across the border in El Paso, dealing drugs, stealing cars, but in 

Juarez that organization, according to this report, now specializes 

in contract killing for the Juarez drug cartel. And according to U.S. 

law enforcement, it may have been involved in as many as half of 

the 2,600 murders in the city in the past year alone, and that is 

just 1 town, 1 city. Can you follow up on that and give us a report? 

Mr. MORTON. Be happy to. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: ICE will provide a classified briefing on this subject on Wednesday, 

June 16, at 9:30 a.m. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
890 

BORDER CROSSINGS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And let me thank you for 

being here today and what you do for all of us throughout the country and keeping us safe. 

Commissioner and Mr. Secretary, as you well know, I represent 

one of the largest districts in the Nation. I have 785 miles along 

the border. I have 17 border stations. I have seven ports of entry 

and crossings. I have three Border Patrol sectors. And I want to 

take this opportunity to invite both of you to come to my district, 

if I can. I have had Secretary Salazar from Interior come by and 

visit. I have two beautiful—I have a good number, but two beautiful national parks right on the border, the Amistad, which is the 

best bass fishing in North America, as well as the Big Bend area, 

which is a beautiful area that has 340,000 people visit it every single year. And I have 1.7 million people visit the Amistad, and 

thank God we have never had any serious incidents there. 

But we do have a very beautiful relationship in those communities working with the Border Patrol as well as the Park Rangers, 

and working together in housing and working on that. But I wanted to follow up, and I have been told that we are safer when we 

communicate with the other side and have lines of communication. 

There was a numerous number of crossings that were closed in 

that sector. From Del Rio to Presidio is some 400 miles, and there 

are communities there that no longer have legal crossings anymore. 

And so do you see any value with having border crossings within 

the Big Bend or at least looking at the feasibility of reopening some 

of the old crossings? 

Mr. BERSIN. Congressman Rodriguez, I thank you for that invitation. I have been to your district and share your assessment of 

Amistad and the Big Bend National Park. And, as you point out, 

in those vast expanses of the Big Bend country in Texas (across 

from Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas and Coahuila in Mexico), there is a 

border that we need to protect but also a border that serves as the 

community, a cross-border community, of families, of friends as 

well as of commercial partners. 

In the wake of security threats (and security being paramount) 

there have been, as you noted, closings of a number of the so-called 

informal crossings in which people crossed back and forth across 

Rio Bravo/Rio Grande for generations. 

As a result of your inquiries and your requests, and without sacrificing security, which we understand needs to be one of the primary requirements, we are in the process of reviewing the feasibility of opening up one or more of those crossings but doing it in 

a controlled way. I think it is beyond the point in American and 

border history where we can have unmonitored and uncontrolled 

crossings, but the point you make about facilitating cross-border 

community life is one that we understand and will work to assess 

with your office. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. 

And I just want to highlight a very positive thing that is occurring in Big Bend with the ones we called the Diablos. And it is 

about 38 or so Mexicans that legally—and I say legally—every year 

during our emergency periods of time when we have fires in our 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
891 

national parks, that have been trained to help us, and they come 

every year in those specific areas where we have serious fires occurring, where we can’t get other people there as quickly as possible, and it is beautiful the way they go out there. Right now they 

just go out on the border and yell out, and these farmers and 

ranchers on the Mexican side come in riding their horses and get 

into their gear to fight the fires on our side. 

And so there are some beautiful stories to tell about that. So I 

want to thank you for that. And we want to continue to enhance 

that beautiful trade that occurs there, not to mention the tourism 

with the national parks of those figures that I mentioned. 

Secondly, if I can real quickly, I know that throughout our history we have used the military on the border, and they have played 

a very significant role in certain specific areas. The National 

Guard, for example, performed non-law law enforcement duties and 

allow for more of our trained Border Patrol and CBP officers to be 

able to do some of the things that they can do and get out of behind 

the desk. 

BORDER VIOLENCE

The military on the border has been also a serious source of contention along the border. As you well know, in 1997 an incident 

with a young man, a kid actually, a high school kid in my district, 

at Redford who got killed, and I wanted to just get some assurance 

from you—I know the Governor has talked about sending the 

troops to the border, and, by the way, I don’t have any problem if 

that is what we need to do—I want some assurance that before any 

type of action in this manner is taken, that there will be appropriate outreach information to my communities, the ranchers out 

there and the people in that area, and be notified if that is the 

case. 

Mr. BERSIN. Congressman, in dealing with the violence (real and 

threatened), the administration is determined to take all necessary 

actions to protect border communities and our national borders. In 

that inquiry, all options have been on the table and will be on the 

table in terms of law enforcement, and any action that is taken will 

involve the kind of outreach with local communities and with state 

authorities, as you suggest. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. 

If I can just add, I have my ranchers who also enjoy hunting and 

that kind of thing, and I don’t want them in any way endangered 

by our own troops when they go through, so that communication 

is essential. So thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for attending today. 

And as Mr. Rogers pointed out, the level of violence has continued to escalate. I live in southern California, and we see evidence 

of that every day in our communities in California, and I am sure 

throughout the Southwest United States. 

And obviously, the violence in Mexico is extreme. I would say it 

is not a fight, it is a war. Almost 23,000 people have been killed 

just since 2006 alone in Mexico. And I certainly congratulate President Calderon and the courage he has taken to take this adversary 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
892 

on, and it is an adversary. And, as has been pointed out, the violence is escalating on both sides of the border, not just the media 

when they point out what happened to this rancher in Arizona, but 

the drug activity throughout the United States, especially methamphetamine, which is being distributed through these gangs right 

here in Virginia and Maryland. It is not just in California and the 

Southwest; it has spread throughout the United States. 

And because of this level, I want to kind of go over with the gentleman from Texas, as you know, we had an operation called Operation Jump Start. I was along the border back in 2006, and they 

give the assistance to the Border Patrol as they were increasing 

their numbers to protect that border. But obviously since then violence has increased significantly on the Mexican side and on the 

American side of the border. 

So I am going to ask you, do you think that if that is occurring, 

do you see any value in another deployment of National Guard 

along the borders to support your mission until we can stabilize 

this, especially in areas next to Juarez or Laredo and other areas 

where we seem to see real extreme problems along that area? 

Mr. BERSIN. Congressman, as we confront the violence on our 

side of the border, and particularly, as you point out, the extreme 

levels of violence taking place in Northern Mexico, in Juarez, but 

also increasingly in the Northeast, in Nuevo Laredo and in the 

Tamaulipas area, as I said, the administration is committed to considering all options and the mix of options in order to deal with 

this threat and to contain it, so that the kind of extreme violence 

that is being experienced in Mexico in single incidents does not 

come into the United States and affect our communities on the border. 

What I would say is that, as I said to Congressman Rodriguez, 

all options are on the table and in the process of being considered 

and will be determined in terms of law enforcement—National 

Guard deployment, if any—in the near future. 

CRIMINAL REMOVAL PROCESS

Mr. CALVERT. The reason I point that out, if, in fact, the reports 

I have read in other areas that the President of Mexico is going to 

escalate here rapidly his battle—it seems that he has been doing 

that, but I understand he is going to do significant escalation here 

soon going after these individuals throughout Mexico—that this 

probably will have an effect on the United States, especially in the 

border communities, and whether we should be prepared for that 

if, in fact, that occurs. 

And, Mr. Morton, on your comment about deporting these criminal aliens that are in the United States, I would hope as rapidly 

as possible identifying these individuals, especially the ones that 

are involved in distribution of drugs throughout the United States, 

identifying, finding them and deporting them as quickly as possible, and I would hope that is a top priority in your Department. 

Mr. MORTON. Absolutely. And actually the chairman referred in 

his opening remarks to whether or not our relationship with Mexico has improved, and that is one area where it actually has improved quite dramatically. The Commissioner and I went with the 

Secretaries to Mexico, and one of the agreements we signed was to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
893 

provide information sharing between ICE and Mexican law enforcement officials on all of the criminals that we are removing, with 

an eye to streamlining that process. We are working with them on 

having more centralized removal procedures for criminals, maybe 

flying them to central places. We don’t just take them to the border 

communities anymore. It is a top priority. 

AMOC

Mr. CALVERT. And I would hope if they are incarcerated, they 

stay incarcerated. I don’t have a lot of confidence sometimes in the 

penal system in Mexico. 

But nevertheless, one other issue before my time expires. AMOC 

is in my congressional district in southern California, and, as you 

know, they have been very successful and very integral in protecting our country from attack not just from drug activity, but any 

potential terrorist problem and the rest. Could you provide an update on how AMOC in Riverside, California, is utilized specifically 

in their interdiction, security and coordination roles as the environment on and across the border has changed over the last year? 

And I certainly share Mr. Rogers’ perspective on this is—if any 

time, this is more important than ever to keep this type of program 

rolling. So—— 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Calvert, I share your enthusiasm for the Air 

and Marine Operations Center (AMDC) in Riverside, CA. Tony 

Crowder and his colleagues at the operations center have built a 

very critical capacity to monitor aviation movements in the country 

and across the border in a way that significantly enhances our situational awareness with regard to aviation efforts, in particular efforts to bring dangerous things and potentially dangerous people 

into our country. 

There is a continued reliance on the integration of AMOC into 

our national military and civilian agencies coordination between 

DoD and the Federal Aviation Administration, operating with 

AMOC, is an asset valued, recognized and supported by Secretary 

Napolitano significantly. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

ILLEGAL FLOW OF GUNS SOUTHBOUND

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

This is interesting testimony on the border because you led our 

Committee on a CODEL once from Tucson to San Diego, and I was 

thinking as we are listening to a lot of this, perhaps we ought to 

do it before it gets too hot, one long weekend here do a CODEL 

from El Paso, Juarez to the whatever that city is—— 

Mr. BERSIN. San Diego. 

Mr. FARR. No the other way; go east, go the rest of Texas. 

Brownsville. 

But I am struck here as I listen to this because it seems to me 

that we have got to think a little bit outside the box. A lot of testimony in other committees is, what are we doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? If you think about it, we are trying to stabilize an area, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
894 

we are trying to put a lot of foreign aid into that so we can stop 

the violence that is caused by the Taliban. And we have the same 

situation on the border, we just have different names for it. Instead 

of the military, we put ICE, Border Patrol. And I am not sure we 

have even focused on what we ought to be doing about infrastructure development, particularly foreign aid, to build the Mexican 

side of the border up so that we don’t—all the pain isn’t on our 

side, because I think just like the military said that we can’t win 

the war in Afghanistan militarily, I don’t think we can arrest our 

way out of our border issues. 

And I say that because I represent Salinas, California, which is 

not on the border, but it is halfway between northern California 

and southern California, and we have a border war going on in Salinas between the Nortenos and Sortenos, and last year they killed 

29 kids. Kids killed kids; 29 in a small town. Just think what that 

would be. And it has everybody absolutely freaked. Two weeks ago 

a kid got up in the middle of the night to go out to get a drink of 

water, and he got killed by a bullet. It was a stray bullet. He 

wasn’t intended, it was just the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Five years old, could have been anybody’s child. And it has brought 

this city to our knees, so we really need to have more of a collaborative. 

I want to ask some questions of Secretary Morton, and by the 

way, Commissioner, I am really pleased with your background in 

both San Diego, knowing the border issues, but your background 

in education, because I think what we need to start looking at in 

education, they know that you can’t put all of the resources in the 

schools and expect them to have kids not drop out unless you have 

what they call wraparound, all those other social services in a community. You know that from an airport district in San Diego, it 

wasn’t an island within the city, it had to have collaboratives with 

everything. I think you are building those collaboratives, but I 

don’t think we are building them enough. 

And I wanted to ask Secretary Morton, we have had this testimony before this Committee about the cooperation with Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, but it is obvious that there is still a 

massive number of guns and other weapons recovered by raids by 

Mexican authorities as well as ongoing levels of violence that U.S. 

has still not successfully reduced in the southbound flow of arms, 

and my understanding is that some of ICE’s resources have been 

redirected to assist in reducing the flow of guns. And one of the 

questions I have is what role does ICE play in reducing the southbound flow? What do you see as the central challenge to eliminating illegal flow of arms? What problems is ICE facing? And if 

you were given the authority and the responsibility, how would you 

execute a program to eliminate the southbound flow of guns? 

And the reason I ask that is when I went with the President to 

the Summit of Americas, we stopped at Mexico City. And it was 

your folks in your Department that were asking these questions of 

me about they are not seeing the kind of collaboration that they 

wanted to see with ATF. So perhaps you could answer that question. 

Mr. MORTON. Well, here is what we do now. As your question 

suggested, we do not have—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
895 

Mr. FARR. It is not what you are doing now, it is what you can 

do—but what you can do to reduce, what is not—and what you are 

not doing that you should be doing or would like to be doing. 

Mr. MORTON. By statute, we have no authority—— 

Mr. FARR. I know that. But you have collaboration. 

Mr. MORTON. That is right. So the support that we can bring is 

to ATF. In the support role, we also have independent authority to 

investigate smuggling of firearms in violation of law, but we have 

no authority to oversee or go to Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). 

Then we work very closely with CBP to target specific shipments. 

Often a CBP interdiction at the border is, in fact, based on ICE intelligence that we developed through an investigation, and then we 

refer it to CBP for actual arrest and interdiction at the border. We 

are doing everything we can to play the most significant support 

role we can to ATF and to CBP. 

And where we have evidence of smuggling and an actual smuggling network, we will do that independently, but we are quite limited in our legal authority to do more. 

Mr. FARR. I know you are limited in your legal authority, and 

that is what my question really went to is if you were given authority, sole authority, because I have even been told that there is restrictions on what ATF can do, very restrictive as to what they can 

do in gun stores and so on. If we were rewriting all this, what 

would you like to see? 

Mr. MORTON. I think one of the big challenges that we face right 

now is the southbound inspection process, harnessing more and 

more of that, as CBP does more and more southbound inspection; 

taking our intelligence, matching it up with CBP’s powers to inspect; and doing a more aggressive approach on searches along the 

border, and not just in a random way but in ways that we have 

developed using intelligence from our office in Mexico and our offices along the border—looking in that car, looking in that container. 

We are in our infancy on that, but that is what we are doing, 

and the more—. We have a very broad informant network. We have 

a lot of undercover cases. We have a lot of cooperators. Again within our limitations of the law, we have the power to direct more seizures. 

And the other piece is working much more closely with the Mexicans because they seize quite a large number of firearms on their 

side of the border, far more than we interdict right now going 

across the border. 

Mr. FARR. Does the power—the agricultural inspections from the 

Mexican side greater for CBP than the firearms power on our side? 

You can go to do more inspections of where it is coming from, 

sources of—— 

Mr. MORTON. CBP’s powers of inspection are quite broad and expansive on the border. The question is more about the infrastructure and how it was originally designed and put together. In the 

beginning, the structure was mainly on inbound inspection, and 

here we are talking about outbound inspection and just the challenge, literally the infrastructure challenges, for CBP of doing outbound inspections in a facility that was designed with all the lanes 

and the inspection booths for the inbound. CBP has been working 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
896 

on that, and we have been lending a lot of our—. We do surge operations, hand in hand primarily through our Border Enforcement 

Security Task (BEST) task forces with CBP, where we literally go 

into the outbound lanes, search, and start checking on individual 

trunks. It is not so much that CBP doesn’t have the power, it is 

building up that southbound inspection capacity. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank both of you for being willing to take on this tough 

job. And it is a tough one. I personally am very frustrated with this 

whole operation. 

DRUG CARTELS

I have been involved in looking at the southwest border as a 

Member of Congress and on a Committee that can do something 

about it since 2004. We have dumped tons of resources into the 

border. I see nothing but failure. I see, A, we have gone from cartels in Colombia to now cartels within 250 miles of my home. I 

woke up Saturday and Sunday finding out that 23 houses in Austin, Texas, were cartel-owned drug-distribution houses. The good 

news is we raided them, I think made 17 arrests. But the point is, 

now it is no longer 250 miles from my house; now it is 5 miles from 

my house, okay. 

And as far as I am concerned, and as far as the people of Texas 

are concerned, this is an expanding, potentially violent situation 

that is moving into our State. If there are 23 houses in Austin, 

Texas, there are 50 in San Antonio, and how many in San Diego 

nobody knows. So the question is this cancer is spreading it is not 

stopping. 

Meanwhile I talked to Border Patrol agents who were fired upon 

regularly from the Mexican side with no authority to return fire. 

We have got to at some time recognize that we have to actually 

get in the business of fighting these people and not just talking 

about fighting the people. 

And I want to know how much assurance do you have that AKs 

are not going to be firing in the capital city of Texas, because we 

now know the drug cartels are purchasing property in Austin, 

Texas. 

So this looks like to me we are failing at that level. We have now 

seen this violence moved up to within 5 miles of my home. I want 

you to give me an answer on what do you see that we can do to 

start fighting rather than talking about fighting now for all the 

time that I have been in this committee? Any answer. I will take 

any answer. 

Mr. BERSIN. To say that, in part, thanks to this committee, there 

are increased resources and that, in fact, the potential for progress 

exists is not to deny the gravity of the threat. In fact, as you suggest, when you deal with an issue in law enforcement, and in particular in one area, it moves and pops up in another area. So, in 

fact, we did see the movement of cartel power. Once the Medellin 

and Cali cartels were reduced in significance, we saw the growth 

of Mexican cartels. and we have seen the movement into the inteVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00896 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
897 

rior of the United States of drug-distribution gangs that are geared 

and based in organized crime in Mexico. 

Having recognized that threat, in fact, we build the capacity to 

deal with it. And we separate out, in fact, the need to prevent the 

kind of mass violence that we have seen in places like Juarez and 

increasingly in Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas from coming over in 

that form with that degree of shootouts in public places that Mexico has experienced. We haven’t seen that in the United States, and 

we need to do everything and intend to do everything to prevent 

that. 

That is not to deny, as you say, that there are drug-distribution 

rings in every medium- and large-sized city in the United States, 

and those cause and have violent repercussions. That means that 

we need to continue to do the investigation, the prosecution and 

the interdiction that takes place at greater levels than in the past, 

but is challenged by significant threats. 

So I take your point, Mr. Carter, but I don’t see this as unmitigated failure. I see it as a continuing challenge and the need to 

continue to ramp up our capacity as well as our willingness to stay 

the course on this. 

Mr. CARTER. I was in the business of putting people in prison for 

this for 20 years, okay? I know there is always going to be and always have been drug-distribution points. My point is it is organized 

crime, Mexican cartels that are out there buying homes and putting people in them. It means that they have got the resources and 

they have got the expansion to come as far as into Austin, Texas, 

which makes it mighty close to home for me. 

And I think that at some point in time, we have got to recognize 

we got them out of Colombia, why can’t we get them out of Mexico? 

What did we do in Colombia that pushed them out of Colombia? 

I think the Colombian Government got severely involved, and we, 

under the Bush administration, forced them and pushed them and 

cajoled them and financed them to get those people shoved out of 

Colombia, but they shoved them right into Mexico. And now we 

need somehow to get together—and I have the greatest respect for 

the Mexican Government. I went to school in Mexico. I believe they 

are a first-class country with first-class resources, and we can assist those resources. But this is a fight. We can’t just sit around 

and talk about it. 

I think if somebody fires upon an American who is doing his job 

on our side of the border from the other side of the border, we 

should talk to Mexico about shooting back, and if we don’t shoot 

back, all the Border Patrol can do is duck and cover. 

Mr. BERSIN. Border Patrol agents have the right to engage in 

self-defense, and what we have that is different from what has ever 

been the case is we have the potential and, in Arizona and Sonora, 

the reality of actually having federal police officers who coordinate 

with our Border Patrol to actually deal with this. 

So, for example, in the Tucson/Sonora corridor where the Secretariat of Public Security has deployed 200 federal police officers 

who are in regular contact with our Border Patrol, we have seen 

a decrease in the rocking incidents and a response, a real-time response. In that respect, I see great potential in terms of the coordination. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
898 

But your point in terms of protecting our Border Patrol agents, 

I take that point completely. 

Mr. CARTER. These incidents took place in the district at Laredo 

across the border, across the river. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thank you. 

Let us see. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

BORDER FENCING

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Bersin, in the rush to build the border 

wall, there was a failure to address some of the very legitimate 

concerns of affected landowners, and the wall continues to negatively impact border communities by limiting the ability of first responders to reach isolated areas, and by adversely affecting farms 

and other businesses. These stakeholders play a critical role in border security, and their views should be incorporated into CBP’s 

planning process moving forward. 

Can you please tell us what steps is your agency taking to develop constructive relationships with local landowners to mitigate 

the effects of fencing and other security measures on border communities? 

And also, given the fact that in some areas—I believe that El 

Paso is probably one of the best examples—public information offices have been established in certain sectors of the border to perform community outreach, and they have proven to be a very effective means of facilitating dialogue and addressing local concerns 

before they become major problems, are you also considering expanding those programs? 

Mr. BERSIN. Congresswoman, I believe, with regard to each of 

our Border Patrol sectors, we have a public outreach, a public affairs capacity locally. And one important improvement that has 

been made—as I return after a hiatus of 10 years to see the Border 

Patrol and the way in which it has grown—is that it has developed 

a significant and a sophisticated outreach capacity in terms of real 

communications communities and the development of relationships 

with community groups, civic groups and business groups in a way 

that simply was not the case. And you correctly point out that community outreach is absolutely essential in areas such as the building of the border fence that has taken place over the last number 

of years. 

Secretary Napolitano made clear when she came in—and as 

someone who has lived on the border for a very long time and been 

a political leader as well as a prosecutor, Governor in Arizona— 

that there would be this kind of outreach, and I think we can continue to see it, for example, in the area of environmental mitigation 

in which $50 million has been committed by CBP to the Department of the Interior. There is regular communication with the Department with regard to environmental mitigation and, in fact, regular communication with local communities. There has been, I 

think, considerable improvement, recognizing that we can always 

be better in terms of public outreach and public communication. 

But I believe the extensiveness of CBP contact, particularly the 

Border Patrol contact, having to do with the fence is actually a fact 

and a very positive fact. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
899 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I raise this because there was a letter sent 

to Congressmen from an association of landowners who feel that a 

lot more needs to be done, so I am glad that you are paying attention to this issue. But I think you need to look into it to make sure 

that there is more progress made in that particular area. 

TREATMENT OF UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

I also very quickly want to bring to your attention an issue that 

I have been concerned about for some time, and that is the reports 

that I continue to hear about the mistreatment of immigrants, especially unaccompanied children, at Border Patrol stations. And according to the human rights groups, these children sometimes go 

without beds or blankets, they fail to receive adequate nutrition, 

and in some cases have endured physical and emotional abuse. 

Can you please explain what steps that you are going to be taking to ensure that every individual in custody is treated humanely, 

and also to provide this committee with the policies and procedures 

governing their care, as well as if you could describe what oversight mechanisms exist to prevent the abuse of detained immigrants at Border Patrol facilities? 

I have asked this question before. I have gotten responses. I am 

told that changes are being made; however, I continue to hear from 

advocacy groups that go into these facilities and hear complaints 

from immigrants about their treatment. So again, this is an area 

that needs attention immediately, and there is a lot more that 

needs to be done especially in light of the fact that we are talking 

about young children here. 

Mr. BERSIN. The commitment to humane and lawful treatment 

of all people taken into custody is a paramount one and one that 

CBP takes seriously. As you know, for many years, the treatment 

of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) has been governed by the 

Reno v. Flores settlement, and, in fact, that sets the standard and 

the protocols that are required in this case. 

We have—and I have looked into this—with regard to so-called 

UAC, there are very established procedures that are followed and 

supervised to see to it that these minors are handled with extreme 

concern and care and watched very carefully as they are turned 

over to ICE for then, I think, subsequent transfer to the Department of Health and Human Services. So there is a very established, long established, procedure for handling UAC. I am satisfied 

our people understand the absolute importance of observing it and, 

to my knowledge, are observing it. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Could you please submit whatever those 

procedures are. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
900 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1297 here 61840B.039
901 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1298 here 61840B.040
902 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1299 here 61840B.041
903 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. And also I just want you to know that in 

private meetings with some Border Patrol, there does seem to be 

some confusion about what they can and can’t do and how to go 

about it. 

Mr. BERSIN. Before turning it over to Mr. Morton, let me say 

that, when you receive complaints in this area, or any other for 

that matter, please forward the specific facts, and they will be 

looked into. And, yes, we will provide you with the procedures that 

are required by Reno v. Flores. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. As well as the oversight procedures that 

you have. 

Mr. MORTON. Just very quickly, Border Patrol’s detention authority is quite limited, and it typically doesn’t extend much past a few 

hours to 12. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. That is what I am talking about, that 72- 

hour period. 

Mr. MORTON. And, in most instances, if there is going to be any 

prolonged detention, UACS are transferred to Immigration and 

Customs authority. And, as you know, we have a very pronounced 

overhaul of our immigration detention practices underway. But, 

with regard to minors, there is quite a detailed set of procedures. 

They come to us, but only very briefly, because we, in turn, turn 

them over to Child Protection Services in most instances or advocacy groups with contracts with the state. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Commissioner Bersin, can I ask your help, please, in providing 

me with some information that my office has been trying to get 

from you for some time? It is very simple and straightforward. We 

are looking for the numbers of individuals that have been apprehended, this by sector, sector by sector, on the southern border, and 

northern border, too, for that matter—we are not neglecting it, but 

obviously the problem, the most severe problem, is on the southern 

border—but sector by sector the number of individuals apprehended, and then the number of individuals actually prosecuted, by 

sector, over the last several fiscal years. Could you provide that to 

me by the end of the week? You have got the data. It is real simple. 

Mr. BERSIN. I was going to say I would be happy to provide the 

data. My understanding is we have apprehension statistics, and we 

have the prosecutions, particularly with regard to Operation 

Streamline. We will get it to you as expeditiously as we can. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: This response has been designated as ‘‘Law Enforcement Sensitive— 

For Official Use Only’’ and, as a result, cannot be placed in the record or released 

to the public. DHS has provided this response to the Committee separately. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate it. 

We and all of us in this Committee have a keen interest in making 

sure the border is secure. Those of us from Texas in particular, this 

is near and dear to us. 

My good friend Ciro Rodriguez—we were elected together in 

1986, and known each other, been good friends ever since—have 

worked together very successfully with Henry Cuellar, who also 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
904 

was elected with us to the Texas House in 1986, to implement Operation Streamline. Works beautifully. This is not complicated. You 

enforce existing law with existing resources by law enforcement officers who are using their good judgment and their good hearts to 

prosecute everybody who crosses with the obvious exception of 

women and children, who are handled a little differently. The officers are using their good judgment and their good hearts. 

But I was wondering if you could—just if you could reaffirm your 

support for Operation Streamline and our efforts to get it expanded 

up and down the southern border. You are in support of Streamline 

and want to see it expanded? 

Mr. BERSIN. Yes. As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of consequence delivery. As you understand, no series of 

crime, save the most heinous, actually are prosecuted at a 100 percent rate. But the importance of the deterrent effect in the application of Operation Streamline has a very important place in consequence delivery, in the deterrence of illegal immigration among 

other violations. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And you have seen the dramatic declines in the 

crime rate in the Del Rio and Laredo sector. It is just a terrific program. 

And also I think it is important, as Mr. Carter has said, that I 

think we quit—the country recognize that in a real sense there is 

an undeclared war on the southern border. Mexico is as violent 

today, Northern Mexico, as it was 100 years ago. I am going to go 

back and look at the level of violence 100 years ago during the 

Mexican Revolution in Northern Mexico and compare it to today, 

and I suspect we will discover that the level of violence today was 

even more severe than it was 100 years ago when President Wilson 

sent General Pershing to the southern border to deal with the violence that had crossed over into the United States. 

The Mexican Army itself—I understand the Department of Defense estimates that the Mexican Army has about 130,000 troops, 

but that the cartels, just the two biggest cartels together, have 

about 100,000 foot soldiers. So in a very real sense the level of violence, the spillover, the shootings across the border, the helicopter 

crossings, just the chaos and the violence that we see in Northern 

Mexico certainly meets—you know, Webster’s dictionary defines a 

state of war as a state of hostility, conflict or antagonism between 

opposing forces for a particular end. And I certainly think what we 

are seeing in Mexico today qualifies as a state of war, which we 

need to quit—we need to—as Mr. Carter says, there is a lot of talk, 

and we don’t see enough action. 

So I appreciate your commitment to expanding Operation 

Streamline. It is vitally important. It works beautifully. This is, 

from our perspective on the U.S. side, a law enforcement operation. 

We need to stay focused on that. The role that the National Guard 

played in the Bush administration was one of support and support 

of the Border Patrol, and I think that is important, but they were 

very successful where they were deployed and sincerely appreciate 

the dedication of your officers, the work that you are doing. I understand the frustrations and challenges you face. I know this 

Committee supports you in a bipartisan way. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
905 

I would like you to, if you could, look into what Mr. Carter has 

identified in the Laredo sector, several instances, and I am also 

aware of shootings, people from the Mexico side shooting at our law 

enforcement officers, and our law enforcement officers are unable 

to return fire. They are under orders not to return fire, and that 

just doesn’t make any sense. They can certainly shoot in self-defense. But I hope that you can correct that situation. 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Culberson, we will get back to you with the incidents that have occurred over the last 3 years and the facts attendant to each of them because the protection of our Border Patrol 

agents on the front line is very much uppermost in my mind. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Also I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 

the time, the Border Patrol in fiscal year 2008, Mr. Bersin reported 

that there were three individuals—and this is from the GAO report 

in August—that the Border Patrol reported in fiscal year 2008 

there were three individuals encountered by the Border Patrol at 

southwest border checkpoints who were identified as persons 

linked to terrorism. Who were they, and to what terrorist organizations were they linked? 

Mr. BERSIN. I prefer to get that back to you in response to that 

issue. I can’t identify those persons for you at this moment. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: This response has been designated as ‘‘Law Enforcement Sensitive— 

For Official Use Only’’ and, as a result, cannot be placed in the record or released 

to the public. DHS has provided this response to the Committee separately. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rothman. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner Bersin, Secretary Morton, thank you for being 

here. 

BORDER FENCING

I come from a non-Mexican border State, the State of New Jersey, but there are consequences to the flow of criminal activity 

across the Mexican border into the United States that are felt in 

New Jersey in terms of gang violence and drugs, of course. In many 

of my town hall meetings, the subject of illegal immigration comes 

up, especially that immigration originating across the Mexican border. 

The issue of a fence, some people say just build a fence all the 

way across the border. I notice in the budget we now have, in the 

testimony with Commissioner Bersin, 646 miles of fencing to go up 

to 655 miles of fencing. Do you consider that amount to be sufficient? Should the entire border be—should a fence be put up 

through the whole border? Would that be the best use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to stop the flow of illegal activity across the border? 

Mr. BERSIN. The building of more than 600 miles of fencing in 

the original directions of the Congress—Secretary Napolitano indicated when she took office more than a year ago that she committed to completing what Congress had mandated, and, except for 

several miles that are still being discussed, that commitment has 

been met. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
906 

The Secretary has also indicated that she will continue to be advised by professionals on the border (Border Patrol agents, our field 

officers, our air and marine officers, as well as ICE agents and others who live and work on the border) about whether or not any additional infrastructure would be necessary. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Commissioner, excuse me, I have a limited 

amount of time, so I want to follow up on your answer. So would 

it be a fair characterization of your testimony that today and in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget request of your agency, the amount of fencing that you want to build is being funded? 

Mr. BERSIN. To this date, yes, sir. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Next. There is a general sense—and this is a softball, this is one right over the middle for you gentleman to address—but there is some chatter out there from various sources 

saying that the border between Mexico and the U.S. is porous, it 

is practically open, there are criminal gangs just flowing 

unimpeded into the United States, drugs are coming in willy-nilly. 

Now, of course your written testimony belies that, but for the 

record, and this is being televised, are those statements true, illegal immigrants coming in, terrorists practically able to walk in 

without any problem? 

Mr. MORTON. Those statements aren’t true as your question suggests. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. They are true that all these things are happening 

easily without any impediments? 

Mr. MORTON. No. I think that both Commissioner Bersin and I 

would note for everyone here, and I think most of the individuals 

on the panel have seen it as well, that while the challenge remains 

very significant (and I don’t pretend that it is not a very real and 

significant challenge) the resources and enforcement dedicated to 

our southwest border has never been greater. And the change has 

been profound in the 16, 17 years I have been in the enforcement 

business. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. But sir, Mr. Secretary, is it enough? I appreciate 

the fact that there are more resources than ever, the threats are 

real, and you are addressing them with greater and greater success. Is your budget enough? Should we give you more money to 

do more things? 

Mr. MORTON. You know, that is a question that the administration officials always have to dance a little bit on, and so I will say 

that I am always happy to do everything I can with the good 

money that the Appropriations Committee gives me. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Are we gaining ground or losing ground in these 

areas? 

Mr. MORTON. I think we are gaining ground, but, again, I don’t 

want to be heard as saying that I think we have by any means 

solved the problem or that some of the points that Mr. Carter has 

made. I think the greater point is that we are in a long-term struggle with organized criminals, and they are trying to stay a step 

ahead of us. They are willing to go to lengths that we haven’t seen 

in the past, they are willing to go to a level of violence and brutality we haven’t seen in the past, and our job is to stay a step 

ahead of them. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
907 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And your budget reflects the resources to address 

that, you feel, this year? 

Mr. MORTON. I feel that this year for ICE, in particular, we are 

going to have the—— 

Mr. ROTHMAN. One fast question. 

Mr. PRICE. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will have a 

quick second round, but let me turn to Mr. Mollohan. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

DRUG SMUGGLING VIA TRUCKS

Mr. Bersin, there was an ABC World News Tonight report a year 

ago now which suggested that—the title was ‘‘Cocaine Highways 

Post-NAFTA: Most Drugs Cross U.S. Border in Trucks.’’ I don’t 

know if you are familiar with that report or not. But let me read 

the introductory paragraph. 

It says, Most of the drug shipments smuggled into the United 

States by the Mexican cartels are hidden in trucks that drive 

across U.S. border checkpoints in plain sight with little fear of inspection, U.S. law enforcement officials told ABC News. Only about 

5 percent of the trucks coming into the country from Mexico are inspected, according to U.S. officials, and that is out of 3 million loaded container trailers crossing the border checkpoints last year, 

which would have been 2008. 

And a Juan Zarate is quoted in this piece as saying, quote, It is 

just—Mr. Zarate dealt with these trafficking issues in George—in 

President Bush’s White House. Mr. Zarate was the Deputy National Security Director under President Bush, and he is quoted in 

this article as saying, It is just too costly and too slow, given the 

volume of trucks, to actually try to stop and inspect each and every 

truck. And he goes on and says that any attempt to inspect all 

trucks crossing the border, quote, would have a hugely negative impact in terms of commercial traffic and trade between the United 

States and Mexico. 

Is this accurate? Is this an accurate depiction of—— 

Mr. BERSIN. I am not familiar with that particular article. I 

would not say—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do the facts resonate with you? 

Mr. BERSIN [continuing]. That article, as you have described it 

adequately or accurately in all respects, characterizes the situation 

at the southern border. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you saying it does or it doesn’t? 

Mr. BERSIN. It does not because, in fact, there are sophisticated 

methods we use to determine which trucks or vehicles that are 

coming across the border need to be inspected, subjected to the 

kind of X-ray equipment that is unprecedented, in part, because of 

the resources provided by this Committee. 

In fact, more than 5 percent are inspected, but it is not just a— 

sometimes it is done on a random basis, but, in fact, there is a sophisticated targeting system based on advance information that we 

require of trucks coming to the border, in terms of the use of intelligence systems that we have, so that, in fact, it is much more organized, much more systematic and much more effective than that 

article suggests, sir. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
908 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It sounds like you are dealing with a tough problem. Statistics can’t be too far—are there 3 million trucks that 

come across the border inbound to the United States every year? 

Mr. BERSIN. I know that CBP handles 60,000 containers that 

come across every day via air, sea, and land. We don’t have—I will 

get you the specific number of trucks from that number. 

[The information follows:] 

Rep. MOLLOHAN: How many Mexican trucks travel inbound into the United States 

each year? 

RESPONSE: Please see the chart below for vehicles crossing from Mexico for Fiscal Years (FY) 2007–2009, and FY 2010 year-to-date ending in March. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER COMMERCIAL VEHICLE CROSSINGS FROM MEXICO 

(Past Three Fiscal Years (FY 07–09) + YTD FY 2010) 

4,818,936 4,967,514 4,275,977 2,286,277 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It sounds like a huge number of trucks coming 

across the border, and it sounds like a small percentage, relatively 

small. Your response to that is it may be relatively small, 5 percent 

might not be the right number, but it might be relatively small, but 

we deal with that by a sophisticated selection process. 

Mr. BERSIN. There are a variety of programs that help us distinguish between those cargoes about which we know something and 

those about which we know nothing. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would you for the record submit kind of a discussion of this? You are not going to have time to respond in my 

time, and I really think it is an important question. How do we 

deal with that? If it is true, once they get across the border, my 

goodness, what a transportation vehicle for drugs across the country. And this article goes on to say that there is a—they have hubs 

across the Nation, and it references Atlanta as doing it. 

For the record would you please elaborate on this answer and get 

us some accurate statistics and then how you are dealing with it, 

please? Would you submit to my office that copy, too? 

Mr. BERSIN. Yes, we will do that. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
909 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1318 here 61840B.042
910 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1319 here 61840B.043
911 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

MEXICAN GANGS

We are trying to honor Mr. Bersin’s schedule for an airline that 

is not going to wait, but we do have time, and I think we do have 

some further questions. So we will proceed with a brief second 

round here, if that is all right with you gentlemen. And I will begin 

by referencing Mr. Rogers’ comments about these gangs that have 

specialized in assassinations. The Aztecas, I think, was the case he 

quoted, responsible for something like 2,660 murders in 2009, just 

an incredibly and, of course, highly alarming figure. 

In that context I would like to ask you specifically about press 

reports that follow the March 13 killings of U.S. consulate workers 

and their family. The DEA led a multiagency gang sweep called 

Operation Knock Down to apprehend dangerous Azteca gangs 

members after that. Soon after there was a warning that came out 

of DHS. That is what I wanted to ask you about, a warning that 

said the Azteca had been given a green light to conduct retaliatory 

killings of U.S. law enforcement officers. What can you tell us 

about that? It sounds like an ominous escalation; looks like a type 

of direct confrontation that could mark a new level of engagement 

with these Mexican gangs. 

Mr. MORTON. To be candid with you, Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to answer that question off the record with you. But what I can 

say more generally is that we have— We are working very closely 

with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigations not only in Operation Knock Down, but to 

identify the killers in that case and to focus the full weight and resources of the Federal Government on the Barrio Aztecas. We get 

a lot of information through investigation. So far, we have not seen 

that the particular information that you refer to, in fact, reflects 

actual intentions. 

Mr. PRICE. Of course, I would welcome the information you have 

in whatever setting you need to use. This was a public pronouncement though, a green light on retaliatory killings of U.S. law enforcement officers, and that is why I bring it up in this setting, a 

very, very ominous kind of escalation of this. 

BESTS

All right. Let me turn to the Southwest, the Border Enforcement 

Task Force teams. You have referenced those a number of times 

today. I want to ask you more specifically about what value added 

they represent, and what kind of evidence you have of their performance, and also why this isn’t more explicitly reflected in the 

budget request for 2011. 

We provided 100 million last spring to respond to the drug violence in Mexico. ICE received 55 million of this, largely for these 

new so-called BEST teams, as well as more border intelligence officers, expanded investigatory resources, and so on. 

Do you have any measure of success, Secretary Morton? What 

kind of difference are these units making? What is their value 

added? What is your measure system? What do you anticipate? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
912 

We know that the 2011 budget request continues the base budget 

for ICE southwest border initiatives like BEST. There is no specific 

funding proposed for expansion of this effort, and so it just raises 

the question, is a flat budget adequate for what appears to be a 

problem that is not going away and, we hope, an initiative that is 

making some headway? 

Mr. MORTON. A few things, Mr. Chairman. First, I think our 

budget does, in fact, request a modest increase for the BESTs, including three new ones. They would not be along the southwest 

border. Two would be at seaports, and one would be along the 

northern border. 

Mr. PRICE. Excuse me. Could you clarify that? There is some 

BEST team expansion, but not on the southwest border. 

Mr. MORTON. Not on the southwest border. But more generally, 

and I think that is a reflection, Mr. Chairman, of the very tight 

budget environment, that our modest increase would, in fact, focus 

how much importance we give to these task forces. 

Very quickly, the whole task force concept for BEST was in response to the violence in Laredo in 2005, very similar to the conversation that we have had today. That worked so well that we immediately adopted the basic concept elsewhere, and it has grown 

very rapidly. We use task forces for all sorts of things, from criminal investigation to surge operations that we do with CBP. CBP is 

our biggest partner on the task forces, and we have begun to work 

very closely with the marshals. We are hunting down fugitives. We 

returned a number of wanted murderers using the task forces. We 

go out and we find them, and we return them to Mexico. 

What do we need to do a better job on? Were Congress to appropriate the 2011 budget, we would move to 20. I have directed that 

we create an office here in headquarters to better coordinate what 

we are doing, to make sure that the task forces are working in tandem in their respective spheres and that we have articulable measurements for success, so that you, the Committee, can evaluate 

how value added that we think they are and why we think they 

have been so successful. 

They have worked really well in the seaport context. We are 

thinking about having our very first one in a major international 

airport. It just has worked well. We are bringing not only our federal law enforcement partners, but our local law enforcement partners. 

One little trick that we may want to talk to you about in terms 

of making the program a full success is that our ability to reimburse some of our state and local law enforcement partners is quite 

limited. CBP has much broader authority, and we can reimburse 

some overtime, some equipment purchases, but our authority is 

quite narrow; it is not really a question of money, but just authority for it. And I think that would greatly help the overall effectiveness of the BESTs. 

Mr. PRICE. Have you, in fact, requested that formally? 

Mr. MORTON. No, and we need to talk to you about it. It is really 

just getting the legalities down in terms of our authorities. I don’t 

think it is a heavy lift. It is something that we need to come and 

brief you about. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
913 

Mr. Rogers. 

JIATFS

Mr. ROGERS. How many BESTs are on the southwest border? 

Mr. MORTON. Ten, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. The last time you were here, we talked about the 

advisability of creating a joint interagency task force for the whole 

southwest border, where all of the agencies that might be involved 

in some fashion would be headquartered under one roof to coordinate the defense of that border, much the same as the JIATF task 

force in Florida manages the Caribbean antidrug war very, very 

successfully. Are you giving some thought to that? 

Mr. MORTON. A lot of thought. I think most people would agree 

with your general assessment that Joint Interagency Task Force 

(JIATF) South has worked quite well, that something akin to 

JIATF South, from an intelligence perspective, makes a lot of sense 

along the southwest border. 

Mr. Bersin and I have talked about this subject at great length, 

and the question is do we model something like JIATF South for 

the southwest border in a place like the El Paso Intelligence Center 

(EPIC), which is right now very sort of Department of Justice 

(DOJ)- and DEA-centric (although CBP has quite a presence and 

ICE has quite a presence), or do we have an outright JIATF structure that is independent of EPIC along the border? But I think few 

people would argue with your basic premise that JIATF South or 

something like that would be quite useful along the border. It think 

we think it does. 

Mr. ROGERS. We talked about this last year. Have you moved at 

all since then? 

Mr. MORTON. Yes, we have talked about it a lot in the interdiction committee that both Mr. Bersin will now sit on and that I sit 

on presently. There are many moving parts. Obviously to do this 

right, you have to get a lot of different federal agencies to come together under one roof and to coordinate. CBP and ICE, fortunately 

we are within the same Department, and we are already moving 

a lot of our intelligence operations closer and closer together. 

I think the momentum, though, is very much in favor of the general concept that you outlined, and it is just a matter of time. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we are facing problems on that border as we 

have talked about this morning that are enormous and growing 

and very dangerous to the security of the whole country, both us 

and Mexico. And it seems to me that we need a single place where 

all of the agencies, military and civilian, are headquartered, much 

like JIATF South on the antidrug war in the Caribbean, so that 

you can call instantly on any asset of any of these agencies that 

may or may not be needed and get an instant response, and where 

you coordinate both Justice Department activities as well as DHS 

and any military agencies. And when can we expect a decision 

about doing this? 

Mr. MORTON. I can’t promise you any timetable on a decision because it obviously involves many more players than me. What I can 

tell you is I actually spoke to Michele Leonhart, who is the Acting 

Administrator of DEA, on this very issue, this exact conversation, 

on the way back from the trip to Mexico, and we agreed that I 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
914 

would go down. We are waiting for Commissioner Bersin to come 

on board and go down and take a hard look at EPIC and what we 

are doing there. We just need to have that kind of assessment in 

conversation among the key players. And now that Alan is here, 

that is very much one of the key players, and we will move from 

there. 

Mr. ROGERS. Could we get an update on your progress, say, within 30 days? Is that a reasonable time, or should it be longer or 

shorter? 

Mr. BERSIN. We could certainly give you an update on where the 

discussions on EPIC and the coordination among agencies is, but 

I think realistically because—as you recognize—this would be a 

major structural transformation, 90 or 120 days would give you 

more substance than not. 

Mr. ROGERS. What could we expect in 90 days? 

Mr. BERSIN. I think what we could report back to you is where 

the federal agencies across DHS and DOJ, and the Department of 

Defense for that matter, would be in terms of the willingness to entertain in serious detail, not in rhetorical flourish, of the notion of 

a unified command, a joint command or a variety of other command mechanisms that are available. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, to try to further this process along, 

I would hope that we could informally request of the gentlemen a 

report on how we are doing in 90 days. Would that be a reasonable 

request? 

Mr. MORTON. Fine. From the two of us. 

Mr. PRICE. Let us just agree at this point that we will make that 

informal request and look forward to it. 

Mr. ROGERS. That would be a big step forward. I think the time 

has come for a headquarters operation like this to manage that 

whole aspect of the southwest border. 

BULK CASH SMUGGLING

Quickly switching gears, last time I guess it was you were here, 

Secretary Morton, we talked about the flow of drugs across the border this way, and possibly the money and guns and stuff going the 

other way. What can you tell us about those subjects? 

First off, do we have an estimate, a rough estimate, of the 

amount of money that the drug sales in this country are netting 

the cartels in Mexico? 

Mr. MORTON. Yes. There are broad ranges of anywhere from $18 

billion to north of 30—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Eighteen to $30 billion per year? 

Mr. MORTON. Per year. 

Mr. ROGERS. And that is money going from the U.S. to the cartels across the border, the southwest border? 

Mr. MORTON. Yes. And then, in certain instances, to places like 

Colombia and other countries. 

Mr. ROGERS. How can that amount of money, say, $30 billion, 

how that can that amount of money cross that border without us 

knowing about it? Just the bulk of that is something; is it not? 

Mr. MORTON. It is. 

If you were to ask me where is the area where we need to devote 

more time and attention to developing intelligence, it is in this 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
915 

exact area that the—although CBP and ICE’s seizures—and we 

typically do these together because a lot of CBP’s seizures are 

based on ICE leads—are at an all-time high, the truth of the matter is we are seizing a fraction of those estimates if that is right. 

Mr. ROGERS. How much money have we seized going south? 

Mr. MORTON. This has been a particularly good year. We typi- cally, between the two agencies, are north of $200 million per year. 

This particular year we had one of the largest seizures in ICE’s 

history of $40 million in some shipping containers going between 

Mexico and Colombia. We found the containers in the space of 

about 10 days. They were packaged inside very large ammonium 

nitrate shipments. 

Mr. ROGERS. You recovered roughly $200 million out of $30 billion? 

Mr. MORTON. Yes. And then DEA and the other partners at Justice seized a similar amount, but, again, it is by no means the majority of the money. We are not seizing most that is going south if 

those estimates are right. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is a miniscule percentage, a very miniscule 

percentage. 

Commissioner Bersin, do you have any information you can 

share with us on this? 

Mr. BERSIN. Congressman, although much of the money goes 

down in bulk cash, as Secretary Morton indicated, and CBP and 

ICE are working to intercept it, not all of it is bulk cash, but rather 

is transferred through banking channels and through trade arrangements. And, as Mr. Morton suggested, we need a lot more intelligence about the way in which money is laundered, and we need 

to be able to identify with much more precision about what the proportion is in cash as opposed to other kinds of transfers. And frankly, we need to get a better range, simply $18 million up to $30 billion, so that we can be much more responsive in our efforts. 

Mr. ROGERS. It seems like this is a very fertile field for getting 

at the problem, and that is tracking the cash that is flowing across 

that border in rivers. Quickly—— 

Mr. MORTON. If I could add one thing on that, Mr. Rogers, there 

are many things that we are doing to try to address that exact 

point. We are working with the DEA, ICE, CBP and the Mexicans 

to study the flow of money from the United States to Mexico. And 

we are also working with the World Customs Organization (WCO) 

to try to broaden our efforts. We are doing these for the first time, 

international bulk cash smuggling surges, where we get— Last 

year we had more than 80 countries pick a week, and we hit every 

airport, we hit every crossing, and we just went looking for trouble. 

And it has been quite successful. We want to do more of those 

under the umbrella of the WCO, and we have seized a lot of cash. 

And this phenomenon is by no means limited to the drug cartels. 

All large criminal organizations need to move money back and 

forth, and they do it through bulk cash smuggling or through sophisticated money laundering. 

FIREARM SEIZURES

Mr. ROGERS. At this Committee some time back there was a lot 

of noise made about weapons of the cartels coming from the U.S. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
916 

across that border. Have you determined how much weaponry is 

going north to south? 

Mr. MORTON. I have not, and as alluded to earlier, we have 

some—we have very limited authority in the firearms area. Typically we look to ATF for the estimates and analysis of what is coming and going across the border because they have the tracing authority. We do not. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Commissioner, do you have information for us? 

Mr. BERSIN. Not to add to that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I can tell you this: According to CBP, no 

weapons have been seized by way of rail into Mexico from the U.S. 

Only 72 weapons have been seized heading outbound at points of 

entry, including one submachine gun, 15 shotguns, 28 rifles and 28 

handguns. Considering the weaponry that the cartels have in Mexico, these are popguns that we are talking about here. There is 

hardly any weaponry that has been seized going south across that 

border. Is that generally true? 

Mr. MORTON. I know that our seizures are roughly in the neighborhood of about 1,500 per year. So most of the seizures that I am 

aware of occurred in Mexico and obviously could have come from 

a variety of sources, including the southern border of Mexico and 

elsewhere. 

Mr. ROGERS. No. I mean outbound weapons at points of entry. 

Mr. MORTON. I would have to defer to the Commissioner. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me say to the gentleman we did receive, in response to inquiries in our last hearing, specific information about 

weapons seized at outbound points of entry. What we don’t have is 

a fuller account of the assessment of the weapons seized in the 

country, in Mexico and the country of origin of those weapons. 

Mr. BERSIN. That is an area of continued inquiry in terms of the 

population of weapons you look at. But the Congressman is right. 

In Fiscal Year 2009, 109 firearms were seized by CBP, and thus 

far to this point in this fiscal year, 72 firearms have been seized 

at outbound checks. 

Mr. ROGERS. And those were the numbers that I quoted to you. 

But the question the chairman was talking about of the origin of 

weapons that have been found in Mexico, what can you tell us 

about those? 

Mr. MORTON. That is where ATF comes in with the tracing. 

Mr. PRICE. That is the information we still need to get from ATF. 

Mr. MORTON. ICE does have FFL authority under the law. 

Mr. PRICE. We will pursue that energetically because we do need 

to fill out the picture more fully. 

All right. Moving right along. Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And let me say in that 

particular specific area, I know we put in about 15–17 million to 

do that, which is not sufficient in all honesty, and the little reports 

that I got when I was in Mexico was that a good a number, they 

felt, came from the U.S., but they weren’t sure. What they did 

know was that a lot of the guns did come from the wars that we 

have had in Central America and elsewhere, especially some of the 

big arms. But we do need additional data. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
917 

DRUG SEIZURES

I also feel what the Congressman, Minority Leader, just talked 

about in terms of following the money, we haven’t done a good job 

there. And I know there is some stuff out there in the Caribbean, 

and there are some other people doing some things. But please let 

us know in terms of what else we might be able to do there, because if it is $30 billion, and that amount remains stagnant, and 

we have done a lot more capture of a lot more drugs, and assuming 

that our appetite for drugs in this country has remained the same, 

then we made some inroads. If our appetite has increased, then we 

haven’t, we are not there yet. 

But let me also just add I had an opportunity to visit 13 of my 

20 counties. One of them was at Fort Hancock, which is Hudspeth 

County, and there is a genuine—of all my counties, I think that is 

where there is a genuine fear there that is occurring and a concern 

in terms of what is happening on the other side. I met with the 

sheriff’s staff on this side. I met with the Border Patrol. And by the 

way, they are doing a tremendous job. All the numbers are dropping in my three sectors, and they are doing good work and haven’t 

heard too many complaints or too many concerns except in that 

specific area, and that fear is from other communities not wanting 

to send their kids to play ball there, to do other things like that. 

And I know that part of it is just what they hear in terms of what 

is occurring across the border and what is happening in terms of 

the ones that are coming across. There are increases locally in 

terms of they were telling me they got about 1,100 seizures of the 

local authorities there. 

And having said that, I wanted to reemphasize how important it 

is for us to continue work with our sheriffs and the county officials 

as well as the cities. And I mentioned the city of Presidio because 

they have, I think, one deputy working there for the whole city; 

they can’t afford any more. 

So that Stonegarden project that the chairman has been really 

helpful on has been really a good program that has been extremely 

positive, and ironically Hudspeth County is not one of the ones that 

has received those resources. But it has been helpful. 

So whatever we can do to beef up on local authorities and somehow look at the language, and also look at the school districts, because I know I have a couple of school districts where there has 

been talk about people coming over, and the kids that are dropping 

out, where there is dialogue about picking up some of those kids 

who do the drugs now from the cartels. I don’t have any evidence, 

but I know we have had a lot of talk in some areas in the border 

where it might be happening in Brownsville. Whatever we might 

do in terms of those political subdivisions such as school districts, 

cities and counties and continue to support that, I would appreciate 

it. 

I know the administration, did they wipe out that sector, the $60 

million that we put in there, Mr. Chairman? It is in the budget? 

I know I will be asking the chairman to see if we can up those 

numbers a little bit in not only helping the northern border, but 

the southern border. So I wanted to stop with that and seeing how 

else we might be able to work with those communities. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
918 

One of the other is just communication. Along that border there, 

my God, you get lost. They are still unable to communicate among 

themselves. Having that interoperable communication capability is 

essential, and every year we put a little bit, a little bit. In some 

areas we are almost there, in other areas we are not quite there 

yet, where the local sheriff and the local police can dialogue with 

not only EMS, but also Border Patrol and other people. That is important. And so thank you very much. If either of you want to comment on that. 

Mr. PRICE. Why don’t we ask Mr. Mollohan to close us out, if 

that is all right, because our time is really drug to a close. 

Mr. Mollohan. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

EPIC AS PRIMARY INTELLIGENCE CENTER

Gentlemen, Drug Enforcement Agency’s 2011 request includes 

$40 million to dramatically expand the El Paso Intelligence Center. 

Part of the justification for that is the anticipation that ICE is 

going to be using that. Following up on the ranking minority Member’s questions, does ICE intend to choose EPIC as its primary intelligence center for southwest border needs? 

Mr. MORTON. I was unaware that that request was based in any 

formal way on a decision by ICE because that decision hasn’t been 

reached. What I have agreed to do is to take a hard look at the 

resources we have at EPIC. I think we need to have much more 

coordinated intelligence gathering—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. When are you going to make these decisions? 

Because these funding decisions are going to be made very quickly, 

and it is a large amount of money. So the question is, does ICE 

support using EPIC as the primary intelligence center? And that 

is the question that really needs to be answered for us to respond 

to these requests from these law enforcement agencies. 

Mr. MORTON. I think, as we have noted, that is an ongoing discussion and will be part of what we get back in the 90 days that 

we have agreed to here. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Ninety days. I agree with the ranking member, 

90 days is a long time, because we are going to be making these 

funding decisions much more quickly than 90 days. 

Mr. MORTON. One thing I need to do is to look at DEA’s request 

for $40 million and to the extent that it refers to ICE, which is 

news to me, and then talk to Michele about it. But I am not prepared at this time to say that we have decided that, in fact, EPIC 

is the place to be. It is obviously one of the prime contenders. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What would be the alternative to using EPIC for 

that purpose? 

Mr. MORTON. One of the other centers or the creation of a new 

center along the southwest border. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who would stand the new center up? 

Mr. MORTON. Well, it could be the Department of Homeland Security. CBP and ICE already are, in practical terms, the principal 

players along the border. CBP and ICE share intelligence regularly. We are already moving many of our operations. We do them 

in the same place. And then, of course, the military is a key player. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
919 

JIATF South, to start with, has a very strong military support and 

structure to it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would you include my office, please, in the updates that Mr. Rogers has asked for this purpose? 

Mr. MORTON. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are making these decisions real time. 

Mr. ROGERS. Would the gentleman yield on that briefly? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I don’t have very much time here. May I yield 

after I am finished, please? Because if I can get one more question 

here, I am going to feel lucky, one more question in. 

WEAPONS SEIZURES

That is a paltry number of weapons to seize going out of the 

country. Is that because you are not checking, you are not screening for traffic going out of the country? Why wouldn’t you catch 

or—did you say 18 weapons going across the border into Mexico? 

Mr. BERSIN. One hundred nine in the last fiscal year, but, in fact, 

we have not seized any weapons in rail, and yet every rail shipment in and out of the United States is subject to an X-ray examination. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. My statistics—and I am sorry to be so quick 

here and cut you off, I understand that is rude, and I don’t want 

to do that, but I have to get the essence of my question. I understand that 90 percent of the firearms found in Mexico come from 

the United States. Did you agree or disagree with that statistic? 

Mr. BERSIN. I disagree with that. That is a statement that has 

been broadly publicized but does not reflect the reality. The most 

that could be said is that 90 percent of the weapons that have been 

traced may originate in the United States, but we don’t know what 

the larger population of weapons are. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can you give us a statistic of what percentage 

of the weapons being illegally used in Mexico come from the United 

States? 

Mr. BERSIN. As Mr. Morton indicated, that is information—we 

haven’t dodged questions—that is information that is more readily 

available from ATF. 

Mr. PRICE. To answer your question, I am sure both of our Committees have made this request, and we need to get a better answer. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It sounds to me, Mr. Chairman, we are not doing 

enough screening or focusing on effective screening of weapons 

traveling south. We screen a lot coming north, but not having 

enough time to—I won’t make a judgment on that, not having 

enough time to follow up on the question. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rodriguez, I guess you have a quick request for 

the record? 

EPIC

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Just really quickly, I know that the State Department had also been looking in terms of the money expenditures 

that were going into Mexico, doing something, as was discussed 

here, about some collaborative effort together in some area that includes the State Department in our efforts with Mexico, at one 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
920 

point a little bit over $1 billion, and hopefully maybe we can dialogue, move that dialogue further into some reality in forming some 

center that will respond to that and address all those issues beyond 

not only security, but what is also occurring in Mexico in the training of the judges and all that other stuff. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Briefly, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Mollohan, of 

course, will be important if we do a JIATF-like organization on the 

southwest border because he appropriates the funds for the Justice 

Department. And I hear him saying that 90 days, if we delay the 

decision 90 days, it is going to be too late for the action of these 

Subcommittees to write into the budget next year’s money for such 

a center. 

Mr. Bersin. 

Mr. BERSIN. If I may say respectfully, I think that what we are 

talking about is such a remarkable institutional transformation 

that, in fact, would not be a matter for this budget year, in any 

case. And although I agree that the issue on EPIC is improving its 

service to ICE and CBP as border agencies, we have made a huge 

investment in EPIC over the years, and I don’t think in the next 

90 days we will be in a position to make a radical departure. 

But I take your point that we should be in a position to report 

in 90 days where the status of the discussion is, and, if it is going 

further, then, in fact, it has real budgetary implications. 

Mr. ROGERS. Just be advised that the Subcommittees may override you and do this anyway. 

Mr. MORTON. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Whether you like it or not or whether you are prepared for it or not. 

Mr. BERSIN. I understand. But if you ask for my recommendation, I would not make a radical change in course in the period of 

time that we have to consider this in this budget cycle. 

Mr. ROGERS. With the severity of the problem on the border, a 

radical change may be in order. 

Mr. PRICE. In any case, the request stands for the 90-day report, 

as full as you can make it, of the state of your present thinking 

and interagency discussions. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
921 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1343 61840B.044
922 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1344 61840B.045
923 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1345 61840B.046
924 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1346 61840B.047
925 

With that, we really have run out of time, and we will adjourn 

the hearing with thanks to both of you for your good work and for 

your testimony today. 

Mr. MORTON. Thank you. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
926 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1347 61840B.048
927 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1348 61840B.049
928 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1349 61840B.050
929 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1350 61840B.051
930 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1351 61840B.052
931 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1352 61840B.053
932 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1353 61840B.054
933 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1354 61840B.055
934 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1355 61840B.056
935 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1356 61840B.057
936 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1357 61840B.058
937 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1358 61840B.059
938 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1359 61840B.060
939 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1360 61840B.061
940 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1361 61840B.062
941 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1362 61840B.063
942 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1363 61840B.064
943 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1364 61840B.065
944 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1365 61840B.066
945 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1366 61840B.067
946 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1367 61840B.068
947 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1368 61840B.069
948 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1369 61840B.070
949 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1370 61840B.071
950 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1371 61840B.072
951 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1372 61840B.073
952 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1373 61840B.074
953 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1374 61840B.075
954 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1375 61840B.076
955 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1376 61840B.077
956 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1377 61840B.078
957 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1378 61840B.079
958 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1379 61840B.080
959 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1380 61840B.081
960 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1381 61840B.082
961 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1382 61840B.083
962 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1383 61840B.084
963 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1384 61840B.085
964 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1385 61840B.086
965 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1386 61840B.087

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(967) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

DHS AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS AND INVESTMENTS: 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND COAST 

GUARD 

WITNESSES 

REAR ADMIRAL VINCE ATKINS, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR CAPABILITY, U.S. COAST GUARD 

MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL KOSTELNIK (RET.), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Good morning. 

The Subcommittee will come to order. We are going to be examining this morning the respective roles and coordination between 

the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection in carrying 

out their air and marine missions. 

This is a somewhat different way of configuring a hearing. But 

we think it will let us get at some issues that wouldn’t be raised 

in exactly the same way in separate discussions with the Coast 

Guard and CBP. 

So we appreciate you both being here. 

The Department of Homeland Security is analogous to a police 

force in some ways, with the Coast Guard and the CBP walking 

the same beat, watching for smugglers and working to thwart their 

efforts. Their aircraft and vessels patrol our borders and coasts and 

interdict migrants and illegal drugs. Their illustrious histories 

originated in the first acts of the U.S. Congress to collect revenue, 

counter smuggling, and protect life and property along the coast. 

And their range is vast: 7,500 miles of land border, and 95,000 

miles of coastline. 

This hearing is the first opportunity for this subcommittee to examine how these essential programs work in tandem to support a 

wide range of law enforcement, national security, and humanitarian missions. 

We welcome Admiral Vince Atkins, assistant commandant for capability for the U.S. Coast Guard; and Michael Kostelnik, assistant 

commissioner for the Office of Air and Marine, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection for a frank discussion of this topic. 

Admiral Atkins is a leading member of the DHS senior guidance 

team on matters related to the Department’s maritime, air and 

surface capabilities and is Coast Guard’s lead executive for the 

Predator B partnership, one area of focus for today’s hearing. Before his current assignment, Admiral Atkins served as deputy director of response policy, overseeing development of policy guidance 

for the Coast Guard’s statutory missions and helping friend the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
968 

foundation for cross-agency partnerships that we will examine 

today. 

Assistant Commissioner Kostelnik directs the world’s largest civilian aviation and maritime agency. Before coming to CBP, the 

Commissioner had a distinguished U.S. Air Force career, retiring 

as major general. He then ran NASA’s manned space and international space station programs. For his 5 years with CBP, he has 

helped transform Air and Marine into a national enterprise, a long 

way from its origins as a loose confederation of field operations. 

Cooperation between these agencies has been very successful in 

places like Puerto Rico, where shared resources have slowed undocumented immigration through the Mona Pass and intercepted 

illegal drugs headed for American shores. On the drug front, their 

joint efforts are combined with DOD and DEA under the Joint 

Inter-Agency Task Force South, which coordinates efforts in the 

western hemisphere to detect, monitor and interdict drug smuggling by sea and air. 

Both agencies are long conducted aerial surveillance along our 

coasts. The Coast Guard has its C–130 and C–144 aircraft, and 

CBP has its P–3 and Dash–8. All are used to identify and track 

smugglers moving drugs from South Africa to the Caribbean and 

Gulf Coast. Both agencies operate helicopters for interdiction, law 

enforcement support, and humanitarian assistance. 

CBP and the Coast Guard are jointly developing a maritime variant of the Predator B unmanned aircraft system to extend their 

surveillance abilities. This maritime variant, named the Guardian, 

was first flown in 2008, and it is undergoing additional operational 

testing. Another is requested by CBP in the 2011 budget. The 

Guardian represents a new level of collaboration on this critical 

mission, and we look forward to learning more details about this 

program today. 

Coordination between these two agencies also extends to managing and sharing assets. Over the past 2 years, Coast Guard has 

transferred 73 small vessels, including 55 SAFE boats, to CBP for 

refurbishment and marine deployment. Both agencies participate 

in DHS councils to review aircraft and vessel procurement planning and decisions. And they have benefited from access to each 

other’s contracts. In light of such cooperation, we hope to hear 

today how the two agencies manage their overlapping jurisdictions, 

how they coordinate their missions, and how they share intelligence. 

Despite many positive elements, we have concerns about the sustainability of these programs. First, the lack of trained operators 

and support staff could reduce DHS capacity to carry out aerial 

surveillance missions. For example, their request for 2011 cuts 120 

CBP pilots and other positions funded last year to support the UAS 

program. This seems inconsistent, at least on the face of it, with 

plans to deploy the Predator. 

In addition, while both Coast Guard and CBP are acquiring new 

marine and air assets, they are burdened with aging fleets which 

are increasingly expensive and dangerous to operate. The need for 

Coast Guard recapitalization is well known, and CBP’s air assets 

are over 33 years old on average. We expect to explore today 

whether CBP can sustain its operating tempo while delaying reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 00968 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
969 

placements, as anticipated in the budget. And turning an eye toward the long-term situation of these assets, this Subcommittee 

needs updated and overdue strategic recapitalization plans for CBP 

and the Coast Guard. I suppose I am starting to sound like a broken record on that issue. But I have to say again, without this information, we cannot assess how the Department will modernize 

these aging fleets. And therefore, it is very difficult to put our 2011 

budget decisions in perspective. 

Admiral Atkins and Commissioner Kostelnik, we anticipate an 

informative discussion today. Your full written statements will be 

placed in the record. So we are going to ask you to limit your remarks to a 5-minute oral presentation. And before you begin, I 

want to turn to our distinguished ranking member, Hal Rogers, for 

his comments. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
970 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1393 here 61840B.088
971 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1394 here 61840B.089
972 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1395 here 61840B.090
973 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER HAROLD ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General and Mr. Commandant, thank you for being here. Welcome to the Committee. It is good to see you and to be seen with 

you. 

Each of you, of course, has a very tough job, you are the ones 

caught between the bean counters here in Washington and the bureaucrats at DHS headquarters, and the brave men and women in 

the field, who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe 

and secure. 

And you are the ones apparently getting squeezed, shortchanged 

by the fiscal year 2011 budget, a budget that proposes to substantially increase the Department’s headquarters’ staff and put $200 

million of its money toward security costs of terrorist trials, needlessly I might add; while also cutting funding for CBP’s air and 

marine personnel by 3.6 percent, cutting Coast Guard operational 

personnel by more than 1,110 military billets and decommissioning 

or deactivating 19 operational components; cutting funding for 

CBP’s air and marine procurement and maintenance by 3.2 percent 

and cutting funding for Coast Guard acquisitions by more than 10 

percent. 

So to put it mildly, your tough jobs are getting made tougher by 

an administration that is increasing bureaucracy at the expense of 

operations, a prioritization that I find simply indefensible. We all 

know the threat. We all know your aging assets are in dire need 

of recapitalization. The challenge before you now is how to meet 

your mission requirements with fewer dollars. This is certainly no 

small chore since the boats and aircraft our frontline operators 

need are expensive, and the systems to make those assets work together are inherently complex. 

So we are counting on both of you and the men and women that 

you command to find a way to collectively use the talent and experience at CBP and the Coast Guard to link funding to real results 

and do this in a fiscally responsible way. 

While the joint program offices that you have established are 

noteworthy, it is collaboration at the technical level in the field 

that I find far much more significant. In fact, the need for teamwork during operations was probably best summed up by the Coast 

Guard sector commander in San Juan, then Captain Jim Tunstall, 

who simply remarked when CBP isn’t flying, I cannot see anything. 

What Captain Tunstall was specifically referring to was the Mona 

Pass, as the chairman indicated, a heavily trafficked stretch of 

water where CBP provides aerial surveillance, since the Coast 

Guard has no maritime patrol aircraft in Puerto Rico. 

That teamwork exhibited by CBP and the Coast Guard in Puerto 

Rico exemplified what I believe is the most critical asset in our entire Homeland Security arsenal, sheer will, the will to put turf battles aside and seek any and all means to further the broader 

Homeland Security mission, which is exactly what was envisioned 

when DHS was established. And it is exactly what the American 

people expect of our security professionals today. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
974 

So that brings us to today’s hearing, what I hope will be a 

thoughtful discussion of how CBP and the Coast Guard are working together to further the protection of our borders and shores. 

Gentlemen, please know that we and the American people are 

very appreciative of the work that you are doing, very grateful for 

all of the sacrifices made by those in the field, whom you represent 

here today. We thank you for being here. We look forward to hearing your views. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Whatever order you prefer to proceed. But please go ahead. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
975 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1400 here 61840B.091
976 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1401 here 61840B.092
977 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1402 here 61840B.093
978 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1403 here 61840B.094
979 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL KOSTELNIK

General KOSTELNIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a pleasure to be here, Ranking Member Rogers, Congressman Calvert. 

First, let me begin by thanking this Committee for your outstanding support over the five years that I have been associated 

with the program. And as the chairman properly noted, Air and 

Marine, although our roots with U.S. Customs go back to the beginning of the Customs service more than 200 years, the current 

configuration of Air and Marine is only five years old. 

And, of course, our recapitalization efforts was a significant issue 

going back to the legacy Border Patrol air fleet that was in poor 

condition and the legacy Customs fleet of aircraft and maritime 

vessels in support. And back in 2005, at the beginning of the merger, there were insubstantial funds for any serious recapitalization 

effort. 

Now five years later, with the support of this Committee, we 

have done a lot of things. You all have provided more than a billion 

dollars for an aircraft recapitalization program which we think we 

have invested wisely. We still operate some of the oldest aircraft 

in the inventory, but don’t confuse age with capability. 

Going back to the P–3 program, in front of our larger sister service, the United States Navy, we made a decision in 2005 to restore 

the P–3 fleet, with your support, create a service life extension program. We have done that. In 2006, recall, all those aircraft were 

grounded through 2007 and 2008. And we tried to fly the mission 

with three or four aircraft. 

And today, I am pleased to tell you, 11 of those 16 aircraft are 

operational. Three are still permanently grounded until rewinging, 

but we have completed the acquisition process in 2011 for 10 wing 

sets. We have the first aircraft to be rewinged in advance of the 

Navy fleet that rolls out this spring and will enter operational service; the second aircraft later this year. And we will complete the 

rewinging of all 10 aircraft as early as 2015. 

We have taken due diligence on some of the oldest aircraft we 

have. We still operate more than 50 percent of our fleet with aircraft that are 33 years, on average, old. Some of those are a concern. We have managed those very closely. The worst ones we have 

started to de-assess. In fact, this year we lost our confidence in our 

MB–600 fleet, grounded those nine helicopters. 

The P–3s have been restored. We are updating the A model 

Black Hawks to L model configuration. With your support, we purchased new M model Black Hawks. So while we keep the old aircraft solid and maintain them on duty and upgrade them with sensors and new capabilities and upgrades to keep them safe, we are 

also recapitalizing the middle parts of our fleet that, while still 

functional and not safety or flight issues, have been short in the 

areas of performance. 

A lot of that has been with your help, most importantly last year 

with the plus-up of our maritime program. Clearly, with the things 

happening in Somalia and off the coast of the Horn of Africa with 

pirating and so forth, clearly small boats and the approaches to the 

country are an increasingly important part of our Nation’s defense. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
980 

While we focus on the land borders, we have not forgotten about 

the water borders. And with your support, the 11 new marine 

branches are in place now. The boats are in place. And with the 

help of the Coast Guard and others, we have made tremendous investments there. 

At the end, while we continue to manage aged aircraft and support them to make them safe and modernize them for continued 

service for the long term, we have been, over the last several years, 

working at the front end of technology and particularly with our 

UAV program. From one single aircraft, which was lost in a pilot 

error in 2006, we have grown our UAV force to be the most capable 

force in this hemisphere. 

The DOD is much larger, has many more assets, most of which 

are deployed. But in the country, in this hemisphere, the Office of 

Air and Marine with the six aircraft we currently have in service 

can do things in this hemisphere today that the larger DOD could 

not do in the same capability. And I think that speaks well for the 

investment towards the future. 

We have land-based Predators that flew last night on the Southwest border. We have northern-based Predators that are flying the 

floods at the request of Governor Hoeven and the political leadership in North Dakota, doing before and after difference analysis 

using our synthetic aperture radar, streaming a live feeding video 

to not only our own people but to state and local to give unprecedented situational awareness to what is happening on the ground, 

practiced with the floods we flew in North Dakota last year and the 

hurricanes the year before. 

So while we create this national capability to support our homeland security, the fallout is unprecedented support for local humanitarian and contingency response. 

And finally I will leave my comments with the creation of the 

Guardian. I will be happy to answer your questions and explore 

possibilities, a unique partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard, but 

only one of many. You mentioned the number of boats. Those 73 

boats that the Coast Guard de-assessed, we re-engined, refurbished 

and put into service, that was a cost avoidance for Air and Marine 

of more than $14 million. 

That has made an unprecedented difference for us to be able to 

grow our marine force. In 1995, we had 85 MIAs on active service. 

Today we have more than 350 MIAs, Marine Interdiction Agents, 

in service and more than 253 boats operational. A good part of that 

was not only the support from this Committee, but the support we 

have had from our partners with the United States Coast Guard. 

And in the areas of the UAVs, while the Coast Guard look at 

their opportunities and requirements, we have formed a Joint Program Office, training Coast Guard crews, providing CBP aircraft 

assets and folding these things into where I think you all mentioned you were most concerned with joint operations. 

Not only is Puerto Rico and the CBP operation a great role 

model, you will find similar relationships in many other places 

around the country: In the Great Lakes, where we are both at 

Selfridge Air Force Base; in San Diego, where there is a joint operation there; in the San Juans in upstate Washington; and most importantly, in the transit zone, a unique partnership in JIATF South 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
981 

in the Inter-Agency–DEA, United States Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, 

CBP–all oriented to a tremendous effort in limiting narcotics from 

coming out south. 

So I would offer to you that while we continue to maintain the 

old things we have with your support, we do it in a measured safe 

way. We update the equipment we have, and we are planning on 

the leading edge for perhaps contingencies we have not seen. And 

we are doing this in a very coherent and in a very amenable partnership with our larger sister service, the Coast Guard. I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
982 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1410 here 61840B.095
983 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1411 here 61840B.096
984 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1412 here 61840B.097
985 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1413 here 61840B.098
986 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1414 here 61840B.099
987 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1415 here 61840B.100
988 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1416 here 61840B.101
989 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1417 here 61840B.102
990 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1418 here 61840B.103
991 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1419 here 61840B.104
992 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1420 here 61840B.105
993 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1421 here 61840B.106
994 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1422 here 61840B.107
995 

STATEMENT OF RDML VINCENT ATKINS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, General. 

Admiral. 

Admiral ATKINS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers, distinguished members. As the Coast Guard Assistant Commandant 

For Capabilities, I am honored to appear before you today to talk 

about the Coast Guard’s critical role in maritime security and safety and how our cooperative efforts with sister agencies move those 

capabilities along and further our efforts in air and marine operations. At a time when whole of government operations and approaches are critical to achieving national objectives, the Coast 

Guard’s military multi-mission and maritime assets provide highly 

adaptive operational capabilities that serve the Nation’s interests 

well, whether those interests are in the heartland, in our ports of 

entry along the coastlines, in exclusive economic zones or anywhere 

around the globe. 

The Coast Guard’s unique combination of civil and military authorities and capabilities makes our service ideally situated to 

serve as the principal agency for maritime law enforcement and 

lead federal agency for the maritime component of homeland security. 

The Coast Guard’s law enforcement authority, codified in Title 14 

of the U.S. Code, is the foundation of our maritime security mission. This authority underpins our ability to interdict illegal drugs, 

illegal cargos and illegal people and other more potentially dangerous threats to the homeland. 

When coupled with our Title 10 military responsibilities and authorities, the Coast Guard truly is a unique service provider to the 

Nation. The Coast Guard’s ability to contribute to any whole of government operation is predicated on our broad authorities, our core 

competencies, our organizational ethos and our fleet of assets. In 

terms of those assets, we remain committed to recapitalizing our 

aging surface and air fleets. We continue to make progress in the 

delivery of new major cutters, such as Berthoff and Waesche, our 

first two national security cutters. We are operating new fixed-wing 

assets, the C–130J and to HC–144. And we are realizing tremendous return on investment from the modernization of our helicopter 

fleet, both the H–65 and H–60s. The Rescue 21 Command and Control System is on watch from Maine to Texas, and it is increasing 

our ability to conduct search-and-rescue and to save lives. 

Sirs, the recapitalization program that you are supporting is 

making a difference. And our men and women on the frontline 

want to thank you for your continued support of that recapitalization effort. 

The Coast Guard has strengthened its ability to protect our Nation’s ports, waterways and coastal borders by partnering with federal, state and local agencies, tribal nations, the marine industry 

and international stakeholders. Nowhere are these effective partnerships more apparent than between the Coast Guard and other 

agencies within DHS. 

For instance, our efforts with US–VISIT highlight the success of 

our joint biometric proof of concept in reducing illegal migrant flow 

into Puerto Rico. Our cooperative efforts with Customs and Border 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
996 

Protection are spearheaded by a strategic guidance team that 

brings together senior agency leaders to drive interagency effectiveness and efficiency. 

Examples of our interagency cooperation occur every day 

throughout the United States and at sea. And they are a source of 

pride for our service and a sense of accomplishment for the Department. From Joint Operation Centers, joint targeting, synchronized 

detection and monitoring to effective endgame prosecution, the 

Coast Guard and CBP are working smarter and more effectively 

along the northern, the southern and coastal borders, the maritime 

ports of entry and throughout the elicit drug transit zone en route 

to North America. 

Beyond our operational efforts, we are working to leverage each 

other’s strengths in acquisition, training and maintenance. Our 

joint efforts are illustrated by the successful DHS Small Boat Commodity Council and Joint Coast Guard CBP program office for unmanned aircraft systems. 

Sir, the Coast Guard is proud to stand the watch. We recognize 

that where there is overlap in areas of operation, authority and capability, the American taxpayer is best protected and best served 

by unity of effort that results in coordinated and effective operations. To this end, the Coast Guard strives to expand its collaboration to consistently and effectively execute our mission as America’s 

maritime guardian. 

Sir, thank you again for this opportunity to come and have this 

discussion with you all today. I am happy to answer any questions 

you might have. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
997 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1427 here 61840B.108
998 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1428 here 61840B.109
999 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1429 here 61840B.110
1000 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1430 here 61840B.111
1001 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1431 here 61840B.112
1002 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1432 here 61840B.113
1003 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1433 here 61840B.114
1004 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1434 here 61840B.115
1005 

CONFLICTING MISSION PRIORITIES

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Admiral. 

And let me start with you, because you do give a very positive 

rendition of the planning process in particular that your agencies 

are engaged in. You describe a very smooth process for sharing assets, a process that goes on from the top down from the very beginning of planning to execution. 

Surely sometimes mission conflicts arise. I wonder if one of the 

downsides of what we are discussing in a positive vein here today 

might be that unshared missions could get the short straw when 

it comes to planning. Can you give us a little better feeling for this 

planning process and some of the conflicts that you have to overcome in this process from time to time? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. I would say the planning process is absolutely essential, and it begins with the unified command perspective. And as the general indicated, across the Nation at various 

ports of entry, we are working very closely together at the tactical 

level so that our tactical forces are best arrayed against the threat 

for that particular vector and sector. So, for instance, in Florida, 

where there is a Southeast border interagency group that is looking 

to coordinate, what they have done is they have looked for where 

are the various agency partners flying their aircraft on any given 

day? And how do you deconflict those aircraft and those times and 

those areas of patrol to maximize the effect that we are trying to 

bring to? 

And now it is not just aircraft in the air, but it is surface units 

on the water, because while you might be able to detect and monitor, the absolute essential here is to get an effective endgame on 

the water so whomever you are interdicting, you are boarding and 

you are finding out what you need to find out. So it is this idea 

of prior planning to understand where the other blue forces are, 

where the other interagency forces are, how do you deconflict those 

and how do you aim them to get the best result, sir? 

GUARDIAN DEPLOYMENT

Mr. PRICE. Let me ask both of you to turn to a specific innovation 

in border and maritime surveillance—the Predator unmanned aircraft system. By October of this year, as we understand CBP will 

have seven Predator Bs operating on the Southwest border, the 

Northern border, Florida, the coast, the Gulf and possibly the Caribbean transit zone. 

One of these, the Guardian maritime variant, is being tested in 

a joint program with the Coast Guard. Preliminary results indicate 

the Guardian could fill air surveillance gaps for vulnerable areas 

in the southeast coastal region particularly since it can operate 

longer and with a smaller crew than manned surveillance aircraft. 

The CBP budget proposes a Florida UAS base in fiscal year 2011 

or 2012. Commissioner Kostelnik and Admiral Atkins as well, what 

is the current Guardian deployment plan and how does it fit into 

the Deepwater and CBP 5-year recapitalization plans? And, of 

course, I have to say, again, these are plans currently under review 

and due to this Subcommittee. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1006 

General KOSTELNIK. Let me start and take you back to the history of the maritime variant, and it goes back to, I think, what the 

Admiral was talking about, about the rich relationship we have at 

the tactical level. Going into the source and transit zone were differentiated by our missions by the kind of equipment we have. So, 

clearly, on the water, you need the bigger ships that we don’t have. 

So U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard with U.S. Coast Guard boarding 

crews were out of the Eastern Pacific. And then you have maritime 

aircraft overhead; used to be some foreign aircraft involved; now 

they have gone. There is Navy P–3s. There are Coast Guard C– 

130Js. There is our P–3. But it is never enough. Similar to the 

Mona Pass issue, we just don’t have enough maritime capabilities. 

So going back a couple of years ago, we thought it would be prudent, given the good success we were having with the land-based 

variant, to do a development of a Guardian-type aircraft with a 

maritime radar. To give you a sense for the genesis, the Coast 

Guard was coming off some of the Deepwater experience with the 

VTOL UAV. And I will leave the Admiral to talk about the longterm requirements consistent with the deepwater approach. But in 

that time period, there was some interest by the Coast Guard with 

the land-based variant from maritime ops, given the close 

connectivity we had in all these areas around the environment in 

the littoral area where an aircraft could be useful. 

The Coast Guard, to their credit, put a fair amount of money, as 

did we, and we borrowed the Air Force prototype of the Mariner, 

a very early variant of the Predator with an ELTA CV radar that 

was never developed. And we did an extensive and exhaustive test 

in the Gulf of Mexico jointly working with Coast Guard cutters, 

Coast Guard aircraft, our aircraft to determine if there would be 

a need. And it turned out, there was great promise. And the 

Guardian program was what evolved from that. 

Now, with the Guardian program currently in test, it has completed DT&E very early because it is an aircraft we know. It is a 

radar system we already operate on our Dash-8 and our P–3, very 

low risk. And we are getting very good results. We should finish 

the operational testing and evaluation of this aircraft in the next 

month or so. 

And then we have options. And we are looking at those options 

coherently with the Coast Guard to see where would be the first 

operational mission deployment. There is clearly requirements pull 

in the Caribbean supporting DEA and Coast Guard missions and 

JIATF South missions. We could get into Mona Pass with this aircraft. So clearly that part of the Southeast region is in play. 

The second Mariner aircraft, CBP–159, should arrive later in the 

summer. We should get the radar on it in the September/October 

time frame. We are looking to deploy that aircraft in Corpus Christi. That gives us two maritime basing locations where, from those 

fixed locations, we can support the Caribbean and Southeast region. We can also turn those aircraft north and support the Eastern seaboard and also the metro areas of D.C. and New York State, 

should there be issues up here. And then with the Corpus bird, we 

can cover the Gulf. We can cover south Texas. We can cover the 

Texas border if we need to. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1007 

We can then, with both of those assets, make both of those aircraft available for deployments into the Gulf, deep Central America 

or the Eastern Pacific in concert with the JIATF South mission. 

So at this time, we are focused on basing in Florida, although 

that could be moved to other bases in the Florida region. We would 

do that in concert with the U.S. Coast Guard, depending on where 

we can best support these missions. The second base at NAS Corpus Christi, we already have a large P–3 presence there, and we 

do qualify our P–3 crews to fly this asset as well. And there is a 

Coast Guard presence there. 

So the ultimate way ahead with deployment will be determining 

condition by how this first aircraft performs. And coherently, we 

are in the planning process with the operational part of the Coast 

Guard to determine where the first deployment would be. Those 

two experiences will help the condition, the overarching strategy. 

It is important to note that while these are primarily oriented towards the maritime environment, the belly pod, which carries the 

CV radar will accommodate all the radars that the Air and Marine 

and the Coast Guard operate, so we can put different sea-search 

radars in that configuration. And we can also drop that belly pod, 

put the synthetic aperture radar back in and operate the maritimebased variances—marine variances as well. 

UAS FLEET REQUIREMENTS

Mr. PRICE. General, before turning to the Admiral, let me just 

ask you specifically how many flight hours the UAS fleet is going 

to make in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. And of course, you understand the reason I am asking you that question. Will you have pilot 

and other support crew to support the 14-hour mission average previously projected for the Predators? As you well know, there are 

multiple challenges that developed, producing an alarmingly low 

utilization for the first half of fiscal year 2009, falling far short of 

projections. So with that background on both of our minds, I wonder if you could fill us in on the kind of flight hour projections you 

are dealing with now. 

General KOSTELNIK. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on 

that, because even though these aircraft are old, they are unmanned; it is kind of a misdirection in a way because you would 

think they are less manpower-intensive. The reality is, given as 

you correctly point out, the extended length of flight, in fact, the 

land-based variants we demonstrated 20-hour mission capability 

with the configuration we carry. And the first long-duration flight 

of the Mariner looks like it is going to have about 20 hours duration as well. So it actually takes more pilots and crew to fly one 

of these things, and of course, that is the downside. 

On the plus side, it allows you to bring in other capabilities. You 

can bring in intel specialists. You can bring in legal specialists. 

And, of course, in our business, that is an important factor in realtime consideration. So you basically bring in a flight team. 

So if you will look at our utilization rate to date, I mean, the observation that I would offer is that, again, going back to this program, it is just a little over four years old. And having said that, 

we are still growing this force. But with the capabilities we have 

today and in only four years, we have grown the second largest 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1008 

operational fleet of Predator Bs on the world stage. We have capabilities no other country in the world has. And in this hemisphere, 

we have experiences in Homeland Security that even the DOD 

doesn’t have, even though they have much larger assets. 

So we are still very much in the building part of our process, trying to grow pilots, trying to train analysts, trying to acquire the 

equipment at the same time we are doing due diligence, flying a 

fairly high ops tempo. We try to fly every night on the Southwest 

border. When the weather is good on the Northern border, we try 

to fly every day or night up there. But we are actively training 

many of our crews. 

And oddly enough, it isn’t really the aircraft that is the discriminant. It is either the ground control stations, which are always 

more problematic, late to need, and we are short of those and, most 

importantly, having enough training pilots to fly that. 

The partnership with the Coast Guard is a good one for us and 

them because it will start to grow and train Coast Guard pilots to 

fly these aircraft. In fact, we already have three that are fully 

qualified on the Predator, and they will be assisting with the 

Guardian mission. So we typically look like, for a single aircraft, 

with the crews and control sets, we could fly those aircraft typically 

three times a week. Probably not 20 hours, because there are other 

limitations: Mission need; in some cases, the code; the certificate of 

authorization; or issues associated with the tower’s operating availability. So while the flight rate to date has been perhaps less than 

what people might have expected given the aircraft, you are going 

to see, as we bring on the Coast Guard pilots—and with your support we hired and dedicated 24 UAV pilots last year, but again 

those are still in training and coming up to speed and then to offset 

the shortage of pilots because the bulk of our aviation fleet and 

numbers has not changed. Even though we increased the number 

of pilots over time, we are dual-qualifying our pilots. So the same 

pilots that fly P–3 missions in the transit zone will be flying 

Guardian missions on rotation. So I think you are going to see a 

dramatic increase in the flight hours for these assets over time. 

Mr. PRICE. And you are telling me in other words that we can 

expect to approach that 14-hour mission average that was previously projected? Or is there some reason to alter that projection? 

General KOSTELNIK. It is not so much the 14 hours because typically out—Sierra Vista today, given the limitations on crews primarily, we fly typically 10-hour missions. So the aircraft will go out 

in the afternoon, and it will land sometime around midnight. And 

oddly enough, that is in concert with when the bulk of the activity 

is. Those aircraft are dealing a lot with low-level drugs, a lot of 

smuggling across the border. And typically the activity is occurring 

10:00 to midnight, and then people travelling out in the desert bed 

down at night. So it just turns out that that mission suits our 

needs. 

In the East-Pac area, if there is a mission requirement pull and 

need for the aircraft to be out longer because the assets are out 

there, we can fly those aircraft longer. It is not an issue that we 

don’t have the spare parts. It is not an issue we don’t have the gas. 

The reality is, when you go to 20-hour mission sets, you have got 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1009 

to have two full crews of mission pilots in addition to the launchand-recovery pilots that you have at the remote site. 

What I am saying is, over time, we are still aggressively building 

our training program, and each month, as the time goes by, we 

have more pilots available to fly. Right now, it is the pilots that are 

the limits and the duration, not the GSEs, not the Coast, not the 

aircraft. But what it does offer—and a good way to think about 

these things—while these are reasonable missions, while they are 

still building this force today, both in border security in the Southwest border and the Northern border, but also in contingency ops, 

if floods happen. Two years ago we had no capability to do that 

when we had the floods in Iowa. Today, in North Dakota and Minnesota or any place else in the country where you have a humanitarian need for these assets, we can put an aircraft overhead the 

same day. 

We flew the hurricanes, three hurricanes two years ago. We have 

never done that before. But now having done that, that capability 

is available. So this summer, we get into hurricane season again. 

If there is a need, we will be there. 

And all these activities, both the day-to-day work and the border 

security, as limited as it is right now because we are still training, 

give you the ability to respond not only to these humanitarian 

events, but if we were to have a serious event in this country 

today, one perhaps like 9/11 or something short, but something significant today, any place else in the continental United States, we 

could put a Predator overhead, streaming live video, having 

COCOM, having a laser ranger designator providing unprecedented 

situational awareness to leaders across federal, state and local government. And I think that puts us in a very good position. 

But, again, I would leave you with the part that you would have 

to look at this program. It is just four years old. In many cases, 

in many organizations, trying to build a capability, you would just 

be getting the aircraft now or maybe it would just be at the end 

stages of operational test and evaluation. We are not only growing 

at a fast rate and have been doing missions 24/7 for the last three 

years while building this force, we are not only creating new opportunities by laying in the back game with intel, but creating this 

new maritime variant. So, from our perspective, where we sit, we 

think we have been leaning forward strongly in the saddle and providing a great capability for the country. 

UAS STAFF CUTS

Mr. PRICE. General, I am sure we will return to this question 

throughout the morning. I do want to turn to other members. 

But, finally, your answer to me does underscore the question of 

personnel. And it is in that respect that I must say, this 2011 

budget does raise some serious questions, particularly in light of 

the kind of program you have just outlined. Last year you estimated you need 79 crew members, mission support and trainers, 

to fully deploy the UAS. You sought and received fiscal year 2010 

funding to add 18 more UAS pilots. 

But that is where this 2011 budget comes in. Your 2011 budget 

is proposing funding cuts for 13 of these people. What is the rationale for that? Have personnel needs somehow changed? Again, what 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1010 

is your operational deployment plan for the UAS in relation to the 

staffing cuts? That is really what I am trying to get at. Are these 

staffing cuts going to constrain your ability to use the UAS effectively and indeed carry out the program you just described? 

General KOSTELNIK. As you know, I know you have been familiar 

with our operations for a long time. We are a very small force. If 

you look at Customs and Border Protection, the Office of Field Operations, it is about 26,000 agents. Border Patrol is about 23,000 

agents. Air and Marine is 1,800 total. We have always been a very 

small force, and we work very hard with what we have had. 

I am sure you are aware that 2011 is a tough budget year, and 

obviously, we are subject to constraints like others. We make our 

case, we submit our inputs and we get what we get as part of the 

process. Directly to your question, we would have hired more pilots 

in 2010 were those to be supported in our 2011 request. We do get 

supported to the tune of about 24 of those original 144 requests, 

of which we are certainly going to use wisely, but it is not necessarily just for the pilot. 

And in the short term, the direct answer is, no, there would be 

no impact to our short-term program because of the innovations we 

have used having dual qualifications for our pilots that fly the P– 

3s. They understand the mission, the transit zone. We have both 

pilots and back seat detection, specialists. And our plan is to use 

the pilots to fly the aircraft and detection specialists to run the sensors. 

The partnership with the Coast Guard: We love the Coast Guard, 

would like to bring them along. We really don’t compete at the tactical level and have a lot of great synergism. But the truth of the 

matter, while we are providing hardware and UAV expertise, we 

are getting manpower from the Coast Guard that we just don’t 

have and that helps us. We would be limited without the Coast 

Guard support of their aviation pilots associated with the program. 

That is how we work that. 

We have a solid plan for the manpower we are going to hire this 

year; some pilots, some associated support both at the Air and Marine Operation Center and our various program and engineering 

staff to make sure we can support those things. We are aggressively training the pilots, and long term, having more pilots would 

be better. And depending on the representation of the Guardian 

and the transit zone mission and out-year budget, we would expect 

to have some further investments both in aircraft and support 

equipment, but also in pilots downstream. 

But in the short term, while we are still building this force and 

training, actually the shortage of pilots in the 2011 request will not 

have a serious impact on that activity. In fact, if you look back into 

2005, at the beginning of our recapitalization, Air and Marine only 

had a little over 500 pilots, agent pilots at that time. Thanks to 

your support, we now have over 800 agent pilots and more than 

350 Mariners. 

But if you look at the aircraft side of that picture, despite the investment from this committee—in 1965, we had 264 aircraft. Today 

we only have 284 aircraft in service, despite the investment. So as 

you can see, we actually do have some excess capacity in our rated 

force, and using that excess capacity to dual qualify on the PredVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 01010 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1011 

ator makes good sense. And if you have watched the issues that the 

Air Force was having with the unpopularity of manned fighter pilots having to fly unmanned things, it is actually a benefit for our 

agents because all of our agents are certified FAA pilots, and all 

of our agents who fly the Predator also fly a manned aircraft, either a Black Hawk or a Cessna 550 or, in the case of the Guardian, 

the P–3. So we think this synergism and the partnership with the 

Coast Guard will put us in good shape for 2011. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, to follow up on that line of question the chairman had for you, I didn’t follow you. I mean, you are going to be, 

your budget proposal would cut personnel by about 3.6 percent, and 

as I understand it would, you would have to actually lose 68 pilots 

because of that, 20 marine interdiction agents and 56 support personnel, positions that were actually requested by the administration in fiscal year 2010. Right or wrong? 

General KOSTELNIK. Those numbers are—those make up the 

composition of the 144 that we would have hired in 2010. Those 

were added to the force we currently have in place. And because, 

during the budget deliberations internal to the administration, it 

was clear that we were not going to have those allocations in 2011 

supported, we did not bring those added people on board. So those 

are not in fact cuts from agents or officers that we currently have 

on board. Those are new hires that we did not hire in 2010 that 

we would have hired. 

Mr. ROGERS. Which means that, in fiscal year 2010, you obviously saw the need for the additional pilots and personnel, right? 

General KOSTELNIK. You can always have more, sir, always. 

Mr. ROGERS. And you were denied, apparently denied your request by the administration; is that correct? 

General KOSTELNIK. Well, as part of the ongoing prioritization 

within CBP and DHS, that is true. 

Mr. ROGERS. And it is indefensible to me that, at a point in time 

when we are besieged by the cocaine traffic out of South America— 

and I hold here a description, depiction of the traffic patterns of cocaine from South America through the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean to Mexico, thus to the U.S. That is not abating, is it, Admiral? 

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, what we are going to be doing, as the general indicated, is we are going to be maximizing our MPAs as best 

as we possibly can. And what we want to do is we want to put into 

effect a concerted effort to the JIATF South structure, a plan for 

detecting and monitoring and then affecting an endgame. And really the issue here is, how can we best fuse our information and get 

acute intel to the assets that we do have. 

Mr. ROGERS. Sure. Duh. What I am saying is the problem is not 

decreasing. It is increasing every day, is it not? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. ROGERS. And your interdiction efforts are being more successful every day, are they not, Admiral? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. 

General KOSTELNIK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. It is not the time, from my judgment, to deny you 

the personnel and equipment and assets that you need to continue 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1012 

to battle this problem, which is killing Americans. And for the administration to deny you on the front lines of this battle the personnel and equipment that you, as recently as last year, said we 

must have, you have told us, and we gave you, and now the bureaucrats are saying, we are not going to give you what you need 

to fight this battle; and I find that reprehensible as well as indefensible. All in the name of increasing headquarters personnel in 

Washington, D.C., by almost 1,000 people, which is reprehensible 

and indefensible to deny you on the front this commitment and 

manpower. 

OFFSHORE INTERDICTION EFFORTS

Tell us about this fight that is going on here. Here are the terrific patterns out of South America through the Eastern Pacific and 

the western Caribbean and the eastern Caribbean and primarily 

into Mexico, thus into the U.S. How is it going, General? 

General KOSTELNIK. I think it is going exceptionally well. In fact, 

we just had a meeting of the Source and Transit Zone Interdiction 

Committee that the Commandant of the Coast Guard shares. And 

we had Admiral Dan Lloyd, who, as you know, is the JIATF South 

commander. He directs our assets in the Eastern Pacific, which is 

really the largest area of that activity where, again, we have U.S. 

Navy destroyers and frigates. We have Coast Guard cutters. We 

have Coast Guard boarding crews on both ships, Navy P–3s, CBP 

P–3s, 11 of which we now have back in service, which is a benefit. 

But we have also put the CV radar on the long-range tracker aircraft. That has increased their effectiveness in the maritime role as 

well as the Coast Guard aircraft. 

And it was reported that in 2009, JIATF South was responsible 

for interdicting more than 234 metric tons of cocaine just in the 

East-Pac area. These are primarily the self-propelled, semisubmersibles you have heard so much about. I think nine or ten 

of those were detected last year. Large numbers of go-fast. And if 

you think about that much narcotics in bulk quantity not getting 

to our shores, that is more narcotics of all kinds from all agencies, 

from all sources coming into the country. I would say that is a big 

deal. 

Now, they say what is the worry about what they are missing, 

based on projection or intel or so, you know, techniques, but the 

way I look at that and you look at those type of activities, it has 

been extraordinarily successful and I think more than justifies our 

interest and our investment in the Source and Transit Zone Mission. 

Mr. ROGERS. Admiral. 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir, I would agree with that. And I think 

that the issue is, again, the underlying reasons for success is this 

unity of command and unity of effort that is brought under JIATF 

South’s hat. And it is this idea that you have somebody in charge 

and you bring complementary capabilities to the fore and to bear 

against good intel, and then you affect endgame. So those would be 

the same qualities and characteristics of what makes this a success. 

And so in terms of the operational success down in East-Pac, in 

particular, from the Coast Guard perspective, our C–130s have 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1013 

been outfitted with new Selex radars, which are highly effective. 

We have been able to use our retooled MH–65s, which are armored 

up and, with airborne use of force, have been able to make a real 

effective impact against go-fast runners. 

Mr. ROGERS. I understand the budget is cutting five of those helicopters; is that right? 

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, there are five H–65s which are to be cut in 

the fiscal year 2011 budget, but those are not associated with the 

deployers that go down to East-Pac. Those are in the Great Lakes 

regions associated with search and rescue. 

Mr. ROGERS. I share your enthusiasm and admiration of JIATF 

South. I went there years ago and was greatly impressed with the 

way that we are bringing together not just the units that you represent, but the FBI and the Justice Department and the Navy and 

Army and all the other agencies, DEA and so on. A great operation. 

In fact, I was so impressed, this is before we had the Department 

of Homeland Security. I brought that entire crew up here to brief 

then Homeland Security Advisor Governor Ridge to try to impress 

him and the then President that this was really the way we ought 

to be fighting terrorism nationally, through this kind of an operation that JIATF South represented. 

So it is a great, great facility and capability. What I am saying 

to you is I don’t understand the recommendations to cut personnel 

and manpower both in Coast Guard and in CBP, Air and Marine 

personnel. In the face of an ever-growing problem that is killing 

Americans. I just don’t fathom that. And even given the terrific cooperation that your agencies have and the terrific work in JIATF 

South and that the other agencies are bringing to the fight, we are 

disarming in my judgment. Coast Guard acquisitions are being cut 

by 10 percent. CBP’s Air and Marine procurement and maintenance: Maintenance is being cut 3.2 percent, including $2.6 million 

cut to logistics and maintenance system upgrades, and no funds for 

procurement of new multiple-role enforcement aircraft. The Coast 

Guard is going to have to cut 1,110 military billets and decommission, take out of service, deactivate, withdraw from the battle 19 

operational components. How can you justify that? 

Admiral. 

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, as Admiral Allen testified just a couple of 

days ago, he had to make some very tough choices between recapitalizing the Coast Guard’s aging fleet and decommissioning those 

assets and staying within an overall budget in terms of operational 

priorities. He had to make some very tough decisions relative to 

which assets to let go and which assets to recapitalize. And, sir, 

that is the answer. 

Mr. ROGERS. In other words, it was a budget crunch. 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. We are absolutely making operational 

priorities based on available dollars. 

Mr. ROGERS. And you are not getting all of the money that you 

actually need to do your chores, are you? 

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, we are living within the Administration’s 

priorities, and we are trying to work as best we can to weigh operational risk and to use our collective operational experience as best 

we can, given the resources we get. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1014 

NORTHERN BORDER OPERATIONS

Mr. ROGERS. That was a good answer. You are good. 

Well, now, tell me about the operations on the northern border. 

You are planning a new fusion center, are you not, general? 

General KOSTELNIK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Tell us about that. 

General KOSTELNIK. Well, this is part of—while the southwest 

border obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the last several 

years, as you all know, we have put a lot of Air and Marine infrastructure across the northern border, not only five new Air and Marine branches that were directed before, but also a new UAV 

branch up in North Dakota. And I think this concept of a fusion 

center is tied to our northern border strategy and our northern border technology demonstration of taking some of the key and essential elements that have worked well in the SBI program, some of 

the MSS equipment and some of the connectivity associated with 

that, and taking some of the intelligence-based function out of our 

Joint Interagency, not only with us and the Coast Guard but also 

the Canadian friends up in the north, capitalizing on preexisting 

things and creating in essence a DHS campus at Selfridge Air 

Force Base. The Coast Guard has been there for a number of years. 

We opened up one of our large air branches there a couple years 

ago, a great facility, Border Patrols on the same facility. 

So what you are starting, IC and the fusion center coming together, is in essence an air and maritime operational center not unlike the command and control AOCs that the DOD operates or the 

facility down at JIATF South to focus on the northern border and 

particularly the Great Lakes, which is a combination of Coast 

Guard, larger vessels and some small vessels, and our small vessels 

associated with the ports of entry tying into the air capabilities we 

have up there. 

And of course fundamental to that, you may recall that last year 

we had a very early deployment of our Predator system out of 

North Dakota to Upstate New York. We were hosted by the 10th 

Mountain Army Rangers at Fort Drum in partnership with the 

men and women of Syracuse Air National Guard to apply Predators for the U.S. Air Force to start to create the beginnings of an 

umbrella of Predator support for the northern border, with assets 

in North Dakota and a potential deployment site to Upstate New 

York and Fort Drum, and from those assets over time as we 

worked the issues—the rifle issues with the FAA about, you know, 

flying in congested airspace over the Great Lakes proper, we are 

starting to create, you know, an air picture. 

So part of the fusion center activity will be to work the 

connectivity from taking Predator imagery feeds from fleer radars. 

We could have Guardians up there at the Great Lakes at some 

point in the future, depending on what the risk or issues would be. 

So the fusion center is an early technology push in an integrated 

fashion to create, I think, the benefit of what you see in the JIATF 

South. 

Mr. ROGERS. What can you tell us about the threats that you are 

seeing in the Great Lakes and that border that would require such 

a center? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1015 

General KOSTELNIK. The risk? Well, I will leave it to the Admiral 

to talk about some things in the Great Lakes proper. You know, 

clearly, we have had all types of unknown people show up at a marina, coming across the Great Lakes uninterdicted. We clearly have 

had a lot of activity through the ports of entry. 

If you look at the things that we see across—all across the northern border, there is a fair amount of traffic in methamphetamines. 

They are coming north, coming south. There is a fair amount of 

traffic in BC Bud, some of these hidden in devices coming through 

the ports of entry, some airdrops off small Canadian helicopters 

and fixed-wing aircraft. And these are the things that we know. 

There is cocaine going north. There are probably guns going north. 

And there is cash in bulk quantities going, you know, both ways 

and these are the things—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Is this not going to stretch your budget even worse by building this center there? It is a $40 million item, is it not? 

General KOSTELNIK. It is, sir. And it is funded, thanks to your 

help. 

Mr. ROGERS. But isn’t taking that money for that purpose going 

to wreak other problems on you with your budget cuts that are 

being proposed? 

General KOSTELNIK. I really don’t see those as detrimental to the 

effort. I mean, we have the people and the infrastructure in place, 

as I am sure the Coast Guard does as well. I would look on that— 

while we have the hardware and we have some of the software elements and we have the people and the infrastructure, I think the 

real issue on the northern border is the connectivity, you know, 

tying in NORTHCOM and the air picture, tying in the maritime 

picture on the Great Lakes. I look on that $40 million investment 

as a good piece of connectivity to help create a common operating 

picture, because I talked about the threats that we know, and we 

see those probably in spades, but it is not the threats you know 

that get you in trouble, it is the ones that you don’t know. 

And added connectivity, tying in the sensor aircraft and the new 

class of boats—we are putting up 38-foot SAFE boats, very capable 

boats, on the Great Lakes in partnership with the Coast Guard, 33 

feet for them, as well as the cutters and other ships that are out 

in the Great Lakes proper—tying all that information and fusing 

the information from the sensor aircraft and boats, tying those into 

the intelligence of the interagency should make us stronger in the 

northern border. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it makes a lot of sense. I just worry about 

whether or not you are going to have the personnel to operate that 

center once you get going because of these cuts that are being 

forced upon you. 

General KOSTELNIK. Well, fortunately, a lot of that is in Intelbased centers; so actually a lot—some of those won’t be Air and 

Marine personnel. A fair percentage for us will be actually Intel 

people that we have hired and do have in place to do that work. 

Mr. ROGERS. Admiral, do you want to add anything? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. I would just like to add to the General’s comments in that this is the beginning of a JIATF flight 

structure on the northern border in the sense of you begin to bring 

everybody together and you begin to share information. Sir, at this 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1016 

point we don’t have a way to deconflict where our own internal operations are happening, and so this tool provides us—this fusion 

center provides us that capability. So it is an opportunity to sort 

of model those other excellent examples that you see down in Puerto Rico, down in Florida, and San Diego. 

Mr. ROGERS. This center will be funded out of your SBI accounts, 

will it not? 

General KOSTELNIK. Yes, sir, I believe that is the case. 

Mr. ROGERS. In closing—I know others need to be on schedule 

here—Admiral, you were once the first executive officer aboard the 

cutter DECISIVE and then later, the RESOLUTE; is that correct? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you recognize in the room anyone who served 

under you on either one of those missions? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, I do. And I believe he owes me a morale 

report. 

Mr. ROGERS. You are talking about the staffer, Ben, here who 

served with you. 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. Mr. Nicholson was a fine Coast Guard 

officer, and I am proud to see him continue in service to his country. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Calvert. 

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to see you again, General. I remember you back in the 

days when I chaired the Space Aeronautics Committee. We don’t 

have a human space program anymore, but those were the good old 

days. 

I want to talk a little bit about the Air and Marine Operations 

Center, AMOC. As you know, the Air and Marine Operations Center is in Riverside, in my congressional district. And the AMOC 

team does a great job of critical work serving our Nation’s general 

aviation and interdiction security operations. So I was disappointed 

you didn’t mention it in your testimony. I understand the CBP still 

owes the Committee a report on the role and the operations of 

AMOC, and so I was wondering when can we expect that report? 

General KOSTELNIK. The report should be forthcoming pretty 

soon. AMOC, as you know, it is the crown jewel of the Department 

of Homeland Security. When I signed on, when I left NASA in 

2005, I saw a lot of things that I didn’t like, I mean an aging force, 

we had low morale, questions on the way ahead. But the Air and 

Marine Operation Centers, even in 2005, was a crown jewel that 

few could want to have. I mean, it was kind of put together over 

years with—you know, on the side with some contractor support 

and some government intervention. But at the end of the day, even 

in 2005, it could do things in the Homeland Security mission that 

other things could not do. 

Over the last four years, you know, we have continued to plus 

it up. We have added infrastructure. We have added the GCS control sets. We have added more DEOs. We have hired some intel 

specialists to start to work there. We are still growing that capability and, as you know, in the way ahead it is still early, but still 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1017 

in the long-range planning of what further investments we need to 

make. That work is still unfinished. But with the money that was 

provided for AMOC in this calendar year, we are using that to set 

the stage—— 

Mr. CALVERT. And that was a question I was going to ask. Could 

you provide us a breakdown of how that $6 million we provided in 

fiscal year 2010 to AMOC for technology expansion was allocated 

to the Office of Air and Marine? Was the money spent on the core 

mission of AMOC, that function there? 

General KOSTELNIK. It was, in fact, and actually making that 

mission stronger. Part of that, we are going to strengthen our UAV 

capability. Today we have a GCS and a KU-band antenna there. 

We have actually used that to fly missions. But in the way ahead, 

we are looking to add the endgame of that, which we really don’t 

have in place anything else, and this is the piece that the DOD 

has. In fact, I think there was an article today in the paper on the 

amount of information that is potentially available from the unmanned systems. And this is the part of the problem we are having. When we flew the hurricanes and floods, we could gather the 

information. We could provide, you know, unique FLIR imagery 

static synthetic aperture radar, but we really didn’t have the people to analyze what those things meant. 

So part of that investment is we are adding an intel cell very 

similar to exactly the same kind of intel cells that the DOD proper 

uses in their missions in the AMOC to tie the intelligence part of 

it to the operational feeds on the UAVS. So that is a future investment. 

We are also working coherently as we have grown our capability 

through this big pipe technique. The big pipe is a technology where 

we feed the streaming FLIR imagery not only from the UAVs anywhere in the free world, but from the P–3s as well. In fact, if we 

were flying up in North Dakota today with the Predator, we could 

easily put the streaming video from that asset on your personal 

computer here or at home. Those kinds of connectivity investments 

are part of that. 

And then, finally, a lot of that—some of the money is still planning money to put the ducks in a row, working on what the real 

investment for the long-term growth of the AMOC ought to be. 

PREDATOR OPERATIONS

Mr. CALVERT. One last comment on the Predators and, obviously, 

the Predator B. I am very familiar where the aircraft is built in 

Southern California. I have been to the plant a number of times, 

and of course moving to the Predator C. But the confliction in operating in airspace, in domestic airspace operations—is there any 

work with the FAA to remove those conflicts where you can operate 

more freely within the airspace of the United States and certainly 

along the Canadian border, the Mexican border, where you can operate that aircraft more efficiently? 

General KOSTELNIK. There is certainly a lot going on in that regard. Flight—— 

Mr. CALVERT. Furthermore, do you think there ever is going to 

be a point in the near future—and not in the long future—where 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1018 

we can actually take off and land within, say, March Air Force 

Base, for instance, or Coronado? 

General KOSTELNIK. It is a tough debate, and I am sympathetic 

in a way for the FAA because it is their job to keep the national 

airspace safe. It is our job, you know, to apply technologies we 

have, and, with some risk, to keep the country safe. So there obviously is a potential conflict. And of course with the tremendous 

growth of UAVs, or RPAs, as the Air Force is now calling them, 

there is a wide variety of unmanned things, small handheld things 

that are like, you know, RC model years from years ago, to the 

Global Hawk flying 60,000 feet, you know, very large aircraft and 

everything in between. And there is a different risk posture for 

each one of those. 

But you, like all of us, would want the national airspace to be 

safe. So in areas where there is a lot of commercial manned traffic, 

if we are going to put unmanned things into those scenarios, we 

need to assure the traveling public that we can do that safely. And 

while the Predator is a tremendous airplane—more than a million 

operational hours is why we chose that aircraft for our fleet—it is 

still not without its risks. We still get surprised, and the Predator 

C will be no different because it is a manmade thing, a manmade 

program. 

So what we have tried to do in Homeland Security—because unlike the DOD, who has a training mission in this country, ours is 

Homeland Security. Ours is different. You know, we need to apply 

these technologies to protect ourselves today. So we have offered 

the FAA, and have over four years of discourse, a very simple 

theme about why we should be flying and what we are doing. One 

is what we fly—four W’s—what we fly. The system, it is the safest 

system out there, but not perfectly safe. We have lost an airplane. 

We have crashed a couple of them in landing accidents. And every 

once in a while, we get surprised by a software error or, like anything else, one of our pilots will make a mistake. 

The second risk reduction is when we fly. We fly typically at 

night, because that is when the bad guys are up to work. 

To your point about North Island, it is where we fly. We are not 

flying downtown D.C. We are not flying over New York City. We 

are flying on the borders. You are familiar with the California border. There is not much out there. There is not a lot of risk. And 

that in itself is a risk reduction. 

And, finally, the last W is why we are flying. We are not flying 

to make a point. We are not flying to push a policy. We are not 

flying to make money for commercial reasons. We are flying to protect the country. 

So in our approach in Air and Marine, why I think we have been 

successful and why—we have issues with the FAA. We argue with 

them all the time. We fly by certificates of authorizations. They are 

difficult. But that is not the constraint. We are flying the floods. 

We flew the hurricanes. If we were to have a national event, we 

will be there for that, and we will continue to work with them because they are right to be concerned about the risk. 

There will come a time and you—back in our time in the space 

business, you know, the space business is mostly unmanned. We 

have pilots and astronauts and so forth there, but many of those 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1019 

activities are already done remotely. So the technology is coming, 

and there will be a time when there will be unmanned things in 

the normal traffic pattern. In fact, overseas in the operational 

bases, it is not uncommon to find fighters and C–130s and Army 

helicopters and Predator A’s or B’s all in a pattern; so in a combat 

scenario, it will work. But they are in a combat environment with 

collateral damage associated and risk associated with the combat 

environment. I don’t think we are quite there yet. So I think that 

debate will continue. 

But I know there has been an interest from this Committee. We 

are working very closely with the DOD to find a measured way to 

open the doors. And I would offer to you, based on where we were 

in 2005 and where Air and Marine and the Coast Guard will be 

with the Guardian this year, we have gone remarkable ways in our 

ability to fly in the national airspace when needed, and I think that 

meets our needs. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

General, let me pick up just briefly on the report in the Washington Post this morning which you referenced, which has to do 

with the heavy use of Predator drones over Afghanistan and other 

countries, that is resulting in an overload of the satellite networks 

used to control and retrieve data. We will ask for a classified response as well, but to the extent you can discuss this, will you 

elaborate a bit? How much of an issue is bandwidth as we deploy 

and use more of these assets, and what kind of an analysis has 

been done of the Department’s bandwidth needs? 

General KOSTELNIK. That is not really my technical area of expertise in exactly kind of where we are. It is less of an issue for 

us today in our business. I mean we fly our aircraft much like the 

DOD does, through the satellite infrastructure. So bandwidth is 

critical not only for command and control but even more so for the 

data feeds. And as you acquire more systems that produce even 

more data—in fact, a very specific system, Gorgon Stare, which is 

talked about in that DOD article, is going to generate a lot of information. And ultimately that information, with compression techniques and so forth, is going to require a lot of bandwidth. 

So really bandwidth is going to be an issue in the long term, because listening to Secretary Gates and seeing where unmanned 

things are going into the Department of Defense, watching the interest across the globe in the commercial use of unmanned things, 

clearly there is going to be, over the next several years, tremendous 

growth in the need and, therefore, constraint in the area of bandwidth. And obviously there are some technical things in terms of 

how data is manipulated and compressed that will help to offset 

that. 

There will still be growth in technology that will cut into those 

issues. But in the long term, bandwidth is going to be another one 

of those resource limitations that is problematic. For our mission 

specifically in the Continental United States, in Homeland Security, that is not going to be an issue in the near term. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1020 

GUARDIAN DEPLOYMENT

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Before we leave the Predator question, 

Admiral, I want to give you a chance to comment on the question 

that the General explored in the first round; namely, the current 

Guardian deployment plan and how it fits in with the Coast 

Guard’s larger plans, the recapitalization plans in particular. Anything you want to add on that before we move on to other issues? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The Coast Guard is really excited to be working with CBP on the 

Joint Program Office. Related to that, we are also working with the 

U.S. Navy on a Fire Scout Joint Program Office in terms of rotor 

wing ship-based launch UAV technology. 

At this point, the Coast Guard is in the needs identification 

phase, and we are trying to understand and we are trying to leverage the lessons learned by more experienced agencies; in this regard, CBP relative to the Predator and the Navy relative to the 

Fire Scout. And through those lessons learned, when we are ready 

to ramp up our own acquisition programs, sir, we will be better situated to do so. 

MARINE VESSELS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Let me turn to Marine vessels. CBP currently has 253 Marine 

vessels in service in coastal and riverine areas enforcing the laws, 

with an end state of 358 planned, as we understand. This year it 

will complete setting up 11 new Marine units funded in fiscal 2008, 

integrate SAFE boats transferred from the Coast Guard, explore 

acquisition of a multirole enforcement vessel, and test a new Marine interceptor vessel. 

The Coast Guard has almost 300 boats that range from 33-foot 

special-purpose law enforcement craft to 110-foot patrol boats that 

operate in the same coastal waters on joint missions. Between the 

two components, 2,643 people crew these boats and hundreds more 

support them in port and at the strategic level. 

Now, CBP is recapitalizing its interceptor fleet and building up 

its riverine and coastal enforcement capability. Although the Coast 

Guard is quickly recapitalizing its small boat fleet, the 87-foot and 

110-foot patrol boats are rapidly aging, and we are just beginning 

to build the fast response cutters needed to replace them. Four will 

be built with the $243 million we provided in the current fiscal 

year, and the 2011 budget provides a similar amount for four more 

of these vessels. 

Now, given the constraints on the budget, which have been referred to repeatedly this morning, and the significant capital costs 

involved in these projects, it is critical to direct this investment 

properly. So I ask you both to explore this. How is the Department 

planning, across components, on asset acquisition and workforce 

planning to make sure we have the right mix of boats for crews 

and crews for boats, as well as the right mix of assets to secure 

our maritime border? Has the Coast Guard in particular been involved in the development and testing of the Advanced Concept 

Technology Demonstrator, or will this be a specialized CBP asset? 

What does it do that existing vessels in the joint mix cannot? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1021 

ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR

General KOSTELNIK. Let me address the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator. This was in a similar fashion to the air investment piece. While we continue to operate a lot of outmoded 

vessels that are reaching the end of their service life, and good vessels that are just getting, you know, worn out, the Midnight Express, a year ago we created a technology investment program to 

build a one-of-a-kind boat. This is the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator. It is oriented as a requirements demonstrator and a technology push tool to give our mariners a sense for 

what the requirements ought to be to replace the Midnights. This 

is our primary 39-foot interceptor. This is in a class of boats that 

is really different from the Coast Guard utilization, not one that 

would be, you know, consistent for their mission set, but it is our 

primary interdiction tool out in the Caribbean and all the coastal 

environments. 

That boat is 39-foot, has four 225 engines, conventional seats, 

and some type of law enforcement capability, but not anything substantial. The Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator is a oneof-a-kind boat, 43-foot developmental hull, four 350 horsepower developmental Mercury Verado, the largest developmental racing engine made. We mounted 2,762 machine guns with the help of the 

U.S. Coast Guard, state-of-the-art FLIR, state-of-the-art integrated 

flat-blade displays, state-of-the-art seats, shock-absorbing seats— 

the biggest investment in our human capital force that are like, 

you know, nothing else—and put all of these things in one integrated boat, this boat can do things that nothing else in its class 

can do, 75 miles an hour in the open water. 

There are pictures of it. Everything is out of the water except for 

the prop underway with a full-man crew 600-gallon tank. We are 

not going to buy—we bought that one-of-a-kind boat, but that allowed us to take that boat to all of our mariners, let them have a 

look, refine their requirements. And this year, this summer, we are 

going out for an RFP based on what we learned from that one-ofa-kind boat to replace our Midnight fleet. 

The first part of that has already been funded by this Committee. In fact, with the added six boats that we will get in the 

funding in 2011, we will have money in hand for 23 of these new 

vessels, and there will be nothing like that. That is about half of 

our operational interceptor fleet, which is really a good start on 

that effort. 

In the other parts in regards to the Coast Guard’s recapitalization, those 73 boats they gave us, those were in superb condition. 

We reengined those craft. We refurbished those. We put those 

boats right into service in rough duty. And of course, I think you 

all know we procure the SAFE boats for the U.S. Coast Guard and 

we buy the engines and maintain those boats. We have a perfect 

partnership in those class of boats where we have overlapping mission requirements. 

That relationship in terms of training, in terms of resourcing and 

sustainment and acquisition could not be any stronger. As you get 

to the larger craft, out of class, you know, a different mission set 

and clearly a different kind of process. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1022 

So I believe on the Marine side, now similar to the air picture 

and the recapitalizations we have done, thanks to your input and 

the improvements that we got last year, of which most are in place, 

added our facilities a little bit late in some of these new marine 

branches we have put up, but they all have boats and they all have 

mariners, and that speaks well for that part of our program. 

Mr. PRICE. Admiral. 

SMALL BOAT COMMODITY COUNCIL

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, I would add to that the ‘‘how’’ part of your 

question, which was how does the Department deal with that? And 

really it is this DHS Small Boat Commodity Council that has 

brought CBP and Coast Guard and others together where we discuss our requirements. And as the General points out, it really is 

a missions-generated sort of discussion. 

So if there is an opportunity for synergy, we seek it out and it 

has really brought some terrific synergies relative to the boats that 

we buy, the maintenance that we share. The Coast Guard is able 

to take advantage of CBP maintenance contracts, and we are also 

able to bring together, in terms of training, those techniques and 

practices that align our actual tactical operations on the water. So 

it is through this DHS Small Boat Commodity Council that delivers 

the ‘‘how’’ to the departmental ability to bring synergies in effectiveness and efficiency. 

SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE VESSELS

Mr. PRICE. Let me, before I turn to Mr. Rogers, ask you about 

one particular threat, which Admiral Allen has highlighted. He has 

described the growing threat of SPSS, or Self-Propelled Semi-Submersible vessels, noting that their use has grown significantly and 

that they account for maybe a third now of all the maritime cocaine 

flow. 

Needless to say, this goes way beyond initial expectations and 

projections of the importance of these vessels. 

Admiral, I wonder if you could estimate for us the number of 

these vessels being used by traffickers, the number we are able to 

detect and stop in relation to that overall number. 

And to both of you, what assets are Coast Guard and CBP bringing to bear against these vessels? Are they enough? And then how 

do you target your efforts? Are you mainly relying on surveillance? 

Are you getting other types of good intelligence to target these traffickers, and what do you need to get better intelligence? 

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, in terms of—you cite the numbers; in the 

last year, approximately 11, 10 to 11 SPSS were interdicted. I can 

get you for the record a more exact number relative to the projections associated with that from JIATF South. 

In terms of what tools we are bringing to bear, really JIATF 

South, again through their unified command, we are able to bring 

from the Coast Guard our maritime patrol aircraft, the C–130s, 

from the CBP the P–3s, and in the future we hope the UAVs. It 

is this idea of providing that domain awareness, and now couple 

that with JIATF South intel and information, how can we better 

cue the surface assets that the Coast Guard and the Navy—NavyVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Nov 09, 2010 Jkt 061840 PO 00000 Frm 01022 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A840P2.XXX A840P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1023 

carrying Coast Guard LEDETs is able then to execute the 

endgame? 

So, sir, I will tell you that we—as we discussed earlier—are 

being more effective through that cued information from JIATF 

South, and they are able to bring to bear a national asset and 

sound intelligence, human intelligence. We have had some fantastic 

opportunities working through the Department of Justice, DEA, on 

how to bring to bear all the national assets against this threat vector. 

In terms of our aviation use of force through our HITRON 

Squadron where we put up armed helicopters to bring a stopping 

function so that our vessels on the waters can then interdict and 

board these vessels, that really is part of the picture, too, to our 

fantastic success rate down there. 

Mr. PRICE. Do you have a rough estimate you can give us of the 

number of these vessels that are now out there being utilized and 

the interdiction numbers? 

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, I would like to get back to you on that for 

the record. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Please do that. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: In fiscal year 2009, according to the Consolidated Counterdrug Database, Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF–S) assets detected 13 or 60 documented Self-Propelled Semi-Submersible (SPSS) deployments. Coast Guard assets, 

initially under JIATF–S tactical control, interdicted 11 of the 13 SPSS detected and 

removed over 64.6 metric tons of cocaine. Projections for FY 2010 indicate Drug 

Trafficking Organizations will continue to utilize SPSSs at a rate similar to those 

in FY 2009. 

SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE VESSELS CONT. 

Mr. PRICE. General. 

General KOSTELNIK. Of course, the projections are really estimates. These boats are one-way ships, so they either make it or 

they don’t. The last time I was in JIATF South, they talk as many 

as 20 to 30 of these things at any one time being under construction in the jungles along the riverine environment, although we can 

get their current assessment. 

And I would just reinforce the kind of things that the Admiral 

said, and that is that we have made a lot of improvement in our 

support in that area. Recovering the P–3 has been the first-order 

effect because back in 2006, we only had two of the airplanes flying. In 2007, three of the airplanes. Today we have 11 airplanes. 

So, one, there is a lot more air time being provided into the maritime role. In fact, last year in 2009, more than 58 percent of the 

total air picture was provided by CBP P–3s. 

If you look at our P–3 aircraft, not only have we provided the aircraft and returned them to operational service, but we have two 

different kinds of P–3s in play. We have the domed aircraft which 

has the radar. That is the primary aircraft used for searching out 

the boats. 

And the second aircraft, called the long-range tracker—and these 

aircraft are typically deployed in pairs—traditionally has the forward-looking infrared and an F–16 radar. It does the air intercept 

and provides the endgame picture for the radar. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1024 

So you need two things for the maritime endgame. You need 

radar to detect the vessel and then a FLIR to work with the surface vessels for the endgame. 

Two years ago we put the sea-view radar on the long-range 

tracker P–3 and on the first operational deployment, the same 

radar that we are putting on the Guardian with the same amount 

of OT&E on the first operational deployment of that long-range 

tracker P–3 into EASTPAC last year, around the first of January. 

In 13 days that one aircraft with the developmental radar got three 

of four Self-Propelled Semi-Submersibles. 

So, one, we are almost doubling the fleet by putting the seavue 

radar, which we plan to do on all of our slick long-range tracker 

aircraft. We are also going back and looking at putting a FLIR on 

the domed aircraft. So now that is going to ultimately double the 

capability, where each aircraft now can fly the mission stand-alone, 

rather than requiring two aircraft. 

Specifically in regards to the SPSS, not only are we going after 

those, but you might recall that a year ago Science and Technology 

in the Department of Homeland Security built a surrogate target. 

We have several of these submarines that the Coast Guard was 

successful in acquiring, and one or more of those at JIATF South. 

But we built a developmental target vessel that we are actually 

going to use that target vessel in our Guardian test to see how the 

Guardian radar, with the same capability that the P–3 has, does 

against the SPSSs. So we are enhancing our maritime capability 

with very long duration. 

The P–3’s typical mission is about 12 hours. We can fly the 

Guardian about 20 hours in EASTPAC with a combined crew. The 

aircraft would be launched and recovered from Central America 

somewhere, or one of our remote sites, but flown from a combined 

fly team—it could be Florida, could be Miami, could be Fort 

Huachuca, Riverside, could be any of our infrastructures around 

the country. 

So, one, not only have we recovered our P–3 fleet, which gives 

you more time on station, but we are adding new capabilities. 

And, finally, Admiral Atkins mentioned the HITRON capability, 

which is another great example of partnership, Customs has had 

that same entitlement. We shoot out the engines on boats on the 

water to stop craft when we can run them down, but often we are 

out—don’t have enough boats or can’t get to an endgame, and aircraft would bring the capability. 

So this past year, not reinventing the wheel, we procured the 

same Barrett weapon that the Coast Guard uses in HITRON, capitalized on their expertise and their training, and this year we are 

adding that capability to our Black Hawk fleet. Now, we don’t fly 

Black Hawks out, you know, in the EASTPAC because these aircraft are mounted on ships. But from land-based facilities in the 

SeaBig area of operation, and the Mona Pass and the Caribbean 

and other approaches, starting this year we will have that capability deployed on our Black Hawk. 

So if you look at the overall picture, there is a lot going on behind the scenes to deal with this mission. And I would echo what 

Admiral Atkins said earlier. It is a great partnership and a great 

process to have Admiral Dan Lloyd down there sitting in a chair, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1025 

focused entirely on this effort, managing not only the interagency 

but the international, getting the intelligence right, getting us focused—which is the key—and then focus the resource assets we 

have on the ships as they actually sortie. 

I don’t know what we are missing, but I can tell you when you 

get 234 metric tonnes in one year that doesn’t get to the States, 

that is a big deal. That has to hurt somebody. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rogers. 

RECAPITALIZATION PLANS

Mr. ROGERS. Do you want to know how you can help yourselves 

secure the funds that you need for your programs? Tell us about 

it. That is our chore. We have to decide how to allocate the funds 

for your agencies, and we are having a tough time with it because 

we don’t have your recapitalization plans, which, in the case of the 

Coast Guard, is required by law. It is in the appropriations bill of 

2010 and the report language for the CBP, and yet we don’t have 

it. It is way overdue. 

What is the problem? Admiral. 

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, we are working on that report. It is now at 

the Department, and we are working with them so that they can 

understand the Coast Guard’s position relative to our needs. 

Mr. ROGERS. General. 

General KOSTELNIK. Well, the reports are clearly late, the need. 

In the case of Air and Marine looking towards 2011, we were late 

in doing our due diligence and putting our activity together. You 

know, given the limited resources we have and the investment 

strategy, we try to optimize those as carefully as we can. And on 

the leading edge in terms of our UAS program, we are very much 

conditioned about the emerging threats in the real world around 

us. So some of that delay I would have to take in our agency. I 

know you are all aware it is a difficult process going through the 

Administration to get it formally approved, not only with the Department but with OMB and others, and that does take some time. 

I think you are going to get our report very soon. I don’t think you 

will see a lot of surprises. We try to work closely throughout the 

year with—— 

Mr. ROGERS. I understand the difficulty of getting it through 

OMB and the Department and everybody else. That is a common 

problem we hear time and again, on all these agencies, is we can’t 

get OMB to clear our report that is due 6 months ago under the 

law. 

I don’t know why, Mr. Chairman, we don’t just have the OMB 

up here and grill them for about a week on every one of these departments. 

I mean it is not just you, but for goodness sakes, how can we intelligently lay out a spending plan for you if we don’t know what 

it is you want to do? 

So I am frustrated, and I know probably you are too, but it is 

an impossible situation. We are trying to help you sort through the 

funding for the CASA aircraft and the Marine patrol aircraft that 

you want and the sensing pallets and all of those things that are 

Greek to a lot of us. But we are depending on you for expert advice. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1026 

We love you to come here and testify, but we really need in writing the plans. I am a great believer in planning your work and 

working your plan. And you are working a plan, but I don’t think 

the plan is written out. 

Well, we hear constantly from everybody that there are not 

enough flight hours, but all of the equipment that each of you, both 

of you have—and that also bears back on the desire that we have 

to help you fulfill your mission. 

MULTIROLE ENFORCEMENT AIRCRAFT

Now, in the CBP’s 2011 budget, you have no funding for sustaining the procurement of the new multirole enforcement aircraft. 

Coast Guard’s budget only includes funding for one Marine patrol 

aircraft, the 15—the HC 144–A. No spare part moneys. CBP has 

contracted for 30 of the multirole enforcement aircraft, but only 

funds five through the end of the current year and only enough 

funding for one P–3 service life extension. 

And given the growing need for flight hours, how can we hope 

to realize the increased flight hours with this stinginess on acquiring and maintaining the aircraft that you have? Any thoughts? 

General KOSTELNIK. Sir, I would just offer that the—flying our 

program, obviously, is fully funded for this year and I believe it is 

fully funded in 2011. Now, getting those aircraft in service would 

certainly be a benefit in regards to the five MEAs and it will take 

us some time to get those aircraft in service. In fact, we do have 

those first five aircraft on contract. The first aircraft is actually 

coming down the assembly line at Beech, and should be out and 

delivered to the contractor for its law enforcement modifications 

this spring. But it will still be late in 2011 before we even get the 

first one of those aircraft, and of course those aircraft will have to 

go into tests. 

Our contract for 30 gives us options to add those things as resources are available. And, of course, you hope to have continuity 

in those investment lines. But the MEA program is really out on 

the leading edge, again, and in pretty good shape. And in some 

cases, giving us a little time to make sure we get the right aircraft, 

make sure the sensors work properly, and test is not a bad thing. 

On the P–3 investment, that is actually the addition of another 

wing set. That will be our tenth wing set. But those things—we already have enough wing sets in place; so those really aren’t going 

to affect the rewinging of the P–3s. 

So in fact, over the foreseeable future, with two aircraft down 

each year being rewinged, in addition to the airplanes we currently 

have grounded, our plan shows that we will have 11 operational 

aircraft flying the mission, and only in the transit zone, meeting 

the 7,200 hours expected by JIATF South, but also being able to 

bring the aircraft into other roles and missions along the southwest 

border or along the northwest. 

Mr. ROGERS. One of the big reasons that we want to see your recapitalization plan is that we have got to try to plan the expenditures over a period of time, multiyears in fact. And it only stands 

to reason the Coast Guard is only budgeting for one aircraft in 

2011 and will likely end up paying around $2–5 million more per 

aircraft in that fashion by piecemealing it out one or two at a time. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1027 

CBP has only received funding for five of the 30 multirole aircraft that you are planning to buy; no funding to sustain the procurement in 2011. That will drive up the cost per plane, possibly 

elongate the delivery schedule. So we will wind up paying millions 

and millions of dollars more for the procurement program if it is 

stretched out piecemeal over the years. And if we went ahead and 

paid for them now, we could get them at a unit cost millions of dollars cheaper than if you piecemeal it out. Is that right or wrong, 

Admiral? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. A consistent funded line would—as you 

maintain that line open, it would be cheaper in the long run. 

Sir, if I could return to one of your earlier questions about how 

do we seek to maintain the hours? For the C-144s in particular, 

they are replacing aircraft that are supposed to bring 800 program 

flight hours per asset, whereas the 144s are supposed to be bringing us 1,200 program flight hours per asset. 

And so this year, working with our Aviation Training Command, 

and as we go forward into our first operational unit at Miami, we 

are on schedule to hit that target of 1,200 program flight hours. So 

it is this idea, that through new assets with better service life, with 

better maintenance, that don’t have the issues of reliability and 

maintainability and operational overhead associated with older aircraft, we are going to be able to maintain those op hours, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. There is no funding for spare parts that you request. 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. How come? 

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, again, we are living within the constraints 

and we are making priorities. And in order to move forward on surface recapitalization, that was the priority for that year, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does the procurement plan—the capitalization plan 

that you have submitted to the Department and to OMB, does that 

plan anticipate the need to procure these items not one at a time, 

but in wholesale lots? Either one of you. 

Admiral ATKINS. Sir, I am not sure I understand your question 

relative to wholesale lots. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have in your mind at least, and probably on 

paper—you know what you want to do. You have got a recapitalization plan, do you not, each of you in your own world? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And you have submitted that recapitalization plan 

to the higher-ups, have you not, to the Department? 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And to the OMB? 

Admiral ATKINS. The report that we discussed earlier, sir, is at 

review with our Department right now. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is what? I am sorry. What did you say? 

Admiral ATKINS. The Deepwater report, sir. Our plan going forward is with the Department, and we are working with them right 

now to understand the puts and takes. 

Mr. ROGERS. General? 

General KOSTELNIK. The MEA program, as we contracted out 

with lot option buys, we really don’t pay more in the long run if 

we don’t put the risk of the aircraft on right away. The commercial 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1028 

market has the basic aircraft available more frequently. So in the 

near term, there really isn’t any impact to this because it takes us 

so long to build the aircraft and to get the pieces on. 

There will be a time at some point, if we don’t add to the option 

and procure the aircraft, where there could be the kind of issues 

that you are referring to, including suboptimization. But right now, 

I would characterize that that program is well on track. 

FLIGHT OPERATIONS

And in regards to flying hours, recall these are going to be additive aircraft to our fleet. These are aircraft that are going to replace the existing C–12s that we are still continuing to maintain 

and fly out the end of their service life. So as these aircraft come 

onboard, we will be retiring other aircraft at the end of our area. 

And also for us, the biggest part of our flight operation is the rotary wing. So we do have, obviously, fixed wing. We talked about 

the P–3s and the MEA. But a big part of our force is the rotary 

wing program, and that program is very important because it is a 

very tight helicopter market on the kind of aircraft that we buy, 

and to the support that we have had from this Committee, that 

program is well established. We acquire another eight aircraft in 

2011, and we continue to keep that line open. We are well along 

in that particular program. 

We would see the kind of issues you talked about if we had a 

break in our procurement or the numbers, and to the credit of this 

Committee and the Administration, we continue to get those aircraft in at one per month. In fact, by the end of 2011, we will have 

acquired 39 of the new AStar 350–3B aircraft with FLIRS and a 

full law enforcement package. 

This is the mainline part of our small rotary-wing fleet that we 

will take a lot of the aircraft—the 086, the MD–500s, the MD– 

600s—out of service. So in a much bigger part of our program, I 

think you would see the coherency and the continued logical investment that you would expect in these other programs. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the recapitalization plan is long overdue. We 

got the budget request of the OMB before us, and I guess that answers most of the questions that have been raised here about what 

they will do about the recapitalization plan that you have submitted. 

The budget is the plan, I guess, and that is proposing all these 

horrendous cuts in your equipment and personnel. I don’t understand, though, now why we can’t get the recapitalization plan 

under the budget that has been submitted to us from OMB. Right? 

General KOSTELNIK. It is certainly a worthy expectation and they 

should both be forthcoming very soon. 

Mr. ROGERS. I have heard that before, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, there are others wanting to ask questions, but let me ask 

you this one finally. 

Well, I will yield to the next round, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Culberson. 

RECAPITALIZATION PLANS

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1029 

Admiral and General, we really appreciate your service. The people of Texas are very proud of you and appreciate what you and 

the men and women that you command do for our country to protect us. 

To follow up on Mr. Rogers’ questions, who had—apparently you 

all have obviously done your part of producing your capitalization 

plans, fulfilling your requirements under the law to tell the Committee what we need to do to help you. Who has those reports? 

Where are they now? It sounds like they are at OMB; is that right, 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers? 

General KOSTELNIK. I can’t speak for the Coast Guard, but in 

terms of our report, OMB actually took the least amount of time. 

So actually the OMB crowd is actually a pretty quick read on our 

reports, and ours have gone back and forth. Some of that is our 

fault at Air and Marine for not having the proper things in here 

and making changes and submitting into the process kind of late. 

So a big part of our particular problem was our own fault. 

Our report is in the final stages of review at DHS and should be 

forthcoming in the very near future. I mean, the work is done and 

virtually approved, so you should—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Who at DHS? It would be very helpful, I know, 

for Mr. Rogers and the Chairman and the staff to identify who has 

it so we can go find them and get it. 

General KOSTELNIK. I don’t think I know the individual at DHS. 

It is a large infrastructure and—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Would you find—have your staff, please, tell the 

Chairman and Mr. Rogers who has it? Admiral, can you tell us the 

same thing? It sounds like you have done your due diligence. 

Where is it? 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The report was transmitted to Congress on April 8th, 2010. 

Admiral ATKINS. We do share that responsibility. We just finished it up ourselves here in the Coast Guard, and we passed it 

to the Department, and we are now in that give-and-take stage 

with the Department to understand the puts and takes of the report. And so the Coast Guard shares responsibility for this tardiness, and we are working with the Department to move it as quickly as we possibly can. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You all are very gracious about this. I understand. But, please, what we are looking for is tell Mr. Rogers and 

the Chairman who in the Department of Homeland Security has 

your capitalization report and the other information that the Committee needs, so we can bust it loose. 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. We are working with a number of offices within the Department including the Under Secretary of Management’s Office. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Under Secretary of Management. 

Admiral ATKINS. Yes, sir. But a whole bunch of folks relative to 

what is in the report and how do we move it forward. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, please, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. And while you are at it, convey to them that this 

Subcommittee is not in the business of writing blank checks. We 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1030 

want to know what we are buying, and we don’t know that without 

that report. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And we are really serious about it. We really 

want to help you. We admire you. We revere you guys and want 

to help. And you are being very gracious and diplomatic about it 

publicly. Tell us who, and we will go find it. 

OFFSHORE DRILLING PLATFORMS

Let me, if I could, also ask, General—I represent Houston, which 

is to the energy industry what Silicon Valley is to the computer industry. And the Committee may not be aware, Mr. Chairman and 

Mr. Rogers, that Homeland Security actually came out with a rule, 

a tentative rule, last year that we found out about at the last 

minute because there was no notice that the—all the offshore drilling, if you are an offshore drilling platform or rig in the Gulf of 

Mexico or anywhere in the United States, could no longer use foreign-flagged vessels; is that right? 

Out of the blue, Homeland Security comes out with this rule that 

says no foreign flag vessel can support or bring supplies to any offshore drilling rig. Well, you can imagine what a catastrophe that 

would be. We were fortunate. I objected and others objected, and 

that rule was withdrawn. And obviously you want to make sure we 

are protecting that strategic asset. But it has never been a problem, and there are virtually no American foreign-flagged supply 

vessels that supply these offshore rigs. 

Can you tell us, General, the status of that rule? 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is currently in the review process. The rulemaking package must be approved by OMB and published in 

the Federal Register. 

We understand—I have been told by Oceaneering, the folks that 

do the underwater exploration, they do the blowout preventers, 

that they understand this rule is about to be resubmitted. I certainly hope not, and you need to make sure that you are including 

the industry. If you are thinking about a similar rule, it has to include input from the industry, and we need to know about it in advance. 

Could you tell us what is the status of that? Is there going to be 

another such rule proposed? And, Admiral, maybe you—I am not 

sure—it really is CBP, Admiral. 

General KOSTELNIK. I am not aware of that law or that approach. 

That could be something with the Office of Field Operations, but 

it really is beyond my area of expertise. I am really not familiar 

with it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Would you have somebody on your staff—would 

somebody run that down for us? That is a big one. 

General KOSTELNIK. If it is from CBP, we will take a look at 

that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Shutting down all offshore oil and gas production is a pretty big deal, which would be the effect of that rule. It 

would just kill us. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1031 

OPERATION PREDATOR

Another question I want to ask, General, is the Predators are extraordinarily important. One thing I discovered on touring the border, up and down the southern border, is you have got wildly different levels in enforcement. In sectors of Texas, the Border Patrol’s policy is essentially zero tolerance. They call it Operation 

Streamline. And it works beautifully. The local community supports it. The local community is 96 percent Hispanic on the Texas 

border. In Del Rio and Laredo, the crime rate has plummeted. The 

Border Patrol is enforcing existing law. 

We have supplied you with additional resources in order to keep 

up with the prosecution rate. But the illegal crossings have essentially disappeared in those sectors where the law is being enforced. 

However, in Tucson we visited—what was the name of that air 

base? We visited Fort Huachuca, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rogers, 

and saw some of the extraordinary assets you have got there with 

the Predators. And we were shown a CD, Mr. Chairman, where the 

Predator had actually spotted—how big was that load? It was like 

a caravan of vehicles, wasn’t it, Joe? You could actually see this 

caravan of smugglers coming over the southern border, Mr. Chairman, with the Predator. And at night, in the dead of night, your 

Border Patrol agents—I mean the brave souls, God bless them, go 

out there in the dead of night in that desert to intercept these 

heavily armed smugglers. And they were carrying thousands of 

pounds. It was a huge load, a huge load of dope. 

PREDATOR OPERATION PROSECUTIONS

Mr. CULBERSON. And the Predator set the whole thing up. You 

see the whole thing on videotape, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rogers, 

and then we discover the prosecutor in Tucson would not prosecute. 

And apparently, it happens all the time, that you guys risk your 

lives, make these arrests. And as far as we can tell, it is still the 

case in Tucson that if you are arrested in the Tucson sector crossing the border illegally, carrying less than 500 pounds of dope, you 

have a 99.6 percent chance of never going to jail. And all the smuggler is out is about 3 hours and the load. 

Now, that is still apparently the case. Are you familiar with this 

problem in Tucson, and are you continuing to have difficulty getting the U.S. Attorney to prosecute intercepts and arrests that your 

agents make using your Predators? 

General KOSTELNIK. It is really not limited to the Predator part 

of the mission. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is. It is bigger than that. 

General KOSTELNIK. We are a part of the air picture for the Border Patrol field commanders, who actually run the mission kind of 

on the ground. 

But I would offer that I am familiar with the issue on the prosecutors and which cases they choose to take. And it is frustrating 

when you find people, obviously, that are involved in the criminal 

enterprise, large or small, that are not prosecuted. 

But my guess is that the capacity is limited. They have to choose 

the cases wisely. I don’t think the cases they choose have anything 

to do with whether it is Predator-related or not. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1032 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir, that is the area of your expertise and 

knowledge, though. 

General KOSTELNIK. I know there are limits on how much or 

what kind of narcotics—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is what they tell us. 

General KOSTELNIK. And certain kind of things they choose not 

to prosecute. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The point is—could I have someone on your 

staff—could you please go back and look and tell us the level of arrests versus prosecution? I mean, the people that you all arrest in 

those different sectors, what percentage are prosecuted in those different sectors up and down the border? 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: This response has been designated as ‘‘Law Enforcement Sensitive— 

For Official Use Only’’ and as a result, cannot be placed in the record or released 

to the public. DHS has provided this response to the Committee separately. 

General KOSTELNIK. We could probably give you some sense of 

that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. In Tucson, you are aware of the 99 percent plus 

release rate that they don’t prosecute? 

General KOSTELNIK. I couldn’t confirm or deny the actual percentages, but I know that there are a lot. 

Mr. CULBERSON. They turn almost all of them loose. 

General KOSTELNIK. A lot of it is humanitarian, those are turned 

back. Certain levels of narcotics, they are interdicted, and they are 

offered up for prosecution. If the prosecution is not accepted, then 

they are repatriated. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. Regardless of the prosecutor’s excuse, 

you are aware of—and I just wanted you to confirm for the Committee—that in the Tucson sector, virtually everyone that is arrested is released? 

General KOSTELNIK. I don’t think that I could confirm that. I 

would say that there is a large number, a fair percentage. 

Mr. CULBERSON. An extraordinarily high percentage. 

General KOSTELNIK. That would probably be a fair characterization. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is that fair? 

General KOSTELNIK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is important for you all to know that, Mr. 

Chairman. 

We are working on it and continuing to try to shine some sunlight on it, find some additional resources for the Marshals. We 

have worked with the judges there and found a way—the Border 

Patrol, actually, Mr. Chairman, provided an administrative facility. 

There is a building in Tucson that you all own. I think the Border 

Patrol owns—it is an administrative building. 

And I will wrap up here, Mr. Chairman. But I wanted to be sure 

while I had you here to remind the Committee, our good chairman 

and ranking member that this continues to be a terrible problem 

where the Tucson sector is essentially wide open, as is Southern 

California, yet the Yuma sector and large sectors along the Texas 

border, the law is being enforced very successfully, with great support from the local community. Is that an accurate statement? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1033 

General KOSTELNIK. I am not familiar with the details on the 

other, but—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. In Tucson, you have a bad problem. 

General KOSTELNIK. It is a focus area, as you know, for the Border Patrol. There is a lot of activity of all kinds. It may be a supply 

and demand issue with the attorneys. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you very much. 

I really appreciate what you guys do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for going back through that. It is just 

important for the Committee and the staff to know how serious a 

problem we have got in the Tucson sector. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

And with that, we will thank both of you for your service and for 

your testimony here this morning. This interagency focus on air 

and marine assets is one that we need to take under consideration 

as we write the budget, obviously, understanding that the operations of both of your agencies are related to each other and need 

to be assessed in a coordinated fashion. 

So you helped us greatly in doing that, and we are appreciative. 

Mr. Rogers, do you have any final thoughts? 

Mr. ROGERS. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman, except to say thank 

you to these gentlemen and their staff who are with them and to 

thank them for their service to the country. We appreciate it. 

Mr. PRICE. With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
1034 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1509 61840B.116
1035 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1510 61840B.117
1036 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1511 61840B.118
1037 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1512 61840B.119
1038 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1513 61840B.120
1039 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1514 61840B.121
1040 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1515 61840B.122
1041 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1516 61840B.123
1042 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1517 61840B.124
1043 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1518 61840B.125
1044 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1519 61840B.126
1045 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1520 61840B.127
1046 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1521 61840B.128
1047 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1522 61840B.129
1048 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1523 61840B.130
1049 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1524 61840B.131
1050 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1525 61840B.132
1051 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1526 61840B.133
1052 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1527 61840B.134
1053 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1528 61840B.135
1054 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1529 61840B.136
1055 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1530 61840B.137
1056 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1531 61840B.138
1057 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1532 61840B.139
1058 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1533 61840B.140
1059 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1534 61840B.141
1060 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1535/1700 61840B.142
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Aguilar, David .......................................................................................................... 1 

Atkins, Rear Admiral Vince .................................................................................... 967 

Bersin, Alan ............................................................................................................. 837 

Kostelnik, Major General Michael (Ret.) ............................................................... 967 

Mayorkas, Alejandro ‘‘Ali’’ ....................................................................................... 691 

Morton, John ............................................................................................................ 223 

Morton, John ............................................................................................................ 837 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

CBP-BALANCING SECURITY WITH LEGITIMATE TRADE AND TRAVEL 

Page 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 1 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 7 

Statement of Chief David Aguilar, Acting Deputy Commissioner, CBP ............. 11 

Arrests in Each Sector ............................................................................................ 51 

Automated Modernization: COPPS ........................................................................ 204 

Automated Targeting System (ATS) ...................................................................... 191 

Big Ben Border Crossings ....................................................................................... 33 

Bonuses ..................................................................................................................... 166 

Border Patrol Tactical Communications Program ................................................ 221 

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) .................... 195 

Business Visas ......................................................................................................... 42 

CBP Construction .................................................................................................... 205 

CBP Officers Funded by User Fees ........................................................................ 48 

CBP Operations in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands 

(CNMI) .................................................................................................................. 204 

CBP Readiness and Mass Migrations/Evacuations ............................................... 213 

Comprehensive Immigration Police ....................................................................... 52 

Container Security Initiative.................................................................... 22, 30, 35, 179 

Contracts .................................................................................................................. 74 

Cost For Being Smuggled ........................................................................................ 53 

Cost To Secure the Southern Border ..................................................................... 40 

Cross-Border Travel and Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) .......... 194 

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorist (C–TPAT) ................................... 183 

C–TPAT Program .................................................................................................... 31 

C–TPAT Budget Reduction ..................................................................................... 34 

Cuts to Air and Marine Operations ....................................................................... 49 

Cyber Security Initiatives ....................................................................................... 191 

Drug Kingpins .......................................................................................................... 42 

Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) ........................................... 44, 206 

Expenditure Plan ..................................................................................................... 26 

Fee Funded Operations ........................................................................................... 188 

Fiscal Responsibility ................................................................................................ 218 

Global Entry Program ............................................................................................. 45 

Hiring ........................................................................................................................ 67 

Illicit Shipping ......................................................................................................... 30 

Immigration Laws.................................................................................................. 45, 210 

Impact of Declaring Amnesty ................................................................................. 51 

In-Bond Shipments .................................................................................................. 184 

Infrastructure Constraints ...................................................................................... 32 

Inspection and Detection/Nonintrusive Inspection Technology ........................... 177 

Integrity Programs .................................................................................................. 188 

Jones Act Regulation Changes ............................................................................... 221 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Joint Powers Agreement ......................................................................................... 55 

Merida Initiative ...................................................................................................... 52 

Mobile Surveillance System .................................................................................... 26 

National Targeting Center (NTC) .......................................................................... 183 

NEXUS/SENTRI/FAST ........................................................................................... 184 

Northern Border BSFIT Investments .................................................................... 202 

Operation Streamline .............................................................................................. 38 

Oversight and Accountability ................................................................................. 216 

Personal Constraints ............................................................................................... 33 

Ports of Entry ........................................................................................................... 190 

Potential Corruption of CBP Officers ..................................................................... 54 

Presidio Reprocessing .............................................................................................. 43 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 60 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable John Culberson ............ 221 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 207 

Reception and Representation ................................................................................ 64 

Recidivism Percentage ............................................................................................. 46 

Recovery ................................................................................................................... 185

Revenue Collection .................................................................................................. 192 

Scanning U.S. Bound Cargo Waiver ...................................................................... 22 

Screening International Passengers ....................................................................... 27 

Secure Border Initiative .......................................................................................... 25, 39 

Secure Freight Initiative ....................................................................................... 47, 182 

Security in the Border Region ................................................................................ 211 

Statistics and Data .................................................................................................. 60 

Tactical Infrastructure in Arizona ......................................................................... 43 

Terrorism .................................................................................................................. 56 

Textile Transshipment Program ............................................................................. 186 

Training of CBP Agents .......................................................................................... 214 

Travel ........................................................................................................................ 174 

Travel and Tourism ................................................................................................. 207 

Tucson Sector Apprehension Rate .......................................................................... 27 

Unobligated Balances .............................................................................................. 176 

Virtual Screening ..................................................................................................... 37 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) .................................................... 34 

FY2011 BUDGET HEARING FOR UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 223 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 229 

Statement of John Morton, Assistant Secretary, ICE .......................................... 235 

287(g) ........................................................................................................................ 682 

287(g) and State and Local Immigration Support ................................................ 499 

Alternatives to Detention (ATD)................................................................. 270, 494, 683 

Alternatives to Detention Program ........................................................................ 262 

Ballistic Forensics/NIBIN ....................................................................................... 607 

BEST Team Program .............................................................................................. 680 

Bonuses ..................................................................................................................... 668 

Border Inspections—Weapons ................................................................................ 268 

Border Violence—Drug Trafficking Organizations ............................................... 267 

Contractors vs. ICE Employees—Detention Oversight ........................................ 260 

Contracts .................................................................................................................. 609

Decrease in Work-Site Enforcement Arrests ......................................................... 258 

Detainee Medical Services ...................................................................................... 514 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

Detainee Transfers .................................................................................................. 682 

Detention and Removal ........................................................................................... 687 

Detention Bed Resources ........................................................................................ 259 

Detention Reform ..................................................................................................... 281 

Family Separation ................................................................................................... 683 

Hiring ........................................................................................................................ 607 

Illicit Trade .............................................................................................................. 276

ICE Field Office Consolidation ............................................................................... 538 

ICE Investigations ................................................................................................... 540 

ICE Overseas Investigations ................................................................................... 576 

Operation Angel Watch ........................................................................................... 681 

Operation Community Shield ................................................................................. 606 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 281 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Alan Mollohan .............. 680 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 682 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 685 

Reception and Representation ................................................................................ 650 

Secure Communities........................................................................ 256, 264, 269, 684–5 

Secure Communities/Criminal Aliens .................................................................... 576 

Southwest Border .................................................................................................... 687 

Travel ........................................................................................................................ 675 

Unobligated Balances .............................................................................................. 675 

Visa Security Unit Program ................................................................................... 272 

Worksite Enforcement ............................................................................................. 686 

Work-Site Enforcement Policy—Leak to Media .................................................... 265 

CIS—FY2011 BUDGET HEARING 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 691 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 695 

Statement of Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, CIS ................................................. 701 

Aligning CIS Fees with Beneficiaries .................................................................... 724 

Application Processing Times ................................................................................. 722 

Application Volumes ................................................................................................ 794 

Asylum and Refugee Fee Rule ................................................................................ 717 

Bonuses ..................................................................................................................... 778 

Business Transformation..................................................................................... 735, 828 

Business Transformation Program ......................................................................... 728 

CIS Fee Model .......................................................................................................... 725 

Contractors ............................................................................................................... 832 

Contractor Workforce .............................................................................................. 730 

Contracts .................................................................................................................. 745

Effect of Fluctuating Filing Volumes on Operations ............................................ 727 

E-Verify......................................................................................................... 719, 731, 833 

E-Verify Improvements ........................................................................................... 723 

Fee Rule Updates for Asylum and Refugee Surcharge ......................................... 829 

Fraud Prevention ..................................................................................................... 734 

Haiti and the TPS Program .................................................................................... 736 

Hiring ........................................................................................................................ 742 

Immigration Application ......................................................................................... 833 

Immigrant Integration ............................................................................................ 827 

Immigration Integration Grants ............................................................................. 737 

Naturalization Ceremonies ..................................................................................... 730 

Office of Public Engagement ................................................................................... 723 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 742 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 831 

Reception and Representation ................................................................................ 778 

SEVIS–II .................................................................................................................. 827 

Stateless Persons ..................................................................................................... 829 

TPS Status for Haitians .......................................................................................... 829 

Travel ........................................................................................................................ 791 

Unobligated Balances .............................................................................................. 793 

Using General Revenue to Finance CIS Operations ............................................. 718 

Website ..................................................................................................................... 831 

UPDATE ON SOUTHWEST BORDER: THE CHALLENGES THAT DHS 

CONTINUES TO FACE 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 837 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 842 

Statement of Alan Bersin, Commissioner, CBP .................................................... 848 

Statement of John Morton, Assistant Secretary, ICE .......................................... 863 

Follow Up Statement of Alan Bersin, Commissioner, CBP and John Morton, 

Assistant Secretary, ICE ..................................................................................... 921 

AMOC ....................................................................................................................... 893

Benchmarks of Success ........................................................................................... 958 

BESTs ....................................................................................................................... 911 

Bilateral Enforcement Relationship with Mexico ................................................. 885 

Border Crossings ...................................................................................................... 890 

Border Deaths .......................................................................................................... 939 

Border Fencing ..................................................................................................... 898, 905 

Border Violence ........................................................................................................ 891 

Bulk Cash Smuggling .............................................................................................. 914 

Cargo Security and Narcotics Smuggling Through the SW Border Ports of 

Entry ..................................................................................................................... 929 

CBP—Background Investigations .......................................................................... 948 

CBP—Inspection Protocol for Commercial Trucks Originating in Mexico .......... 951 

CBP—Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Equipment ................................................ 947 

CBP—Ports of Entry (POE) .................................................................................... 944 

CBP—SBInet Review .............................................................................................. 943 

CBP—SBInet System Acceptance Testing ............................................................. 944 

CBP—Tactical Communications ............................................................................. 946 

Combatting Drugs and Gang Violence ................................................................... 888 

Corruption ................................................................................................................ 963 

Criminal Removal Process ...................................................................................... 892 

Cuts to Border Patrol Money and Personnel ......................................................... 887 

DHS—JIATF-like Entity for Southwest Border Enforcement ............................. 943 

Drug Cartels ............................................................................................................. 896 

Drug Smuggling Via Trucks ................................................................................... 907 

Drug Seizures ........................................................................................................... 917 

The El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)............................................................. 919, 956 

EPIC as Primary Intelligence Center .................................................................... 918 

Firearm Seizures ..................................................................................................... 915 

Firearms Trafficking at the Southwest Border ..................................................... 950 

Homeland Security Advisory Council Recommendations ..................................... 931 

ICE Overseas Investigations ................................................................................... 928 

Illegal Flow of Guns Southbound ........................................................................... 893 

Intelligence Coordination ........................................................................................ 935 

JIATFS ..................................................................................................................... 913

Mexican Drug Cartels and Commercial Trucks Originating in Mexico .............. 952 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

vii 

Mexican Gangs ......................................................................................................... 911 

Multi-Agency Cooperation at the Border ............................................................... 957 

Operation Against Smugglers Initiative on Safety and Security ........................ 886 

Operation Arizona Denial ....................................................................................... 942 

Operation Streamline .......................................................................................... 903, 938 

Oversight and Accountability ................................................................................. 940 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 928 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Harold Rogers ......... 943 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Alan Mollohan........... 950, 954 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 957 

Recent ICE/ATF and ICE/DEA Memos of Understanding ................................... 954 

Sharing Border Crossing Information .................................................................... 930 

Short-term Custody ................................................................................................. 936 

Special Assistant US Attorneys .............................................................................. 956 

‘‘Spillover’’ Border Violence ..................................................................................... 933 

Training of CBP and BP Agents ............................................................................. 941 

Travel ........................................................................................................................ 930 

Treatment of Unaccompanied Alien Children ....................................................... 899 

Weapons Seizures .................................................................................................... 919 

Weapons Seizures and Ballistics Tracing .............................................................. 936 

Weapons Smuggling and Forensic Analysis .......................................................... 929 

DHS AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS AND INVESTMENTS: CUSTOMS 

AND BORDER PROTECTION AND COAST GUARD 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 967 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 973 

Statement of Major General Michael Kostelnik, Assistant Commissioner, 

CBP ....................................................................................................................... 979 

Statement of RDML Vincent Atkins, Assistant Commandant, USCG ................ 995 

Adequacy of Shared Resources: Counternarcotics Efforts ............................ 1046, 1057 

Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator ....................................................... 1021 

Aging Aircraft Program ................................................................................... 1048, 1057 

Air and Marine Operations Center................................................................. 1016, 1048 

CBP Office of Air and Marine Budget and Operations ........................................ 1036 

Coast Guard—Cutter-based UAS ........................................................................... 1060 

Coast Guard—HH–65C Deactivation ..................................................................... 1060 

Conflicting Mission Priorities ................................................................................. 1005 

Flight Operations ..................................................................................................... 1028 

General Aviation .............................................................................................. 1050, 1057 

Guardian Deployment...................................................................................... 1005, 1020 

Joint Training and Maintenance ............................................................................ 1052 

Marine Vessels ......................................................................................................... 1020 

Multirole Enforcement Aircraft .............................................................................. 1026 

Northern Border Air and Marine Branches .......................................................... 1051 

Northern Border Operations ................................................................................... 1014 

Offshore Drilling Platforms .................................................................................... 1030 

Offshore Interdiction Efforts ................................................................................... 1012 

Operation HALCON ................................................................................................ 1049 

Operation Predator .................................................................................................. 1031 

Predator Operation Prosecutions ........................................................................... 1031 

Predator Operations ................................................................................................ 1017 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price................... 1036, 1056 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Harold Rogers ......... 1060 

Recapitalization Plans ..................................................................................... 1025, 1028 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

viii 

Semi-Submersible Vessels ....................................................................................... 1022 

Sharing Resources............................................................................................ 1045, 1056 

Small Boat Commodity Council .............................................................................. 1022 

Small Vessels ........................................................................................................... 1055 

Southwest Border Mexican Military Incursion ..................................................... 1050 

UAS Fleet Requirements ........................................................................................ 1007 

UAS Staff Cuts ........................................................................................................ 1009 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) ....................................................................... 1053 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Certificates of Authorization ............... 1058 

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) ...................................................... 1055, 1058 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING