<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:99582.wais]
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES AUTHORIZED IN THE INTELLIGENCE REFORM
AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 3, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-582 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ADAM SMITH, Washington
MIKE PENCE, Indiana CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia JERROLD NADLER, New York
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MAXINE WATERS, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Art Arthur, Counsel
Luke Bellocchi, Full Committee Counsel
Cindy Blackston, Professional Staff
Nolan Rappaport, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 3, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable. Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Mr. Peter Gadiel, 9/11 Families for a Secure America
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Mr. T.J. Bonner, National President, National Border Patrol
Council
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Mr. Robert Eggle, father of Kris Eggle, slain National Park
Service Ranger
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas............. 37
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California....................... 38
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Iowa............................. 38
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sanchez a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 39
News Articles Compiled by Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz submitted
by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee........................... 40
News Articles submitted by Mr. Robert Eggle...................... 92
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES AUTHORIZED IN THE INTELLIGENCE REFORM
AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:37 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John N.
Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hostettler. The Subcommittee will come to order.
At the end of last year, Congress passed the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 based on some of
the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks on the United States, known as the 9/11 Commission,
which studied the nation's security lapses leading to the
tragic terrorist attacks of September, 2001. Congress cannot
simply pass that legislation and think we have done our job. 9/
11 is a tragedy of the scale that we must never forget.
Preventing it from happening again demands our eternal
vigilance.
While many members of the House of Representatives believe
that the act omitted key recommendations of the 9/11
Commission, there was overwhelming bipartisan support for the
act's recognition that the men and women of the Department of
Homeland Security need greatly expanded resources if they are
to successfully enforce the immigration laws of this nation and
protect the American people.
Today and over the next several weeks, our Subcommittee
will examine the provisions of the act designed to do just
this. In our hearing today, the Subcommittee will examine the
act's call for doubling the Border Patrol over 5 years. Next
Thursday, the Subcommittee will examine the resources needed to
ensure interior immigration enforcement. Finally, on March 16,
the Subcommittee will hear from Assistant Secretaries Robert
Bonner and Michael Garcia of the Department of Homeland
Security regarding the Administration's proposed 2006 budget
for these processes.
Although my home State of Indiana does not have Border
Patrol agents stationed in it, the people of Indiana are
grateful to those dedicated Border Patrol agents who are
stationed at the nation's borders protecting all Americans from
those who would enter the country surreptitiously and do us
harm. As the 9/11 Commission found, ``It is elemental to border
security to know who is coming into the country. . . . We must
. . . be able to monitor and respond to entrances between our
ports of entry. . . . The challenge for national security in an
age of terrorism is to prevent the . . . people who may pose
overwhelming risks from entering . . . the U.S. undetected.''
But Admiral James Loy, Deputy Secretary of Homeland
Security, testified just last month that, ``Entrenched human
smuggling networks . . . in areas beyond our borders can be
exploited by terrorist organizations. Recent information . . .
strongly suggests that al-Qaeda has considered using the
Southwest border to infiltrate the United States. Several al-
Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the
country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more
advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.
. . . [Also] the long United States-Canada border, often rugged
and remote, includes a variety of terrain and waterways, some
suitable for illicit border crossings.''
Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, reminded us that it is, ``al-Qaeda's
stated intention to conduct an attack exceeding the destruction
of 9/11.''
This testimony indicates the unwavering will of terrorists
to exploit any weaknesses in our border security. However, the
heavy burden of policing the nation's borders against
terrorists is not all that is resting on the shoulders of the
Border Patrol. The war on terrorism should not cause us to give
pause in the war on drugs or the constant need to reaffirm our
nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Border
Patrol remains our first line of defense against the entry into
the country of terrorists, drug smugglers, gangs, criminal
aliens, and others who seek to break our laws.
I was very glad to hear the President say in his State of
the Union Address this year that he supports an, ``immigration
policy that . . . tells us who is entering and leaving our
country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and
terrorists.'' I was, therefore, deeply disappointed that his
budget for 2006 calls for an increase in Border Patrol agents
of barely 10 percent of that called for by the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act called
for a 2,000-agent increase in Border Patrol strength for 2006.
The witnesses at today's hearing will examine the need for this
increase from each of their unique perspectives.
At this time, the chair recognizes the Ranking Member from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for an opening statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
also ask your indulgence. We are in two hearings at this time
and I wanted to make sure that I gave a great deal of my
attention to this very important issue.
Let me weome the witnesses and thank you so very much for
your presence here today.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a statement that I have
made through the years of my participation in this
Subcommittee, but more importantly, since 9/11. I think it is
particularly important today because I believe out of this
hearing there will be a great deal of commonality and unity on
the crisis that we face and the opportunity that we have if we
act now and the opportunity that we will miss if we do not act.
First of all, I think it is important to note that
immigration does not equate to terrorism, and I say it again.
Immigration does not equate to terrorism. I hope in the future
weeks and months to come we'll find common ground to address
the concerns of Lou Dobbs, to address the concerns of hard-
working tax-paying immigrants who are undocumented in this
country, to respond to the concern where Americans have felt
that the question of a driver's license really cures terrorism,
and it does not. I hope we will work together on that, Mr.
Chairman, and find our way to the Arizona border, the
California border, the Mexico and Texas border, and really work
on these issues.
But today, I think we have a more serious question and that
question is glaring and I believe that we are moved to act, if
not today, as soon as possible. Listen to these headlines.
``Texas Tops Nation in Illegal Migrant No-Shows. About 40
Percent Don't Go to Court Hearings. U.S. Figure is 23
Percent.'' Again, about 40 percent of the individuals with
court hearings do not show up, and the phrase for those mostly
are what we call OTM, Other-Than-Mexican individuals or
citizens, and that means that they get paperwork, but yet they
do not show up. ``Snipers Target Border Agents,'' law
enforcement officers who are working every day to secure our
borders.
I hope today that we understand that in addition to this
issue of Border Patrol agents, securing the border requires a
lot more--monitoring, collaboration, but certainly it requires
a kind of increased professionalism, increased compensation,
and increased numbers.
Headlines, ``Bush Plan for Border Criticized in Congress,''
not because we don't want to work with the President, but
because we realize that the disclosure that al-Qaeda operatives
may try to sneak into the United States through Mexico is
intensifying demands that we have the amount of numbers of
Border Patrol agents.
News headline that is recently published, ``Outgoing
Homeland Security Official Cautions Against Citizen Border
Patrol Agents,'' a problem that we're facing in our States
because people are frustrated. We need trained, professional
Border Patrol agents.
Secretary, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr.
Chairman, first, the threat is unclear but enduring. The
condition is not expected to change. We continue to note
attempted entry into the U.S. by aliens who, according to
intelligence, pose a threat. This is the testimony of Admiral
James Loy. It is real. It is serious.
The headlines speak to this continuously and there is
headline after headline after headline that border control
requires increased funding. ``Al Qaeda Threat Demands Border
Funding,'' and that is an article recently published in Human
Events. I can go on and on about the articles to be able to
craft the problem.
But what I would suggest as we look and listen in this
hearing is that we listen with an ear of solution. The Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection is responsible for overall
border enforcement. Within the Bureau, a distinction is made
between border enforcement at and between points of entry.
This hearing is about funding for additional Border Patrol
agents for the division within the Bureau that is responsible
for border enforcement between points of entry the United
States Border Patrol. The primary mission of the U.S. Border
Patrol is to detect and prevent the entry of terrorists,
weapons of mass destruction, unauthorized aliens into the
country, and to interdict drug smugglers and other criminals
between official points of entry.
The U.S. Border Patrols 8,000 miles of international
borders with Mexico and Canada and the coastal waters around
Florida and Puerto Rico. It is a daunting task. The Northern
border with Canada touches 12 States and is more than 4,000
miles long. It has vast mountain ranges, such as the Rockies,
the Great Lakes, and many different river systems, and in the
winter, heavy snow and bitter cold temperatures. Reminded of
the turn of the century, this last century, when the forces
were able to thwart, along with local officials, the potential
of a tragic terrorist incident that would have occurred at LAX,
the Los Angeles airport. We know how important it is to secure
both the Northern and Southern borders.
The U.S. Border Patrol also utilizes advanced technology to
augment its agents' ability to patrol the borders. These
technologies include light towers, mobile night vision scopes,
remote video surveillance systems, directional listening
devices, unmanned aerial vehicles, and database systems. These
so-called force multipliers allow the U.S. Border Patrol to
deploy sometimes fewer agents while still maintaining its
ability to detect and counter intrusions.
The Intelligence Reform Act contains a provision requiring
the USBP to add 2,000 agents to its workforce each year for FY
2006 to 2010. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about adding
Border Patrol agents, I think, now for 6 years and we have not
reached the goals that we need to reach. Notwithstanding that
provision, the Administration's budget of FY 2006 only requests
funding for 210 additional agent positions. We must amend that
budget provision. We must add new numbers. We must ensure the
professional development, and we must ensure the compensation.
At the hearing today, we will hear testimony on the need
for additional agents authorized by the National Intelligence
Reform Act. Might I say to those who have not yet been to the
borders, dealing with the Southern border, California, Texas,
and Arizona, you need simply go and see the closeness of the
United States to our neighbor to the South, the easiness for
individuals who intend to do harm to cross the border.
As I indicated, immigration does not equate to terrorism.
Migration does not equate to terrorism. But lack of
dutifulness, inattentive to a secure border to avoid those who
intend to do us harm from meeting their court date, from being
detained, is a crisis in and of itself.
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, I was able to include
portions of the CASE Act in the intelligence bill, the bill
that I offered last session that provided extra measures of
punishment for those who would smuggle individuals into this
country. Yet we have not completely answered that question and
I believe there are other aspects of the CASE Act that we
should include--outreach programs, the educational programs
that would avoid the tragedy of human trafficking.
At the same time, I think we should take our instruction
from the intelligence bill that was passed along with
provisions from the Commercial Alien Smuggling Elimination Act
of 2005. We need to act now. The 2,000 needed Border Patrol
agents would be able to ensure or provide additional safety for
the American people.
I think it is important and imperative, Mr. Chairman, that
this hearing be the underpinnings for answering the concerns of
all of these articles, article after article after article
after article, that speaks to the question that we are not safe
at our borders and we are not giving our Border Patrol agents
sufficient staff to do so.
I thank the Chairman very much for this time.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady for her opening
statement.
Without objection, all opening statements will be made a
part of the record.
At this time, I will introduce our witnesses today. We are
fortunate that testifying today will be Mr. Peter Gadiel,
Director of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America. Peter and
his wife, Jan, of Kent, Connecticut, lost their son, James, at
age 23 in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Mr.
Gadiel has worked tirelessly since that day to see that no
other American families ever again have to experience the
nightmare suffered by he and his wife.
Also testifying will be Mr. T.J. Bonner, head of the
National Border Patrol Council, which represents thousands of
Border Patrol agents. Mr. Bonner, a Border Patrol agent himself
for many years, is in a unique position to tell us about the
morale of Border Patrol agents, the difficult job those agents
must perform every day, the dangers they face as they pursue
smugglers with human and drug cargo, and their need for
additional help to control our borders.
Likewise, former Army Airborne Ranger and wounded Vietnam
Veteran Robert Eggle will be testifying. Bonnie and Bob Eggle's
son, Kris, lost his life in the line of duty along the border
at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument on August 9, 2002. From
Cadillac, Michigan, Kris became an Eagle Scout, a National
Honor Society student, and graduated from Cadillac High School
as valedictorian in 1991. After graduation with honors from the
University of Michigan, he took a job with the National Park
Service. Kris was fatally shot while pursuing a drug cartel hit
squad who escaped across the United States border after a spate
of killings in Mexico. Kris was 28 years old.
Mr. Gadiel and Mr. Eggle, let me express the deepest
sympathy to you from every member of this Subcommittee. As the
father of two sons and two daughters, words cannot express my
sadness for your loss. It is your courage and the courage of
your family, demonstrated by your willingness to appear before
the Subcommittee today, that gives us all the vision that out
of great despair can come great hope. Likewise, it is my desire
that your words do not fall on deaf ears but are the impetus
for a renewed effort to give the men and women who valiantly
defend our borders, and indeed our sovereignty, the aid they
require to do their job.
Another witness will be the honorable gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Solomon Ortiz. Out of courtesy to a fellow Member of
Congress, I will ask the Ranking Member's witness, Mr. Ortiz,
to speak first today. Mr. Ortiz has represented Texans in
Congress since 1982. Prior to that, he served as Nueces County
Sheriff. His district abuts the Rio Grande River and the
Mexican border. His constituents witness every day the problems
stemming from the lack of secure borders. He is co-chair of the
bipartisan House Border Caucus, which examines issues that
affect the communities along the U.S. borders, particularly the
U.S.-Mexico border.
Will the witnesses please rise to take the oath.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Ortiz. I do.
Mr. Gadiel. I do.
Mr. Bonner. I do.
Mr. Eggle. I do.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. You may be seated.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for just a
point of personal privilege for Mr. Ortiz, Congressman Ortiz?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes, I yield to the Ranking Member.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just, point of personal privilege
to indicate to my colleagues that Congressman Ortiz has been on
this matter for an enormous amount of time and spent an
enormous amount of time. This is a--I don't want to put words
in his mouth, but a crisis in his area. He has been a leader on
this issue and has taken any number of members to the border
area to show first-hand what is happening, and I want to
particularly weome him and thank him for his leadership and for
bringing this to our attention.
This is an important issue, and I thank you for indulging.
I may have to go to the Floor, and I thank you again for
indulging.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee.
I would like the record to reflect that the witnesses
responded in the affirmative to the oath.
Mr. Ortiz, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission,
my co-Chairman of the Border Caucus, Chairman Bonilla, couldn't
be here because he has another meeting going on, but if I may,
I would like to introduce one of the sheriffs, Sheriff D'Wayne
Jernigan, who really understands the problem that Chairman
Bonilla and myself and he is going through.
But if I may, with your permission, I would like to show
two videos that we have. With your permission, I would like to
do that.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection. [Videotape shown.]
Mr. Ortiz. I think this is another tape of a member of a
very vicious gang who was also arrested. I think it is coming
up. [Videotape shown.]
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us
witnesses to appear before your Committee and for you and the
Members of the Committee to have a little understanding and
knowledge, and I know that you do because members of the
minority and majority staff were there. They have seen the
border problems, and I want to thank you for that, for them
spending time at the border.
You know, I am not an immigrant basher. My mother was an
immigrant and I am part of a rich tradition of immigrants in
the United States. Before coming to Congress, I was a sheriff
in South Texas, which keeps me in close touch with the people
who protect our safety and property along the Southern border.
I want to address a growing dangerous national security
problem originating on the Southern border with three major
components: number one, the release of OTMs, which translates
to Other-Than-Mexicans, by the United States Government. Border
law enforcement officers routinely release illegal immigrants
into the general population of the United States because they
do not have sufficient funds and space to detain them at
detention facilities.
Captured OTMs are released on their own recognizance and
are ordered to appear at a deportation hearing weeks after
their release. The number of absconders, those who never appear
for deportation, varies very widely, but just recently when I
checked, they said it is around 90 percent of those released, a
number now approaching within the last fiscal year and the
beginning of this fiscal year 75,000 individuals.
The growing number, number two, of Mara Salvatruchans
continues to grow. Now, these are members of the gangs, the
bloody, violent Central American gangs that are now a serious
criminal element in major cities and in States around the
country. Some of these gangs are entering the country as OTMs
and gaining easy release.
And number three, a recent warning to Americans by the
United States Ambassador to Mexico illustrating the danger of
narcotrafficking gangs along the United States border directed
against Americans in the border area, including kidnapping of
American citizens.
The Southern border is literally under siege and there is a
real possibility that terrorists, particularly al-Qaeda forces,
could exploit this series of holes in our law enforcement
system along the Southern border. There has been a 137 percent
increase in OTMs in this present fiscal year, alone translating
to roughly 19,000 in one Border Patrol sector, which is the
McAllen Sector in the district that I represent. However, this
problem is not just in South Texas. Boston, Massachusetts, area
police have arrested a number of MS-13 gang members who are
causing serious crime problems in the community, one of which
was a reported OTM released by Border Patrol law enforcement.
Central American law enforcement and news reports note, and
I have talked to some of them, that al-Qaeda is trying to get
the ruthless M5-13 gangs to move high-value al-Qaeda agents or
operators across the border for large sums of money, totaling
up to $250,000 or more. Admiral Loy at DHS recently noted in
testimony before the Intelligence Committee that al-Qaeda is
attempting to exploit the Southern border to enter the United
States.
The intelligence reform bill passed by Congress and signed
by the President mandated 10,000 Border Patrol agents over 10
years, or 2,000 Border Patrol agents annually for the next 5
years. The budget received by Congress in early February only
funded 210 Border Patrol agents. The Border Patrol will lose
more than 210 agents due to attrition. And just this week, 24
more Border Patrol agents were mobilized with the National
Guard to go and serve in Iraq.
Intelligence reform mandated an increase of 8,000 beds in
detention facilities annually for the next 5 years, still not
nearly enough to hold all those coming into the United States.
Yet our budget proposal provides for only 1,900 new detention
spaces, over 6,000 beds short of the Congressional mandate
passed in December of last year.
This is a clear and present danger inside the United States
and the number of released immigrants not returning for
deportation grows by hundreds each week. This willfully ignores
a complex problem undermining our national objective, to take
the war to the enemy so we do not have to fight the war on
terror inside our country. Yet, we could very well be letting
people come into our backyard.
Not only do we not know who we are releasing, we don't know
where they are going. The entire system depends upon the
information given to us or to the Border Patrol by the
immigrants. Without any sort of identification, agents simply
have to trust that they are getting accurate information.
Local rangers in South Texas have found clothing that is
native to the Middle East. They have found currency, Middle
Eastern currency, of countries of special interest, and those
OTMs are being released.
The more OTMs we release, the more we encourage their
crossing in the first place, and this is not the first
experience we have had. About 15 years ago, I had 57,000
immigrants in my district, and this was when Attorney General
Meese, when the Contra War was going on, when he said, if you
fear for your life, all you have to do is ask for political
asylum. I had 57,000 people in my district.
My friends, until we have the resources we need, the Border
Patrol agents, the detention facilities, and the appropriate
technology to screen those immigrants, they are going to
continue to enter this country. And until we send that signal
that if you come, you are going to be apprehended, you are
going to be detained, and you are going to go through the
normal process and be deported, if we don't do that--in fact, I
just got an e-mail, three Palestinians were coming across. They
arrested one and they are still looking for two others.
My friends, these are things that are happening on a daily
basis, and I don't want to consume too much time because I know
that we have other witnesses. We are desperate for help.
You might ask about the morale. The morale of our Border
Patrol is low. They are confused. They ask, what is our
mission? Some of them feel like they are taxicab drivers, Wal-
Mart greeters. Those coming across, what they do is just turn
themselves in to the Border Patrol and they ask, where are my
walking papers? It wouldn't be so bad if we knew who they are
or where they are coming from.
These are their walking papers, my friends. You don't see a
picture. You don't see an address. You don't see fingerprints.
And many times, an individual comes with a walking paper and
then they find that the individual has identification with
another name. He is rearrested. The old paper is thrown away
and he is given a new one with a new name. This is what's
happening at our border.
This is very, very serious. I could go on and on, but I
will allow later on for some questions and thank you for your
indulgence. Thank you so much.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas
Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the
Committee.
Thank you for your timely hearing about dangers in U.S. border
security.
Before I begin, let me state that I am not an immigrant-basher. My
mother was an immigrant and I am part of a rich tradition of immigrants
in the U.S.
Before coming to Congress, I was a sheriff in South Texas, which
keeps me in close touch with the people who protect our safety and
property along the southern border.
I want to address a growing, dangerous national security problem
originating on the southern border with 3 major components:
1. The release of OTMs (other than Mexicans) by the U.S.
government. Border law enforcement officers routinely release
illegal immigrants into the general population of the U.S.
because they do not have sufficient funds and space to detain
them at detention facilities. Captured OTMs are released on
their own recognizance and are ordered to appear at a
deportation hearing weeks after their release. The number of
``absconders''--those who never appear for deportation--varies
widely, but is said to be 90% of those released, a number now
approaching 75,000.
2. The growing number of Mara Salvatrucha (MS 13) gangs, the
bloody, violent Central American gangs that are now a serious
criminal element in major cities and in states around the
country. These gangs are entering the country as OTMs, and
gaining easy release.
3. A recent warning to Americans by the U.S. Ambassador to
Mexico illustrating the danger of narcotrafficking gangs along
the U.S. border directed against Americans in the border area,
including kidnapping of American citizens.
The Southern Border is literally under siege, and there is a real
possibility that terrorists--particularly al Qaida forces--could
exploit this series of holes in our law enforcement system along the
southern border.
There has been a 137% increase in OTMs in this fiscal year alone--
translating to roughly 6,000 OTMs. Of those, 40% pass through the
McAllen Sector alone in south Texas.
However, this problem is not just in South Texas. Boston-area
police have arrested a number of MS 13 gang members who are tearing
through their community, one of which was reported to be an OTM,
released by border law enforcement.
Central American law enforcement and news reports note that al
Qaida is trying to get the ruthless MS 13 gangs to move high value al
Qaida operatives across the border for a large sum of money, we've
heard about $250,000.
Admiral James Loy from the Department of Homeland Security recently
noted in testimony before the Intelligence Committee that there is
reason to believe al Qaida is attempting to exploit the southern border
to enter the U.S.
This is what we know.
The Intelligence Reform bill passed by Congress, and signed by the
President, mandated 10,000 Border Patrol agents over 10 years, 2,000
annually. The budget received by Congress in early February only funded
210 BP agents. The Border Patrol will lose more than 210 agents to
attrition--the strength of the Border Patrol is dwindling. Just this
week, 24 more Border Patrol agents were mobilized with the National
Guard to the war in Iraq from the McAllen sector alone.
Intelligence Reform mandated an increase of 8,000 beds in detention
facilities annually for the next 5 years, still not nearly enough to
hold all those coming in to the U.S. Yet, our budget proposal provides
for only about 1,900 new detention space beds--over 6,000 beds short of
the congressional mandate passed in December 2004.
This is a clear and present danger inside the United States, and
the number of released illegal immigrants not returning for deportation
grows by the hundreds each week.
This willfully ignores a complex problem undermining our national
objective: to take the war to the enemy so we do not have to fight the
war on terror inside our country, yet we could very well be letting
people in our own backyard.
Not only do we not know who we are releasing, we don't know where
they are going. The entire system depends upon the information given to
us by the immigrants. Without ID, agents simply have to trust they are
getting accurate information.
Local ranchers found clothing that is native to the Middle East and
Sudanese money--countries of special interest--and those OTMs are being
released. They are showing up in taxis at Border Patrol stations to get
their walking papers.
The more OTMs we release, the more we encourage their crossing in
the first place. Until we have the resources we need--the border patrol
agents, the detention facilities and the appropriate technology--to
accurately screen these immigrants, they are going to continue to enter
the country. We must send a clear signal that they will be apprehended
and put through the legal process in order for these OTMs to stop
infiltrating our borders.
Our borders are crossed illegally in waves--the first wave of 10 or
so are captured, processed and nearly always released, but while the
agents are processing the first wave, the next several waves come in
uncontested.
Again, let's be clear--this is not anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Most immigrants crossing our borders merely seek a better life. In
FY03, 95% of illegal immigrants were Mexicans; the remaining 5%
(49,545) were OTMs.
Before 9/11, concerns about illegal immigrants focused entirely on
the cost to local communities and the fear that Americans could lose
jobs to immigrants willing to work cheaper. That is not the case today.
Once again, the OTM issue is not just a concern for border
communities, but more importantly for all of us. It is a dire matter of
our national security in this dangerous new age.
I am introducing a border security bill shortly that will address
some of the issues we have discussed here today. I hope all of you will
consider co-sponsoring it and I invite you to my district to see all
this for yourselves.
My recommendations--many of which are included in my bill--are on
many levels:
<bullet> Providing more security clearances to agents so more
can access the database--presently only a few have the
abilities--or providing more training for our agents
<bullet> More piloted aircraft, fewer UAVs--those who utilize
it say our air ops is outdated
<bullet> In the McAllen sector, we need remote video cameras--
they need cameras on both sides of the checkpoints
<bullet> More personnel to man the checkpoints and cameras
<bullet> More immigration judges
<bullet> Some type of roving collection facility to gather up
illegal immigrants to keep agents on their post
<bullet> Work with Mexico to prevent OTMs from crossing in the
first place
<bullet> Exchange criminal data with Central American
countries to know who's crossing the border
<bullet> Agencies need to talk to each other and stop denying
the magnitude of this problem.
We can't just talk about it, or authorize it. We must fund every
single penny of it now, in the supplemental coming before Congress in
the next few weeks.
I asked those who stand on our front lines what they would want to
say to the U.S. Congress; here's what they said:
--``Our borders are not secure.''
--``What's our mission here? We're spinning our wheels.''
--``The whole system is broken.''
-- ``We're releasing OTMs without proper checks due to lack of
time and info.''
I want to thank the Majority and the Minority members of the
Subcommittee--and their staff--for their concern on this issue and for
inviting me to testify.
I wish to submit for the record a number of new stories about these
things, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Gadiel, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF PETER GADIEL, 9/11 FAMILIES FOR A SECURE AMERICA
Mr. Gadiel. Speaking for many members, 9/11 family members,
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am deeply
appreciative of this opportunity to speak to you today to
discuss the importance of fully funding the additional border
security resources authorized by Congress last year in the
Intelligence Reform Act.
The act was signed into law by the President on December
17, 2004, and was designed to respond to security weaknesses
identified by the 9/11 Commission. The Congressional debate of
the bill, as you know, was particularly contentious. Not once
during that debate, however, did we hear any Member of Congress
or the Administration question the need for 10,000 additional
Border Patrol agents, 4,000 additional ICE agents, and 40,000
additional detention beds.
In a December 6 letter to the House-Senate conferees
negotiating the bill, President Bush said, ``I also believe the
conference took an important step in strengthening our
immigration laws by, among other things, increasing the number
of Border Patrol agents and detention beds.'' The need for
these extra resources is obvious. As the 9/11 Commission's
staff put it in the opening line of their monograph on
``Terrorist Travel,''``Terrorists cannot plan and carry out
attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter our
country.''
Like the other 9/11 families, I was appalled to read that
the President's budget proposal included funding for only 210
additional border agents, 143 ICE investigators, and 1,920
additional detention beds. Every 9/11 family member I have ever
spoken with over the past 3 years understands that their loved
ones died because the Government failed to live up to its most
basic obligation to its citizens, to protect us from foreign
attack.
We know there were intelligence failures leading up to 9/
11. We know that complacent Government officials simply refused
to believe that something like 9/11 could happen here. And more
than anything else, we know that the Government failed to
maintain control of our borders leading up to 9/11.
Those 19 mass murderers counted on lax scrutiny of their
visa applications and overwhelmed inspectors at our ports of
entry. Then once here, the terrorists counted on being able to
hide in plain sight in an ocean of over ten million illegal
aliens living in the United States. They benefitted from the
fact that enforcement of immigration laws inside the United
States is virtually nonexistent and Americans are so inured to
this fact that no one, civilian or law officer, would notice
them or interfere with them as they planned, rehearsed,
financed, and then carried out their conspiracy over a period
of almost 2 years.
They were free to obtain U.S. identity documents, rent
apartments, open bank accounts, sign up for flight lessons, and
then board airplanes with the drivers' licenses so obligingly
provided to them by Virginia, New Jersey, and Florida.
This failure to enforce existing immigration laws both at
our borders and within the United States, along with the
plethora of incentives, benefits, and services we offer to
illegal aliens, led directly to the 9/11 attacks and the death
of my son and 3,000 others.
We who lost so much on that day simply cannot understand
why some in our Government are still questioning the need for
adequate resources, especially manpower, to control who is
permitted to enter our country. These Government officials tell
us that truly securing our borders would endanger our freedom,
as if having open borders where anyone, including terrorists,
can freely enter our country somehow protects our freedom.
They tell us that they can protect us from terrorism
without disrupting illegal immigration, as if terrorists
somehow look different and thus stand out. They tell us we must
accept amnesty in order to bring illegal aliens out of the
shadows and register them, as if we didn't know with certainty
that terrorist sleepers will take advantage of this, just as
Mahmud Abouhalima did in 1986, after which, possessing a nice
new green card, he continued to obtain terrorist training so he
could drive a vanload of explosives into the World Trade Center
in 1993.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned before the testimony of Mr. Loy
recently before the Select Committee on Intelligence. I won't
repeat what he said, except to say that at the end, he said,
``there is no conclusive evidence that indicates operatives
have made successful penetrations via this method.''
We have learned that in the weeks prior to 9/11, there were
many indications that al-Qaeda was planning terrorist attacks
using commercial jetliners. It appears that many in our
Government failed to act because they lacked conclusive proof
as to the time, date, or place. For the 9/11 families, our
conclusive proof was watching, along with the rest of our
country, as our loved ones suffered hideous and often prolonged
agonies before their deaths.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush stood on the
ruins of the World Trade Center, the only tomb my son will ever
know, and said, ``I hear you.'' I would sincerely like to
believe that that's true, because time is not on our side and
it is unlikely that we will have conclusive proof before the
next attack, either. We can't afford to wait any longer before
we take our borders seriously.
Our organization, 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
fought last year in support of H.R. 10, with its border and
identity security provisions. We were met in the Senate with
the usual protests by opponents of real reform--``Not this. Not
now. Not here.'' As a result of that Senate opposition, most of
the border and document security provisions we supported were
stripped from the final bill, even though they were supported
by the work of the 9/11 Commission. Thankfully, the bill did
retain substantial increases in authorized Border Patrol
agents, ICE agents, and detention beds. But now that it is time
to fund these increases, we again hear, ``Not this. Not now.
Not here.''
To those who oppose the increases, we who lost loved ones
on 9/11 ask this. If not now, when? If not this, what? And if
not here on our borders, where? How much more conclusive proof
will it take? Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Gadiel.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gadiel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Gadiel
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to today to discuss the critical
importance of fully funding the additional border security resources
authorized by Congress last year in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act
This act, signed into law by the President on December 17, 2004,
was designed to respond to security weaknesses identified by the 9/11
Commission. The congressional debate of the bill, as you know, was
particularly contentious. Not once during that debate, however, did I
hear any Member of Congress or the Administration question the need for
the 10,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 4,000 additional ICE
investigators, and 40,000 additional detention beds. In a December 6
letter to the House-Senate conferees negotiating the bill, President
Bush said: ``I also believe the conference took an important step in
strengthening our immigration laws by, among other items, increasing
the number of border patrol agents and detention beds.'' The need for
these extra resources is obvious. As the 9/11 Commission's staff put it
in the opening line of their monograph on 9/11 and Terrorist Travel:
``terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if
they are unable to enter the country.''
Like the other 9/11 families, I was shocked to read that the
President's budget proposal included funding for only 210 additional
Border Patrol agents, 143 additional ICE investigators, and 1,920
additional detention beds. Every 9/11 family member I have spoken with
over the past three years understands that their loved ones died
because our government failed to live up to its most basic obligation
to its citizens: to protect us from foreign attack.
We know there were intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. We
know that complacent government officials simply refused to believe
that something like 9/11 could happen here. More than anything else,
though, we know that our government failed to maintain control of our
borders leading up to 9/11.
Those 19 murderers counted on lax scrutiny of their visa
applications and overwhelmed inspectors at our ports of entry. Once
here, the terrorists counted on being able to hide in plain sight in
the ocean of 10 million or more illegal aliens living in the United
States.
They benefited from the fact that enforcement of immigration laws
inside the United States is virtually nonexistent and that Americans
are so inured to this fact that no one--civilian or law officer--would
notice them or interfere as they planned, rehearsed, financed, and then
carried out their conspiracy to commit mass murder.
They were free to obtain US identity documents, rent apartments and
vehicles, open bank accounts, sign up for flight lessons, and then
board airplanes with the drivers' licenses so obligingly issued to them
in Virginia, Florida and New Jersey.
This failure to enforce existing immigration laws both at our
borders and within the United States, along with the plethora of
incentives, benefits and services we offer to illegal aliens, led
directly to the 9/11 attacks and the death of my son and three thousand
other innocents.
We, who lost so much on that day, simply cannot understand why some
in our government are still questioning the need for adequate
resources, especially manpower, to control who is permitted to enter
our country. These government officials tell us that truly securing our
borders would endanger our freedom, as if having open borders--where
ANYONE, including terrorists, can freely enter our country--somehow
protects our freedom. They tell us that they can protect us from
terrorism without disrupting illegal immigration, as if terrorists will
somehow look different and so stand out. They tell us that we must
accept amnesty in order to bring illegal aliens out of the shadows and
register them, as if we didn't know with certainty that terrorist
``sleepers'' will take advantage, just as Mahmud Abouhalima did in
1986, after which he used his new green card to obtain terrorist
training so he could drive a vanload of explosives into the World Trade
Center in 1993.
At a hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on
February 16, Adm. James Loy, Deputy DHS Secretary, testified that:
. . . entrenched human smuggling networks and corruption in
areas beyond our borders can be exploited by terrorist
organizations. Recent information . . . strongly suggests that
al-Qaida has considered using the Southwest Border to
infiltrate the United States. Several al-Qaida leaders believe
operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico
and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous for
operational security reasons. However, there is no conclusive
evidence that indicates . . . operatives have made successful
penetrations . . . via this method.
We have learned that in the weeks prior to 9/11 there were many
indications that al-Qaida was planning terrorist attacks using
commercial jetliners. It appears that many in our government failed to
act because they lacked ``conclusive proof'' as to time, date, or
place. For the 9/11 families, our ``conclusive proof'' was watching,
along with the rest of the country, as our loved ones suffered hideous
and often agonizing deaths.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush stood on the ruins
of the World Trade Center, the only tomb my son will ever know, and
said: ``I hear you.'' I sincerely hope that's true, because time is not
on our side and it is unlikely that we will have ``conclusive proof''
before the next attack either. We cannot afford to wait any longer
before we take border security seriously.
9/11 FSA fought last year in support of H.R. 10 with its border and
identity security provisions. We were met in the Senate with the usual
protests by opponents of real reform: ``Not this. Not now. Not here.''
As a result of Senate opposition, most of the border and document
security provisions we supported were stripped from the final bill,
even though they were supported by the 9/11 Commission's work.
Thankfully, the final bill did retain substantial increases in
authorized Border Patrol agents, ICE agents, and detention beds. But
now that it is time to fund those increases we again hear: ``Not this.
Not now. Not here.''
To those who oppose the increases we ask: If not now, when? If not
this, what? And if not here on our borders, where? How much more
``conclusive proof'' will it take?
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Bonner.
TESTIMONY OF T.J. BONNER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER
PATROL COUNCIL
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other Members of
the Subcommittee. I have been a Border Patrol agent for the
past 27 years and have proudly served my country in this
occupation and have thousands of colleagues who are also proud
to have served, and I have to tell you, looking at that video
earlier makes me ashamed, not because we are letting the
country down but because of what is happening and we are being
forced to carry out policies that are not in the interest of
our country.
Since its founding in 1924, the United States Border Patrol
has lost 96 agents in the line of duty. Hundreds of other law
enforcement officers have also given their lives guarding our
nation's borders. One of those, Kris Eggle, was assisting U.S.
Border Patrol officers to chase down some drug smugglers and he
was ambushed and murdered in Arizona back in 2002. I would hope
that the lives of all of these courageous agents have not been
given in vain, that there is a purpose for this, that Congress
is truly interested in protecting our country against the
threats of criminals, and in this day and age, especially
terrorists.
There should be no debate anymore about whether there is a
link between border security and homeland security. There
clearly is. The time for debating that should have passed long
ago. We need to take measures to secure our borders, and one of
the most important measures is to augment the personnel who are
on our borders 24/7.
It is very disappointing to me that the President in his
budget request has only requested 5 percent of the promised
resources. While he says that he is requesting 210 positions,
if you read the budget justification documents, it is only 105
full-time-equivalent positions. There are no part-time Border
Patrol agents, which means that there are really only 105
positions out of 2,000 that are being requested. This is
shameful. We need a lot of help and we need a lot of help now.
The people who oppose adding additional Border Patrol
agents generally have two arguments, the first being that
technology force multipliers will eliminate the need for more
Border Patrol agents, and the second argument deals with the
ability of the Border Patrol to add 2,000 people a year.
Back in 1996, Congress called for a doubling of the Border
Patrol's workforce at that time, hiring 1,000 agents a year.
The naysayers said it couldn't be done. We did it. We can do it
again, because the percentage of people that we would be adding
this time would be actually even less than the percentage of
people that we added before. A law enforcement agency can
comfortably absorb 20 to 25 percent additional people per year.
We need the additional resources. We beg you, as Members of
Congress, to give us those additional resources.
I would like to talk a little bit about the technology.
Technology gives you a snapshot of what happens at the border.
It is cost-efficient technology. Now, you can get the fancy
stuff like the unmanned aerial vehicles and those can track
people as they go north of the border, although they crash 100
times more often than a piloted aircraft. And, in fact, during
the pilot program last year in Arizona, to the tune of ten
million taxpayer dollars, we were able to get three UAVs up in
the air and we managed to crash three of them.
This is not a cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars. We
need more agents on the ground. We need more ground sensors. We
need more cameras. And we need more pilots and helicopters. But
high-tech devices such as UAVs are not the answer. UAVs are
great for combat areas in military operations where your
aircraft are being shot down. That is not happening on our
Southern borders and technology does not catch a single
violator. Technology cannot swoop down and arrest anyone. That
has to be done by Border Patrol agents.
We desperately need more Border Patrol agents in order to
carry out our essential mission, which is stopping everyone
from coming across the border, and we are not getting that
done. Even though we apprehended 1.2 million violators last
year alone, millions more got by us. Our agents estimate that
for every person that we catch, two to three get by us. That is
simply unacceptable, because even though the overwhelming
majority of those people might be folks who are only looking to
work in this country, there are sprinkled within that thousands
of criminals, and yes, there are terrorists in that mix. We
know that. Common sense tells us that terrorists want to come
into the country.
The easiest hole to exploit in our homeland security
network at this point in time is the porosity of our Southwest
border, and the Northern border is also very porous. We have at
this time about 1,000 Border Patrol agents to patrol 4,000
miles of border between the Continential U.S. and Canada. You
have to look at this not from a standpoint of 1,000 agents, but
about 250 at any given time that you can put out there because
you have to run three shifts a day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, 365 days a year. So at any given point in time, we have
at best 250 agents to patrol 4,000 miles of border. It is
incredibly easy to slip across our borders, especially if you
have the vast resources like a terrorist network like al-Qaeda.
We are also disappointed that some of the strategies that
our agents are forced to utilize are counterproductive. The
strategy of deterrence that has been in place for a number of
years has always appeared ridiculous to the Border Patrol
agents--the notion that just sitting in one spot is going to
deter people from coming into this country. Well, now it is
downright dangerous because terrorists are not going to be
deterred simply by looking at a Border Patrol agent in a fixed
position. We need to be allowed to pursue people who are coming
across the border, to actually patrol, as our name suggests.
The dedicated men and women who comprise the United States
Border Patrol and the other parts of the Department of Homeland
Security need a lot of support from Washington, D.C., in the
form of additional resources and manpower, but they also need
your support in telling the policy makers to allow us to do our
job, to treat us fairly so that we can hang on to the best and
the brightest so that we can at least try to protect America.
One of the pieces of legislation that was introduced on the
first day of this Congress was H.R. 98, which would establish a
counterfeit-proof employment eligibility card, which is our
Social Security card. I believe that this is one of the most
important things that this Congress can do to cut off the flow
of illegal immigration coming into this country. As long as we
have to deal with millions of people coming across the border
every year in search of employment, we have no chance of
picking off those few terrorists who are mingled into that mix.
We have to go after the people who are hiring illegal aliens if
we want to have any hope at all of gaining any semblance of
control over our borders.
I thank you very much for your time and attention and would
be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonner follows:]
Prepared Statement of T.J. Bonner
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Eggle.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT EGGLE, FATHER OF KRIS EGGLE, SLAIN NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE RANGER
Mr. Eggle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I request that
simultaneous with my remarks, I be able to show a CD with some
shots, and that I will have other documents to submit for the
record.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection, Mr. Eggle.
Mr. Eggle. Chairman Hostettler, ladies and gentlemen, an
honor it is to speak before this Committee. Thank you. Yes, on
August 9, 2002, my son made that supreme sacrifice of defending
our country at our border. That day was my personal 9/11.
You may be asking yourself why I am here testifying today
since my son was a National Park Service Ranger, not a Border
Patrol agent. The answer is this. Because the Government did
not see fit to give the Border Patrol adequate resources to
secure our borders, Kris and other law enforcement rangers at
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument assisted the outmanned and
out-gunned agents when they could. So, you see, if Congress had
done its duty back then and had adequately funded and equipped
our Border Patrol, my son, Kris, might well be alive today.
As a National Park Service volunteer for Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, I personally worked on the 32-mile barbed
wire fence that constitutes our border with Mexico. I did this
many days for 3 years preceding Kris's murder. Post his murder,
I have returned six times to that same park. Our border was
then, and still is, terribly broken.
Most importantly today, I project to you the magnitude of
this illegal immigration. Border Patrol reported record illegal
alien arrests and record drug seizes for 2004. Yet by the
Border Patrol's and other experts' own admission, they
apprehend only ten to 15 percent of the total smuggling of
drugs and people. The magnitude is not what is interdicted,
rather, the huge number that gets through. That is our
challenge today. This 85 to 90 percent of successful smuggling
represents thousands each day and unbelievable tons of dope.
USA Today newspaper just last week, and Time magazine last
fall, framed this magnitude. Also, dangers increase as more
shootings and assaults continue against our Federal law
enforcement officers. In the last 3 months alone, there have
been 87 assaults just in the Tucson sector of our Arizona-
Mexico border.
The number of so-called OTMs, Other-Than-Mexicans,
apprehended by Border Patrol has more than doubled in the last
3 years, from 37,000 in 2002 to 75,000 in 2004. These numbers
include aliens from Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, China,
Iraq, Lebanon, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and virtually
every other country on earth, and these are just the ones that
were caught, and, in most cases, released into our communities
because there were not enough detention beds to hold them.
Previous Border Patrol increases have been incremental and
only token, without significant tactical analysis of what truly
is necessary. The 2,000 Border Patrolmen per year increase in
the recent intelligence bill reform last December will yet not
be enough to control our out-of-control borders, both South and
North.
Neither Border Patrol nor Homeland Security has ever
quantified this illegal invasion, nor estimated the law
enforcement that is truly necessary. To use military talk, I
submit that overwhelming force is now necessary.
There is no silver bullet. Only hard police work and
adequate resources from you Congressmen and Congresswomen will
recover this deficit.
Matters are made worse by Mexican government encouragement,
especially the recent ``How to Trespass Safely in the U.S.''
comic book. President Bush or Secretary Rice must speak very,
very frankly to Vicente Fox about Mexico respecting our
sovereignty and addressing its problems there rather than
exporting them here.
Reinforcement of Immigration and Customs officers and major
increases in detention facilities are imperative. An element of
deterrence has too long been avoided, but is now vital. ICE
reinforcement should include personnel and vehicles to enable
pick-up and transport of illegals arrested by State and local
authorities. One should never again hear of calls to
Immigration where State and local law enforcement are told
simply to release illegals because there is no one to come and
pick them up.
Federal courts desperately need reinforcement to prosecute
these drug and people smugglers. For example, the U.S. Attorney
in Tucson cannot keep up. Magistrates specializing in
immigration and smuggling should be added geographically.
Practically speaking, recruiting, training, and deployment
of these new Border Patrolmen will take years, yet the need is
now! Existing Federal law enforcement officers, such as
National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, are doing
magnificent work to hold our line as best they can. Immediate
augmentation of these agencies already on the ground through
Homeland Security would project corrective action much more
quickly.
My son was murdered while defending our border. There were
inadequate Border Patrolmen on the ground then. I was outraged
that there was no anger expressed then by any Federal official
that a Federal law enforcement officer, safely within our
country, could be murdered and ambushed by a Mexican crime
spillover.
Two days before Christmas 2003, I attended a funeral in
Yuma, Arizona, of a young Border Patrolman who drowned in the
Colorado River while attempting to save illegals who should not
have been there. This was tragic, so very tragic.
Gentlemen and ladies, I will make this very personal to
you. I challenge each of you to view this proposal of more
Border Patrolmen as if one of your sons or daughters would be
so deployed. Each of you would, I am sure, want to deploy
patrolmen sufficient to make that duty as safe as possible for
your son or daughter.
I would not suffer any of you to feel the void, the loss,
that I, my wife, and my daughter have felt or that which has
been experienced by the 9/11 families. My wife, although not
able to attend today, very much wanted to be here to tell you
how a mother feels about the murder of her son.
In closing, I suggest that each of you who have not already
been there need to see this problem up close to really
understand it. I volunteer to help escort you to view our
broken borders. Relentless acquiescence should no longer
prevail. Let us work together on this problem before more lives
are lost.
Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. Good day.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Eggle.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eggle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Eggle
Chairmen Hostettler, ladies, and gentlemen, it is an honor to speak
before this Subcommittee today--thank you.
On August 9th, 2002, my son made that supreme sacrifice in
defending our country at our border. That day was my personal 9/11.
You may be asking yourself why I am here testifying today since my
son was a National Park Service Ranger and not a Border Patrol agent.
The answer is this: Because his government did not see fit to give the
Border Patrol adequate resources to secure our borders, Kris and the
other Rangers at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument assisted the
outmanned and outgunned agents when they could. So you see, if the
government had done its duty back then and adequately funded and
equipped the Border Patrol, my son might well be alive today.
As a National Park Service volunteer for Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, I personally worked on the 32-mile barbed-wire fence, our
border with Mexico. I did this many days for three years preceding
Kris' murder. After his murder, I have returned six times to that same
area. I have seen with my own eyes and experienced first-hand through
my grief, how our border was terribly broken then . . . and still is
now.
Most importantly today, I illustrate to you the magnitude of
illegal immigration through our border. Border Patrol reported record
illegal alien arrests and record drug seizures in 2004. Yet, by Border
Patrol's own admission, the apprehensions are only 10 to15 percent of
the total smuggling of drugs and people. The magnitude is not what is
interdicted, rather the huge number which gets through. That is our
challenge!
This 85 to 90 percent of successful smuggling represents thousands
of illegal aliens each day and unbelievable tons of dope.
USA TODAY newspaper and TIME magazine, last week and last fall,
respectively, framed the magnitude of this problem. Also, dangers
increase as more shootings and assaults continue against our federal
law enforcement officers. In the last three months alone, there have
been 87 assaults in the Tucson sector of Arizona.
The number of so-called OTMs, or other than Mexicans, apprehended
by Border Patrol has more than doubled in the last three years--from
37,316 in 2002 to 75,389 in 2004. These numbers include illegal aliens
from Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, North Korea,
Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and virtually every other country on Earth. And
these are just the ones who were caught--and, in most cases, released
into our communities because there are not enough detention beds to
hold them.
Previous Border Patrol increases have been incremental and only
token, without tactical analysis of what is truly necessary.
Even the 2000 Border patrolmen per year increases in the Intel
Reform bill signed into law last December will not be enough to
properly manage our out-of-control borders, both south and north.
Neither Border Patrol nor Homeland Security has ever quantified
this illegal invasion, nor estimated the law enforcement that is truly
necessary. To use military talk, overwhelming force is now necessary.
There is no silver bullet--only hard police work will recover this
deficit.
Matters are made worse by Mexican government encouragement of
illegal immigration, especially the recent ``How to Trespass Safely to
the U.S.'' comic book. President Bush or Secretary Rice must speak very
frankly to Mexican President Vicente Fox about respecting our
sovereignty and addressing Mexico's problems rather than exporting them
here.
Reinforcement of Immigration and Customs officers and major
increases in detention facilities are imperative. An element of
deterrence has too long been avoided, but is now vital. ICE
reinforcement should include personnel and vehicles to enable pick up
and transport of illegals arrested by state and local authorities. No
one should ever again hear of calls to ICE where state and local law
enforcement officials are told to release illegal aliens because no one
can come to pick them up.
Federal Courts also desperately need reinforcement to prosecute the
drug and people smugglers. For example, the U.S. Attorney in Tucson
cannot keep up. Magistrates specializing in immigration and smuggling
should be added on a geographic basis.
Practically speaking, recruiting, training, and deploying these new
Border Patrolmen will take years. The need is now! Existing Federal Law
Enforcement Officers, such as National Park Service and Bureau of
Indian Affairs are doing magnificent work to hold the line the best
they can. Immediate augmentation of these agencies through Homeland
Security would provide corrective action much more quickly.
The CLEAR Act should also be enacted immediately in order to
achieve a great force multiplier from state and local law enforcement.
My son was murdered while defending our border because there was an
inadequate number of Border Patrolmen. I was outraged that there was no
real anger expressed by any Federal official that a Federal Law
Enforcement Officer, safely within our border, could be ambushed and
murdered in a Mexican crime spillover.
Two days before Christmas 2003, I attended the funeral in Yuma, AZ
of a young Border Patrolman who drowned in the Colorado River while
attempting to save illegals who should not have been there. Tragic, so
very tragic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I will make this personal to you. I challenge
each of you to view this proposal of more Border Patrolmen as if one of
your sons or daughters would be so deployed. Each of you would, I am
sure, want to deploy patrolmen sufficient to make duty as safe as
possible for your son or daughter.
I would not suffer any one of you to feel the void--the tremendous
loss--that I, my wife and daughter have felt, or that experienced by 9/
11 families. My wife, although unable to attend, very much wanted to be
here to tell you how a mother feels about the murder of her child.
In closing, I suggest that you each need to see this problem close
up to really understand it. I volunteer to help escort you to view our
Broken Borders. Relentless acquiescence should no longer prevail. Let
us work together on this problem before more lives are lost.
Thank you for allowing me to speak to you.
Mr. Hostettler. At this time, the Subcommittee will turn to
questions.
Mr. Gadiel, please tell us how most of the 9/11 families
feel about the 9/11 act authorizations for more Border Patrol,
and secondly, as a matter of priority, do you think border
security takes precedence over other parts of the budget?
Mr. Gadiel. It doesn't seem possible to me that anything
could be more important than defending the United States from
foreign invasion. I mean, it's a basic first obligation of the
Constitution. I can't imagine that there are no items in the
Federal budget that couldn't be sacrificed for this purpose.
And as far as the families, I obviously can't speak for all
of them, I've never met all of them, but as I said in my
statement, without exception, every one I have ever spoken to
says they feel let down by their Government and they recognize
one of the failures, that of keeping these people out. I mean,
the fact that these 19 mass murderers got into this country,
often coming into and leaving the country on numerous
occasions, many entrances and exits, is pretty clear proof that
our borders are not secure.
Mr. Hostettler. When you were advocating last year for the
9/11 bill, did anyone ever dispute the notion of significantly
increasing our Border Patrol?
Mr. Gadiel. I never heard anybody dispute that particular
point. No, I can't say that I have.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Eggle, as an experienced war veteran, can you tell us
how you assess, in your experience at the border, can you
assess the security situation at the Southwest border today?
Mr. Eggle. It's terrible. As I indicated earlier, the
border is tragically broken. When I first began working there,
the 32 miles of border that I worked on consisted of a four-
wire barbed wire fence. In Michigan, I and my family have a
centennial farm where we have a small cow-calf operation and my
absolutely worst fence to hold my cattle in was better than our
national border.
To me, I only submit the word that it was obscene. It had
terrible holes on it. The smugglers would just drive through
it. They wouldn't even stop to take time to clip the wires.
There was really no barrier. They just drove over it. Most of
my time there was fixing these holes.
Security-wise, there were not sufficient Park Rangers to
respond. There were, of course, no Border Patrolmen to respond.
Mr. Hostettler. Is it possible your son, Mr. Eggle, would
not have been confronted by the drug gang had the border been
enforced with proper resources?
Mr. Gadiel. Absolutely, yes. My son's killers were fleeing
and having a running gun battle with the Mexican authorities on
a road right adjacent to our border, and as they neared the
edge of the Mexican village, they just did a 90-degree turn,
drove through a gaping hole into our desert. Had there been
proper border and Border Patrolmen sufficient to have a
controlled, tactical response, it would not have been necessary
for my son, joining up with one single, solo Border Patrolman,
to respond. That was the place for a tactical special response
team of many members to engage. There simply at that time were
not the people to respond properly.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bonner, you and other witnesses touched on this
briefly, but could you elaborate on the overall morale of the
Border Patrol?
Mr. Bonner. Sure. I've been an agent, as I mentioned
earlier, for 27 years. I've never seen it lower. Agents are
demoralized. The Congressman talked about how OTMs will show up
at our stations in South Texas. They will take taxicabs there
and they will demand to be processed quicker than our agents
can keep up with that, saying, ``We know what your internal
guidelines are. You have to get us out of here in a certain
amount of time.''
Our agents signed up to be law enforcement officers, not
Wal-Mart greeters, not social workers. We want to go out,
enforce the laws, protect America, and our inability to do that
because of policies that don't allow us to do that and lack of
funding is a source of extreme frustration and demoralization.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Eggle. May I add a comment to that, please?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Mr. Eggle. Our remarks here do not disparage at all the
individual patrolmen or law enforcement officers like our
National Park Service officers. These young men are of great
quality and they are committed. They are very committed, just
like our young soldiers in Iraq that you may have seen
interviewed. They want to do good work. We just need to give
them the tools to do it with.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think that we have
time to correct what needs to be corrected. There is a
supplemental coming up, and if we could work on that
supplemental to give the Border Patrol what they need, and let
me give you an example.
There are only three or four people in the McAllen Sector
who have a top secret clearance--four--and they are the only
ones that can tap to the CIA, the FBI. You can't do it. They
need reinforcement. They need the training. And until we do
that, they just have to be released. They have to turn them
loose. They cannot get into the system because they don't have
authorized people to do that.
But with this coming supplemental, I hope that we can join
together and correct what we need to correct. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for
5 minutes, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before getting into my questions, I would like to
especially thank Mr. Gadiel and Mr. Eggle for being here,
having lost two sons. I just can't imagine how difficult that
is. That you have turned that horrific loss into an effort to
do something for your country is especially admirable. I thank
you for your efforts and grieve with you for your loss.
Obviously, the situation we have here is completely
unacceptable. Congressman Ortiz, I am glad you brought those
tapes. I mean, it's just astonishing to look at that. And I'm
mindful, in California, they say more walk than talk. I think
in Texas, it's all hat, no cattle. There's been a lot of talk,
but really, when you take a look at where the money is, I
thought it was 200. But to hear that when you look at full-
time-equivalent it's less than that, Mr. Bonner, in the
President's budget, it's absurd. I mean, it's absurd. So I
think we have a right to demand from the Administration a more
aggressive approach, some cattle, not just a hat, and I think
that this hearing may be part of that effort.
I want to talk about, just briefly, we focused on the
Southern border, and that's appropriate, obviously. There are
huge issues there. But I'm also extremely concerned about the
Northern border, which is actually longer and less protected.
I'm wondering, Mr. Bonner, obviously, you cannot replace
Border Patrol agents with technology, and I hear what you are
saying on the unmanned vehicles, but having seen some of the
technology, if you have sufficient forces on the border, which
clearly we do not now, the cameras and the like can be helpful,
can they not, to an adequate force?
Mr. Bonner. Oh, absolutely. The cameras and the sensors are
eyes and ears, but without hands----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Bonner.--you won't catch a single violator.
Ms. Lofgren. So I'm wondering if you know whether we have
sufficient--obviously, we don't have sufficient agents at
either border, but to have 250 agents for 4,000 miles at the
Northern border is, I mean, obviously deficient. In addition to
that deficiency, do we have sufficient camera and technology
deployed at the Northern border, do you know?
Mr. Bonner. No, we don't. It's my understanding that the
Administration will be rolling out the new national Border
Patrol strategy very shortly. I have not seen it, but I fear
that they're going to be trying to sell the public a bill of
goods that technology, the existing technology, is somehow a
substitute for additional personnel, and it certainly is not.
We need both, and one should not be at the expense of the
other.
Ms. Lofgren. I serve also on the Homeland Security
Committee and serve on the Border Subcommittee and we have seen
no indication that there is any sensible plan that is coming
forward from the Department, in all honesty. I hope that that
changes, but we haven't seen anything yet that makes sense.
Just a final question on----
Mr. Eggle. Ma'am, may I----
Ms. Lofgren. I'm almost out of time, if I could, because I
want to ask about the lists and the lack of any bio-indicator
on those little sheets that you held up, Congressman Ortiz. We
do have at the border--maybe we don't have enough of them, but
the ability to at least do fingerprints, and we were supposed
to have the iris scans, as well. Do you know why those bio-
indicators are not connected with the individuals who are being
released? Obviously, we need additional space to hold people
that should be held, but at least we should not ever have a
confusion by name and person with the bio-indicator. Has there
not been direction to the agents, or has there not been enough
technology to do that, or time? Do you know what the answer to
that is?
Mr. Bonner. The answer is I am not sure why they are not
doing that. Obviously, it would be more costly to have some
type of connection between the documents. We are fingerprinting
everyone that we come in contact with----
Ms. Lofgren. With a digital fingerprint machine?
Mr. Bonner. With a digital fingerprint machine, and it
connects to the FBI's. The problem with that is that it will
only tell us if someone has a criminal record, and, in fact,
that system worked----
Ms. Lofgren. Well, the problem is that our system actually
doesn't--isn't compatible with the FBI's system.
Mr. Bonner. Well, actually, we're making headway in that
and the system actually worked when we nabbed one of the
ringleaders of the Mara Salvatrucha gang from Honduras who was
picked up by the police in Falfurrias, Texas, I believe. He was
held and it turns out that he was the mastermind of the----
Ms. Lofgren. We had a hearing on this very subject in the
Homeland Security Committee yesterday, actually, and there's
really two reasons for bio-indicators. One is a positive I.D.,
and then two is to search the records to see if you've got a
bad guy, and they're both--I mean, they can stand on their
own--separately as equally valuable.
I see my time is up, but if you know or if we could find
out, Mr. Chairman, why this technology is not being utilized,
it's just a mystery to me and I'm sure--I don't blame the
agents, but it's obviously a systematic problem that needs to
be corrected, and I yield back.
Mr. Bonner. I would just like to add that the fingerprint
system does not tell us if a person is a terrorist because
terrorists typically do not have criminal records. What we have
to do in that instance is dial an 800 number with the name that
they give us, which is going to be a phony name if they're a
terrorist----
Ms. Lofgren. No, I----
Mr. Bonner.--to see if it matches a watch list, and that
system really needs improvement.
Ms. Lofgren. No, I understand that, but it would prevent
the guy coming back a second or third time with a different
name and being----
Mr. Bonner. Yes, it would.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
The bells have rung for votes. The votes will last,
according to our intelligence, about 45 minutes. We don't want
to suspend this hearing for that long. I will recognize the
gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes for questions, and then we
will suspend shortly and will come back and continue the
hearing even during the votes.
The gentleman from Iowa will be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. I thank the Chairman.
My first observation is, I don't know when I've seen more
cumulative conviction on the part of a panelist, four
panelists, than I've seen here today, and I appreciate all your
testimony.
As I sit here and listen to it all across the board, I'm
going to speak to some numbers here, and I think in the end,
I'm probably going to direct my first question to Congressman
Ortiz.
I recall the Ranking Member's opening remarks with regard
to 40 percent not responding to appear that were OTMs. And then
I recall testimony here by one of our panelists, and I believe
it was Mr. Ortiz's, that 70 percent of the total immigrant
population, illegal immigrant population, is not showing up.
And I recall testimony in this same room from the Attorney
General Ashcroft that of those adjudicated for deportation, 84
percent don't show up. I recall a broader number--I think your
film, Mr. Ortiz, said was 70 percent, and I think that you said
they are erratic numbers and they go as high as 90 percent that
don't show up. And we're talking about numbers of maybe 15,000
in the McAllen Sector of OTMs.
I'm looking at some overall numbers. I believe, Mr. Eggle,
you testified about 1.2 million overall apprehended, and out of
that--that's possibly ten to 15 percent. That's a hard number,
I know, to nail that one down, and I don't want to stick with
that one, but I do know that around 300,000 are ordered removed
every year.
So you add all these numbers up and I'm going to propose
this, that, first of all, I'm going to ask Mr. Ortiz to give a
definition of the distinction between Other-Than-Mexicans and
Mexicans with regard to national security within the context of
this concept, and that is that if you regard terrorists as
needles in this haystack of illegal immigrants, we have this
massive haystack here that is at least 1.1 or 1.2 million and
it may be--it's probably several times that, and it may be ten
times that. Wouldn't it be to our interest to reduce the
overall size of that haystack dramatically without regard to
whether it is OTMs or the general population of illegal
immigrants?
Mr. Ortiz. Well, we have to obey the law, and if it
requires that everybody be stopped, we have to do that, but let
me give you an example. The figures that I have is 90 percent
or more did not show up for deportation. This is a list one,
two, three, and a half pages, 135 countries that these illegals
represent--135 countries. Now, I think that we do have a
responsibility. We would probably be unable to stop every
immigrant, but at least those that we stop, let's be sure that
we know who they are.
Mr. King. I thank you, Mr. Ortiz, and watching the clock
tick, I direct my next question to Mr. Bonner quickly, and that
is if we can reduce the size of this haystack, could you
identify the needles a lot easier?
Mr. Bonner. Absolutely.
Mr. King. And that's the point that I'd like to make in
this. There are so many inequities. To define the difference
between OTMs and the general population, I know there is a
legal distinction there, how the deportation takes place and
our agreements with those countries, but I'd also submit that
those that come in our Southern border come through Mexico on
the way to the United States and we have not leveraged our
political pressure on our neighbors to the South in order to
encourage them to slow that flow of illegals that are coming
through. The most countries that you mentioned, I believe, were
Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, et cetera.
So that's my point here, is that we need to leverage our
foreign relations with Mexico and with all the countries south.
We need to shrink the size of this haystack. We need to give
these resources, and I'll tell you, I'll stand with those
resources for the people that have put their lives on the line
for the security of the American people.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman. At this time, the
Subcommittee will recess.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I know we have several
votes. I have to go to a readiness hearing after.
Mr. Hostettler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. I would like to be excused.
Mr. Hostettler. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Ortiz.
You are excused.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. If the remaining members of the panel will
stay, I know that we have at least one other Member of the
Subcommittee that would like to ask questions. We will be away
for potentially ten to 20 minutes, and then we'll return for at
least one more Member's questions. I thank you for your
forbearance. We are recessed.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hostettler. The Subcommittee will come to order. I
thank, once again, the witnesses for your indulgence and I
apologize for the schedule of the House, but we have been
voting. We are back, and I now yield to the gentlelady from
Texas, the Ranking Member, Ms. Jackson Lee, for questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman for yielding and I
thank him for his indulgence. In fact, we just, I think,
completed voting on my amendment that I had to present on the
floor of the House. It seems, Mr. Chairman, that we are
discussing tragedy or terrorism in all areas of this Congress
here today in this body, and then on the floor of the House, we
were discussing the continuity resolution in case of the
elimination of large numbers of members of this body.
But as we concern ourselves about the preservation of this
body, meaning the Congress of the United States, I think the
American people have sent us here to be concerned about their
preservation. And so I hope, as I indicated at the beginning,
that this hearing generates the answers for the Administration
to reevaluate where they stand on this question. I, frankly,
believe they have the opportunity to reevaluate. They can do so
in the budget resolution. They can do so in the support of an
amendment by members of the Budget Committee and/or by an
altering of their position for the appropriations process.
Why don't I, Mr. Bonner, and let me thank you and your
organization for its support of the CASE Act of 2004 and 2005.
Portions of that bill were included in the intelligence reform
legislation and I think it put us one step closer to addressing
the question of human trafficking in its ugliest form. But I
would ask the question, sort of the real dark side, if you
will, of what would occur if we continue at these numbers of
Border Patrol agents, if we continue at this pace of not
filling or adding to slots of individuals who I've spoken to
who simply want to be considered professional law enforcement
officers, want to be able to have the kind of support system
that allows them to do their job. What direction is this
country going in if we fail to answer the call of 2,000 Border
Patrol agents at this time in fiscal year '06?
Mr. Bonner. I believe that we are just sticking our chin
out and asking the terrorists to take another poke at us. We
are asking for another 9/11 if we don't get serious about
securing our borders.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And what role do Border Patrol agents play
in that, because, as you well know, there is a great deal of
talk about the technology, of which I'm a strong advocate,
technology that is in the hands of Border Patrol agents, but
technology in general--screening, video cameras, other kinds of
sophisticated technology. But the real question I'm asking is,
what if we don't move on increased numbers of Border Patrol
agents?
Mr. Bonner. The technology that anyone speaks about can
identify human forms coming across the border, so it can give
you an idea of how many people are getting by you. But it is
wholly incapable of apprehending even a single violator. So,
for example, if you put out the most sophisticated technology,
we might know with a certainty the number of people who are
entering our country illegally and we might know how many are
getting by us, but that would not make us any safer at all. The
only way to ensure our safety is to apprehend everyone who
comes across the border, because while the overwhelming
majority of those people are otherwise law-abiding people who
are simply looking for economic opportunity, sprinkled in that
mix, we know are criminals, and we know terrorists are also in
that mix.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am glad you raised that point, because
the other aspect of the need is detention beds, and I'm very
glad that this Committee led the fight to separate children
that might have been previously detained in detention beds, put
them under Health and Human Services. Unaccompanied minors have
come in and we've been able to isolate that problem.
But tell me what it means. I've held up a series of
articles, a number of articles that accounted for stories about
al-Qaeda's connection coming across. What does it mean if we
don't have the sufficient number of detention beds? By the way,
I spent some time, as you well know, looking at facilities at
the border at certain areas in Texas, and for lack of a better
word, it's skimpy. I mean, there's simply--it's skimpy. What
does it mean when you don't have detention beds to handle what
has been classified now as OTMs, and then we know there are a
lot of gangs that are mixed in with that, and simply what you
do is give a piece of paper and say, show up in court. What is
the value of the detention bed that I think needs to be spoken
to at this hearing very specifically?
Mr. Bonner. The value of detention beds is that when people
from these countries other than Mexico come here, we can hang
on to them for the amount of time that it takes, and it's
generally from a few days to a few weeks, to generate the
travel document necessary to convince their host nation that
they are, indeed, a citizen of that country, and we have
treaties with all these countries whereby they will accept
their citizens back if they break our immigration laws.
Well, because these people do not have passports, we have
to go through this process. We wouldn't want a bunch of
Australians dumped on our shores by another country saying,
these are U.S. citizens. We'd say, well, wait a second. No,
they're not. So that's a common sense thing that says we have
to prove to the country that they are actually from there, but
that takes bed space and it takes money.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All contributing to the bottom-line safety
and security of America. And I'm very glad that you said in one
of your sentences the distinguishing factor between those
undocumented that do come across that we're working on that
happen to be coming for economic opportunity. The question is
that in the mix, is what you're saying, you are frustrated by
the fact that al-Qaeda may be coming across the border and you
are frustrated by being incapable, because of the resources and
personnel, of determining whether that is happening.
Mr. Bonner. The only way you can know with a certainty is
if you actually apprehend someone. I am not sure if you were
here when I made the pitch for H.R. 98, but I'll make it again.
I think that the way that we cut off most of the traffic coming
across our borders is to come up with a system of employer
sanctions that really works, and that would enable us to have a
guest worker program that would actually work in the interest
of this country.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, you have been very kind. I
would ask for an additional minute just to pose a question to,
is it Mr. Eggle? Eggle? Am I pronouncing it----
Mr. Eggle. Eggle.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Sir, if I might. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Bonner, very much.
You heard the testimony, I believe, and you understand that
we're here today hopefully to find some unity and consensus on
being able to avoid the violence and tragedy that fell upon
your son, and we thank you for his service and his willingness
to step out of his role and become, as I understand it, a
temporary Border Patrol agent. Would you just again very
briefly give me that impact? He was in the Forestry Service, as
I understand, and he got called to be a Border Patrol agent? Is
that my understanding?
Mr. Eggle. He was in the National Park Service as a law
enforcement ranger and they have 32 miles of Mexican border
within the park. And so the Park Service Rangers interacted
with the Border Patrol as a sister agency and developed
personal relationships that they would support each other.
These young men are of high caliber and quality that they want
to do as much as they can, so they very often assisted the
Border Patrol.
My son and other National Park Service Rangers, seeing the
invasion of the park all along the 30 miles of border where the
smugglers would drive through, or in many cases just walk
through and walk 30 or 40 miles, took it upon themselves to
acquire special operations skills and practiced themselves to
develop the ability to track these people out of the desert.
They interacted a lot with the Indian Shadow Wolves Native
American tracker unit at Tohono O'Odham Indian Reservation next
door and were under their tutelage a lot to acquire native
tracking skills, so that my son and his coworkers and now the
law enforcement rangers at Organ Pipe, as we speak, do a great
deal of man tracking in the desert to apprehend the bands of
illegals and also a great number of bands of people carrying
backpacks of drugs.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, and again, my sympathy.
Mr. Bonner, on that case, those facts, again, do you think
we need the 10,000 Border Patrol agents, or more than that,
that was in the intelligence bill, and as you recall, you
testified on the CASE Smuggling Act. We talked about rewards
for those who would give evidence about smugglers. Do you still
adhere that that is an effective tool and do we need the 10,000
Border Patrol agents that the intelligence bill required or
indicated?
Mr. Bonner. The short answer is yes to both questions. I
think that, at a minimum, we need 10,000 additional Border
Patrol agents. For the first few years, that's probably all
that we can reasonably absorb, but I believe that we should be
adding as many as possible that the organization can absorb.
And as to your final point, that has worked well. Giving
rewards has worked well in many other areas of law enforcement
and there's no reason to believe that it would not also work
well in the terrible tragedy of human trafficking.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very
much for your indulgence. Again, let me just conclude by
offering that I hope that this year, we'll look at
comprehensive immigration reform. Maybe you gentlemen, or one
of you, may be before us on that issue. But as we do that,
since we can't do it tomorrow, since we're moving in that
direction, I know one thing that we can engage in right now is
to restore the full request for Border Patrol agents in the
budget resolution and ultimately in the appropriations to 2,000
for FY 2006 and then begin to look at the outlying years for
the 10,000.
I think what we owe to Mr. Eggle and his family is, in
tribute to his son, is to respond to that added need. We can
put fences, and I guess it's my opinion we can put--you know,
there's a cry for fences, but I think we've got some fences and
some places no fences. The human factor of being able to be
engaged in this law enforcement and to detain potentially
dangerous individuals, I think is an important, important
responsibility that is going undone, and Mr. Chairman, I hope
that we can work together on encouraging the further providing
of those Border Patrol agents. I yield back my time.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady and I look forward
to working with the gentlelady and the rest of the minority on
supplying these resources to the men and women of the Border
Patrol.
I would like to close this hearing, but before I do, I was
just intrigued, Mr. Bonner, by a statement that you made with
regard to employer sanctions, the need to have teeth in the
area of employer sanctions. That is not necessarily always the
jurisdiction of the Border Patrol, but you are suggesting--I
don't want to put words in your mouth. Why do you think we need
to aggressively approach the issue of employer sanctions?
Mr. Bonner. Conservatively speaking, 98 percent of the
people who cross our borders are looking for economic
opportunity. Unless we deal with that, we are going to continue
to be flooded with millions of people crossing our borders
illegally every year, and I don't care how many Border Patrol
agents you put out there on the line, we will be overwhelmed by
that volume of traffic and we will be unable to have a good
shot at picking off the terrorists and the criminals.
Mr. Hostettler. That being said, do you support the
inclusion of an additional 800 ICE agents per year for the next
5 years?
Mr. Bonner. Absolutely.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. In conclusion, Mr. Eggle, you
and I spoke on the way into the second part of this hearing
about a phenomena that you observed when you were on the
Southern border recently with the Native American tribes there.
Could you share that with us?
Mr. Eggle. Yes, sir. Thank you. Just a month ago, I was at
Organ Pipe Cactus to escort our Michigan Senator Stabenow for a
visit, and while there, I visited the Tohono O'Odham Indian
Reservation right adjacent to Organ Pipe. I mentioned the
Shadow Wolves just a little earlier, and they had been really
gracious with Kris. They taught and they continue to teach our
rangers tracking skills.
But during my visit there, two of them, they introduced me
to a delegation of Blackfeet Indians from the Blackfeet
Reservation on the Montana-Canada border who were there to
interact with the Shadow Wolves and get training on how to
interdict the smuggling that was going through their Blackfeet
Reservation, so that I just wanted to dramatize that our
concerns are not just at the Southwest border, but on the North
border, too.
I also mentioned Border Patrol agents that I personally
know in Sioux St. Marie, Michigan, who talk of patrolling the
St. Mary's River and the Great Lakes in deep draft boats that
can't go into the shallows to chase the significant boat
traffic that is coming across the Great Lakes on our Michigan
border with Canada because they have not been updated with new
equipment to do their jobs. They are frustrated. Thank you,
sir.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Eggle, and I would like to
thank all the witnesses for your appearance here today and
your----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes?
Ms. Jackson Lee. May I just inquire. I'd like to submit for
the record news articles compiled by Congressman Ortiz. I'm not
sure whether it's been submitted, but I'd ask unanimous consent
to submit these articles dated March 1, 2004, March 3, 2005,
which is a compilation of all of the intrusions into our
border. I think the focus is on the Southern border, but
obviously the northern border too. And let me also add my
appreciation to Congressman Ortiz for his work that he's done
in this area.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection, it can be added to the
record.
[The information of Mr. Ortiz follows in the Appendix]
Mr. Hostettler. All members will have seven legislative
days to add remarks to the record.
The business before the Subcommittee being completed, we
are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is responsible for
overall border enforcement. Within the bureau, a distinction is made
between border enforcement at and between points of entry. This hearing
is about funding for additional border patrol agents for the division
within the bureau that is responsible for border enforcement between
points of entry, the United States Border Patrol (USBP). The primary
mission of the USBP is to detect and prevent the entry of terrorists,
weapons of mass destruction, and unauthorized aliens into the country,
and to interdict drug smugglers and other criminals between official
points of entry.
The USBP patrols 8,000 miles of international borders with Mexico
and Canada and the coastal waters around Florida and Puerto Rico. The
Northern Border with Canada touches 12 states and is more than 4,000
miles long. It has vast mountain ranges such as the Rockies, the Great
Lakes, many different river systems, and, in the winter, heavy snow and
bitter cold temperatures. The Southwestern border with Mexico touches
only four states and is less than half as long as the Northern Border.
The Southwestern border has large tracts of desert land where
temperatures average well over 100 degrees for much of the year,
mountain ranges, and the Rio Grande along the Texas border.
The Southwestern border accounts for more than 97% of the illegal
alien apprehensions. Consequently, the USBP's main emphasis along the
Southwestern border is to contain unauthorized immigration. Along the
Northern border, the main concerns appear to be vulnerability to
terrorist infiltration and the proliferation of cross-border smuggling.
The USBP also utilizes advanced technology to augment its agents'
ability to patrol the borders. These technologies include light towers,
mobile night vision scopes, remote video surveillance (RVS) systems,
directional listening devices, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and
various database systems. These so-called ``force multipliers'' allow
the USBP to deploy fewer agents while still maintaining its ability to
detect and counter intrusions.
The National Intelligence Reform Act contains a provision requiring
the USBP to add 2,000 agents to its workforce each year from FY2006-
2010. Notwithstanding that provision, the administration's budget for
FY2006 only requests funding for 210 additional agent positions. At the
hearing today, we will hear testimony on the need for the additional
agents authorized by the National Intelligence Reform Act.
One of the reasons for additional Border Patrol Agents is to reduce
the number of deaths that occur as a result of reckless commercial
alien smuggling operations. Last year, 325 people died trying to cross
the border. The previous year, 340 died. The year before that, 320
died.
The most effective way to stop large scale illegal immigration
would be to establish a sensible immigration program. Several bills
have been introduced recently that would make the necessary changes in
our immigration laws, such as my Comprehensive Immigration Fairness
Reform Act, H.R. 257, but we can do other things while we are working
on comprehensive immigration reform.
The increase in Border Patrol Agents that is called for by the
National Intelligence Reform Act would help. Also, I have introduced a
bill that would assist the USBP in obtaining information about
commercial alien smuggling operations, the Commercial Alien Smuggling
Elimination Act of 2005 (the CASE Act), H.R. 255.
The CASE Act would establish a program to facilitate the
investigation and prosecution, or disruption, of reckless commercial
smuggling operations. The first point in this program would be to
provide incentives to encourage informants to step forward and assist
the federal authorities who investigate alien smuggling operations. The
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) presently provides a nonimmigrant
visa classification for aliens who assist the United States government
with the investigation and prosecution of a criminal organization or a
terrorist organization. The CASE Act would establish a new, third
category for aliens who assist with the investigation, disruption, or
prosecution of commercial alien smuggling operations.
The CASE Act also would establish a rewards program to assist in
the elimination or disruption of commercial alien smuggling operations
in which aliens are transported in groups of 10 or more, and where
either the aliens are transported in a manner that endangers their
lives or the smuggled aliens present a life- threatening health risk to
people in the United States.
In the end, security for our international borders will require all
of these things. We will need comprehensive immigration reform,
additional Border Patrol Agents, and new programs to assist the USBP in
carrying out its responsibilities.
__________
Prepared Statement of Representative Zoe Lofgren
Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson-Lee, thank you for
holding this hearing to discuss the continuing lack of resources for
the Border Patrol. I would also like to thank our witnesses for being
here today to help us understand this problem that has long plagued the
Border Patrol.
The issues addressed in today's written testimony are not
unfamiliar. Since I joined the Immigration Subcommittee in 1995, I have
heard these issues and Congress has responded by more than doubling the
Border Patrol budget in the last decade. Along with that came the more
than doubling of our Border Patrol force. Today, we are hearing that we
need to again double the number of Border Patrol agents by 2010.
The Border Patrol is overwhelmed and does not have enough resources
to address its responsibilities today. Patrolling 6,000 miles of
sometimes rugged terrain along our land borders with Canada and Mexico
and thousands of miles along the coastline is no easy task. It seems
that no matter how much we continue growing the Border Patrol, there is
always a need for more. I worry that if we again double our Border
Patrol force to more than 20,000 by 2010, we may still be hearing about
the need for more.
It is time to take a step back and look at the big picture so that
by 2010, we realize we have enough and do not need additional Border
Patrol agents. After all, there are many other problems facing the
Border Patrol that cannot be solved by additional Border Patrol agents,
including the one presented here today by my friend and colleague Rep.
Ortiz.
We must address the root causes of the need for additional
resources at the Border Patrol and, frankly, at all the other agencies
charged with immigration functions. We cannot keep using the band-aid
approach while avoiding the realistic need for broad reform. We need a
way to separate the mother and spouse of US citizens or the hard-
working person who has lived and paid taxes in the US for years from
the terrorist or drug and human smuggler intending to do this country
harm. This will give our agencies in charge of immigration the time and
space they need to address what this country should be worried about.
As we have seen over the last decade, no reasonable amount of Border
Patrol agents could ever handle this overwhelming mix and number of
people and Congress has not been able to keep up with appropriations
requests for more Border Patrol agents.
Today, we need to support the Border Patrol and fund the agents
authorized in the intelligence reform bill. Also today, we need to work
on broad immigration reform so that when we reach 2010, we can finally
say the Border Patrol is fully funded with enough resources.
----------
Prepared Statement of Congressman Steve King
Thank you, Chairman Hostettler, for holding this hearing today. I
agree that it is never enough just to pass legislation-we must make
certain that our intent is carried out. Although-due to other concerns-
I voted against S. 2845 last year, I strongly support increasing and
funding our presence both on the border and in the interior.
I understand our current budget restraints-and I want as much as
anyone to stop cashing checks on our children's accounts-but our
national security is not the place to start cutting back. I don't think
that any of us would dispute that our national security begins at our
borders. The 9/11 Commission, on whom so many of us relied for
information during consideration of S. 2845, found that ``it is
elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country. We
must be able to monitor and respond to entrances between our ports of
entry. The challenge for national security in an age of terrorism is to
prevent the people who may pose overwhelming risks from entering the
U.S. undetected.'' To expect our Border Patrol to be able to control
these risks without providing them the means to do so is simply
irrational.
I appreciate our witnesses being here today to provide us with more
information about our needs on the border. I especially want to thank
Mr. Gadiel and Mr. Eggley for being willing to turn their losses into
experiences our nation should learn from. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
----------
Prepared Statement Representative Linda T. Sanchez
<bullet> I want to thank Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member
Jackson Lee for conducting this extremely important oversight
hearing to evaluate the need for resources for border
enforcement activities.
<bullet> The U.S. has always been a beacon of hope and we must
continue to guard the light of liberty for those who are
oppressed or displaced, or are coming here to seek new
opportunities for their families.
<bullet> Clearly, I know as, does the rest of America,
something needs to be done about our broken immigration system.
<bullet> One thing is certain and nobody will disagree with
me, that we must crack down on illegal immigration and we must
improve border security.
<bullet> I heard a story two weeks ago that highlights my
point. Recently, a crane operator at the Port of Los Angeles
discovered 32 Chinese stowaways in a container just unloaded
from a Panamanian freighter.
<bullet> We were lucky that these people were discovered, and
that they meant our country no harm. What if they had been
terrorists? Are we going to depend on crane operators to
protect us from terrorists entering this country? Situations
like this are preventable if we commit more resources to this
problem.
<bullet> The Bush Administration fails to recognize what
resources are needed to secure our borders and ports.
<bullet> The people at our ports and borders are our first-and
best-line of defense.
<bullet> That is why the Intelligence Reform bill included
authorization for 10,000 new border guards, 40,000 new
detention beds to hold people awaiting deportation, and 4,000
new immigration inspectors.
<bullet> Yet the President's 2006 Budget did not include
funding for any of these security improvements - he merely
funds 210 new border patrol agents.
<bullet> If we are going to get serious about border security,
we need more resources, including more people on the border and
more agents at our ports.
<bullet> I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who will
shed some light on how to effectively secure our borders and
ports.
<bullet> In addition, I'm hoping they can discuss how our
enforcement goals are being pursued under the new homeland
security bureaucracy and funding constraints.
<bullet> I thank both the Ranking Member and Chairman for
convening this hearing.
<bullet> I yield back.
Thank you.
----------
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<all>